Talk:Real News Update

Trump news channel

I wondered when this would appear. It's made it onto BBC News as well as Politico, although the scenario seems to be mostly speculation at present. This is Paul (talk) 16:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Page move

2017NewYearNewMe, what is the basis for moving this article from Trump TV to Real News Update? Where are these videos called "Real News Update?" And please review our article naming policy, which says that article titles should follow common usage in independent reliable sources. In this case I believe that means we should title the article Trump TV. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

"Trump TV" has been used as more of a speculative name on what Trump may do if he were to create his own new program. "Real News Update" is the name used on the shows title card as shown in the article. 2017NewYearNewMe (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

What do the independent reliable sources use? Or are you suggesting that we shouldn't base our decision on them? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Emir of Wikipedia, I'm not sure why you're insisting that we don't saying Real News Update is commonly called Trump TV. It's actually most commonly called that by the reliable sources (not "Real News Update"). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

One source calling it that on one occasion doesn't mean it it the common name. If consensus does determine it is the common name then it should be moved back to Trump TV. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Why do you say one source? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Because only one source that I have seen has called it that. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Then you haven't looked. Try searching Google News for "trump tv" "lara" and "trump tv" "mcenany". --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Removed portion

"Mainstream media outlets state that most of what Trump TV reports is untrue and has been labeled as propaganda."

"BuzzFeed noted that the stories that Lara Trump claimed were unreported, such as the plans of Foxconn to build a factory in Wisconsin and the donation of President's Trump's salary to the Department for Education, had in fact previously been reported by broadcasters and publications sometimes described as "mainstream media". Snopes and CNN contacted the White House for a comment on the videos yet received no reply."

*Reasoning*

The independent link is just a video of laura and the CNN is disingenuous, but it doesn't call her show propaganda. The Buzzfeed article is just as disingenuous as the CNN article, but it does not call the show propaganda either.

Furthermore, Laura never claims that MSM ignored or failed to report on anything. She just says "in case you missed it" as a result of too much fake news or fake news overload. Her point of view is that the MSM is letting overwhelmingly negative, non-newsworthy stories take precedent over more newsworthy ones.

Coverage of Trump has been disproportionately negative, compared to other presidents, that has been demonstrated in this harvard study https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/ Summarized very well in this tribune article http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-trump-media-coverage-harvard-kass-0521-20170519-column.html

Blob Blobbed (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

References

This content was very poorly written and you were right to object to it in my view. That said, the cited sources are reliable and if content is written that reflects them, then it should remain. The Independent link was more than a video; it also included a Washington Post article. The Buzzfeed and CNN sources are reliable. Regarding your comment that coverage of Trump has been disproportionately negative, it isn't our job to compensate for that. The principle behind our core policies is that we reflect what the reliable sources say, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

watch the video provided in those stories. She never says 5he story was ignored. It is patently false. Cnn and buzzfeed cant refute a.claim.she never made

Blob Blobbed (talk) 03:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC) Blob Blobbed (talk) 03:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I only added those citations as an example of what she is talking about btw. either way, she never said anyone failed to report on anything in that video, it doesnt matter if you cite a CNN article that says she said that when she never said it. Blob Blobbed (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC) Blob Blobbed (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The CNN and Buzzfeed sources are explicit in the basis for their stories. Lara Trump said, "I bet you haven't heard about all the accomplishments the president had this week..." and then followed with, "Watch here for REAL news!" It is quite reasonable to interpret those words, as CNN and Buzzfeed did, as saying that the stories she followed with were unreported or underreported by the news media. (Feel free to keep discussing, but please don't remove the content again without consensus.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@DrFleischman:You're misquoting. "Watch here for real news!" is the header the video was tagged with when it was posted.

Laura's full remark is ( https://youtu. be/dXZfY0JzGkw):

"Hey everybody, lara Trump here, I bet you haven't heard about all the accomplishments the president has had this week because there's so much fake news out there! We wanted to give you a glimpse into his week"

Her tone when saying "so much fake news out there," is patronising and facetious, which is the tone "fake news" has been co-opted under. it is a facetious slight, not a literal accusation.

Trump has made countless remarks (and tweets) referencing fake news and the two narratives he avoids are the two most subject to plausible deniability. He never (or at least very rarely has) said they lied, and he never says they failed to report on something. CNN and most other mainstream outlets for that matter, publish articles deliberately miscategorized and/or buried in the abyss of the front page, or even off the front page, they run 3 minute segments on whatever may be adverse to ther agenda in arbitrary time slots.

The most common theme in Trump's tweets using the term "fake news" is the demonstrably disproportionate amount of negative coverage of him and his administration.

With all of its phony unnamed sources & highly slanted & even fraudulent reporting, #Fake News is DISTORTING DEMOCRACY in our country!

Wow, more than 90% of Fake News Media coverage of me is negative, with numerous forced retractions of untrue stories. Hence my use of Social Media, the only way to get the truth out. Much of Mainstream ...

I win an election easily, a great "movement" is verified, and crooked opponents try to belittle our victory with FAKE NEWS. A sorry state! 4:44 AM - 11 Jan 2017. 28,076 Retweets;

The Fake News is becoming more and more dishonest! Even a dinner arranged for top 20 leaders in Germany is made to look sinister! 5:59 PM - 18 Jul 2017. 26,966 Retweets; 106,503

FAKE NEWS media knowingly doesn't tell the truth. A great danger to our country. The failing @nytimes has become a joke. Likewise @CNN. Sad! 7:09 PM - 24 Feb 2017. 25,774 Retweets; 105,939 Likes;

The Fake News Is going all out in order to demean and denigrate! Such hatred! 5:45 AM - 12 Oct 2017. 16,833 Retweets; 79,960

· The Fake News Awards, those going to the most corrupt & biased of the Mainstream Media, will be presented to the losers on Wednesday , January 17th, rather than this coming Monday.

While on FAKE NEWS @CNN, Bernie Sanders was cut off for using the term fake news to describe the network. They said technical difficulties! 4:14 AM - 12 Feb 2017.

(And yes that did happen to Bernie https://youtu. be/tcTlM-EHXt4)

The term "Fake news" employs plausible deniability as a catch-all to address plausible deniability. In Trump's case, like I said before, it is primarily utilized to address the histotically disproportionate amount of negative coverage him and his administration have been receiving.This is why every news station was tripping over itself at the beginning of 2017 to re-establish the colloquial meaning of the term as it became more popular.

this politifact article (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/ oct/18/deciding-whats-fake-medias-definition-fake-news-vs/) assumes to reveal that Donald Trump is out of touch with reality by breaking down which situations Trump is most likely to employ the term with out even considering the possibility that the word "fake" in "fake news" does not literally mean "fake," When Donald Trump says it.

Going to such great pangs as the aforementioned politifact piece to say "No, donald.its real," is just ridicous at this point. Clearly demonstrated by by the essencs of shit that emodies ths politifact piece. A glistening pillar of fake news, indeed.

The situation we are facing with this CNN and Buzzfeed article ventures outside the scope of Trumpian fake news, and into the realm of objective bullshit. What they are asserting is patently false, and what you are rebutting is that since they are reliable sources, it is not false. Suggesting a reliable source is impervious to correction, and ignoring the vindictive spirit with which these two pieces were obviously written to begin with.

In no way did lara imply that anyone failed to report on anything with her remark. It was a patronizing slight.

And the gatekeeper who never saw the original video to begin with is giving me a hard time now for removing false claims, because apparently if CNN and Buzzfeed said so, lara must have technically implied what she obviously never did implied.Blob Blobbed (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you've completely lost me. I don't understand why we're talking about Trump's views about the fake news media. Can you please summarize your argument in, say, no more than 5 sentences? Meanwhile, please stop edit warring. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Lara is doing the show as a surrogate of Trump, she is obviously employing the term as an extension of him. Could you explain how anything lara trump says in that video could be reasonably interpreted to imply "CNN did not report on this story," Blob Blobbed (talk) 12:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I don’t understand your question. Who interpreted Lara Trump as saying that CNN did not report on the story? CNN didn’t say that, and neither did I. —Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I puzzled over your comments here some more and I think I understand what you're getting at. Your interpretation is plausible. The problem, however, is that you're interpreting Lara Trump's words just as CNN and Buzzfeed did. They came to a different understanding than you. Fine. But the thing is--here at Wikipedia, CNN and Buzzfeed are reliable sources, whereas your own independent analysis is not. It's original research, which i disallowed. If you have a problem with how CNN and Buzzfeed interpreted Lara Trump then you should write to their editors or write a blog or something. But here, verifiability is king. It's not insane; it's just how our community standards work. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I've made my case perfectly clear, Fleischman. All of the rules you're citing pertain to content left on Wikipedia and make no case for the outright removal of content. They describe how to appropriately cite material on a Wikipedia page.

WP:Editing policy states "on Wikipedia a lack of information is better than misleading or false information."

Also this "explanatory supplement" of original research,entitled WP:NOTOR:These are not original research

Section 9 Removing incorrect claims and pointing out errors states:

In many cases, the best solution is to remove minor incorrect claims. This streamlines articles by letting them present only true facts. Making this determination is a core editing activity, and is not original research if the contradiction is obvious, unlikely to be challenged, or is supported by reliable sources that either directly address the inaccuracy or firmly establish that academic consensus contradicts the claim. Incorrect claims can be simply removed by editors who notice they are incorrect, or after consensus is reached on the talk page that the claim is incorrect. It is always helpful to explain why a claim is believed to be incorrect, since at least two people (the cited author and the editor who added the claim) believed it to be correct, and to cite sources in the edit summary or talk page when removing.

I'm removing the claimBlob Blobbed (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

What you're doing is edit warring. I tagged the disputed content. Please leave it be until this dispute is resolved. You are mistaken about how our community standards work. WP:OR is absolutely about outright removal of content. I have lost patience in this discussion so I'm going to start a Request for Comment. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Created Criticisms section

Added criticms to it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blob Blobbed (talk • contribs) 19:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Blob Blobbed - 'Criticism' or 'Objections' as section is generally iffy, see WP:Criticism part WP:CSECTION. As a section title this seems to either cast the section as one-sided and/or to invite negatives, neither of which seems desirable. I'm going to WP:BOLD-ly relable it "Media Response" which would focus to coverage from media instead of something for IceT or Schumer quotes. As an aside, I offer the thought that by this time some coverage about more than the week now 5 months ago might suit, and perhaps some right-side and international views. But there is just not much coverage over a Facebook page by the re-election campaign, other than the first week by US media. (Looks like none at BBC and London Times, for example.)

• The Telegraph Lara Trump becomes face of Donald Trump's 2020 re-election campaign The Telegraph
• Evening Standard
• Washington Times Former CNN commentator Kayleigh McEnany hosts 'real news' program on Trump Facebook page (week 2)
• CBS news Trump launches "real" Trump TV news with Kayleigh McEnany (week 2)

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Markbassett Thanks Mark. I think that works. I have been meaning to add a little more substance to this article. Thx for the links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blob Blobbed (talk • contribs) 07:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC: claims of news stories ignored by the media

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the following sentence be kept or removed?

Some stories that Lara Trump claimed were ignored by the media, such as the plans of Foxconn to build a factory in Wisconsin and the donation of President's Trump's salary to the Department for Education, had in fact previously been reported by news outlets.

The cited source is:

• Dylan Byers (August 2, 2017). "Trump launches 'real news' Facebook series to combat mainstream media". CNN. Retrieved August 2, 2017.

Please !vote with either Keep or Remove. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• Clarification: The dispute concerns whether this content should be included in the article in any form. The exact wording and sources are not the subject of this RfC. If you believe the sentence should be re-written, or sources should be added, you are free to make the changes yourself. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I have edited to quote what Lara Trump said, and what the media response was, including by Snopes.com.Parkwells (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

info about background of RfC provided by MarkBassett

Background: The dispute in Removed portion above is largely over whether this line is either correct or appropriate against the CNN article, primarily their quote of her and their commentary about it: "I bet you haven't heard about all the accomplishments the president had this week because there's so much fake news out there," says Lara Trump, who is married to Eric Trump. As BuzzFeed has noted, mainstream media outlets did cover the stories Lara Trump cites as being ignored, including Trump's donating his second-quarter salary to the Education Department and Foxconn's plans to build a plant in Wisconsin. Markbassett (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC) Struck out per User:Blob Blobbed remark in extended discussion below.Markbassett (talk) 09:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Keep Reliably sourced. Perhaps we don't need to include both the examples, but we have no reason to remove the whole sentence. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• Remove Statement is false therefore does not belong Blob Blobbed (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. Our standard is verifiability, not truth. We could go round and round about what Lara Trump really meant, but while that might be worthy of a personal blog post or a letter to CNN's editor, it doesn't matter here at Wikipedia. CNN published this reliable source in rebuttal. You can believe it was a straw man, you can know in your heart what Lara Trump really meant, but that doesn't affect the reliability of the source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. We use reliably sourced content to debunk misinformation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
• Remove per WP:DUE. All politicians (and their activist famiily members)—hell, most people for that matter—are prone to hyperbolic and imprecise speech, as well as spin; that is routine and expected. It is not a good use of this encyclopedia to pick apart discrepancies like that between "ignored" and "largely ignored", particularly on the basis of one CNN article. Per WP:ONUS, verifiability alone is not enough. Unless this specific issue gets a good deal more media attention, it fails DUE. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Remove malfunctional wording fails WP:PARAPHRASE "summarize source material in their own words", plus looks a bit WP:WEASEL vagueness with "some"/"claimed"/"such as"/"had in fact", and without starting "CNN said" it reads as WP-voice declaring fact instead of one site comments. I would say the Buzzfeed approach was taken in multiple sites so is WP:DUE some remark, but even with CNN the one that made the wording more/most extreme it was only phrased "mainstream media outlets did cover the stories Lara Trump cites as being ignored," -- and I see no reason the CNN version should be DUE over half the section. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

addendum: per request to add, I will clarify that as 'Remove and possibly replace with Buzzfeed or other. The story re Buzzfeed remarks would be better served with either the Buzzfeed article itself, or by a paraphrase representative the general coverage on it with more than one source cited -- and CNN seeming the most extreme left out as not representative. Markbassett (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - I have added the quote of exactly what Lara Trump said, and more on how media responded, including Snopes.com. I agree that the article should present what is "verifiable"; that is, what she said and how mainline media responded. I also think more should be added about responses as the program continued to be produced; otherwise it is a one-shot article suffering from "presentism". See if there is more to be said about the program now that months have passed, i.e., how the program's statements compare to facts of coverage by mainline media. But this should be overall, not some endless list of examples. There may be other analysis of how it compares to campaign sites in general, for instance. It was produced into January 2018, but I can't find any later episodes.Parkwells (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't care what you added. the statement is false. Cnn is wrong. Snopes is wrong I have cleaned up this article now and will not allow this false statement to remain.Blob Blobbed (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Blob Blobbed, see ownership. You can get blocked or banned for that attitude. You don't own this article or any content. We edit collaboratively here. Also, CNN and Snopes are RS, you are not. IOW, they are right and you are wrong. If you don't learn to give primacy to what RS say, your stay here will be painful and short. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't care. The claim is patently false.Blob Blobbed (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

If you don't care then in the nicest way possible please leave editing this article. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, that is what we follow not what you care about. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussion

Please note that the dispute here stems from my assertion that the following claims are false. This CNN article is discussing a video featuring Lara Trump. Laea never says or even implied fhat the media igbored anything in the video Blob Blobbed (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, please note that Dr.Fleischmann never informed me of his intent to withhold my concerns from the RfC entirely Blob Blobbed (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, at the top of this Talk Page, you can see that Dr.Fleischmann also objected when someone moved the article to this page (which is the official name of the show) from TrumpTV (which is the name Vox Magazine dubbed the show mockingly.). Dr.Fleischmann made the same appeal to reliable sources regarding an objective falsehood in that case as well

Furthermore, in a case unrelated to this one. In a section of the Affordable care Act page, Fleischmann, citing non-neutrality, removed a users addition of information ragarding an Executive Order signed by Trump in Oct 2017 that directly effected the affordable care act, including a quote from Trump. The user inquired, disputing the claim of non-neutrality, FLeischmann's eventually ended the conversation saying ":Here at Wikipedia, neutrality generally means following the reliable sources. And last I checked Donald Trump was not a reliable source. I hope that answers your question. If not, we should probablgt continue the conversation at Talk:PPACA"

this revert Special:Diff/820712395

Theres the corresponding edit and talk page.

Fleischmann harbors an anti-trump bias that has now led to the removal of factual information on at least one Wikipedia page and the inability to remove a blatant falsehood from this one, not to mention his attempt to have it intentionally mislabelled. Blob Blobbed (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC) Blob Blobbed (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I did not use the word "probablgt." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Blob Blobbed: please note that Dr.Fleischmann never informed me of his intent to withhold my concerns from the RfC entirely - I have no idea what that means. Nobody is required to express your concerns. The RfC opening must be neutral per WP:RFC, but why should DrFleischman express your views there if he didn't express his own there? Barring far better arguments than that, please confine your comments to discussion of the content question and refrain from talking about other editors. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss: The first voter rolled in before I even knew the RfC had been created, which made me think this was just a quick ballot to decide whether it stays or not and Fleischmann tried to sneak it past me somehow. Now, that I've looked over the RFC page, I can see that is not true.

This makes me look like a dick. Blob Blobbed (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Last point Lara has said pretty much the same thing since in different videos without CNN feeling the need to defend itself.

WP:Editing policy states "on Wikipedia a lack of information is better than misleading or false information." Can verifiable sources not be misleading at times?

Section 9 of "explanatory supplement" on original research, WP:NOTOR:These are not original research

Removing incorrect claims and pointing out errors states:

In many cases, the best solution is to remove minor incorrect claims. This streamlines articles by letting them present only true facts. Making this determination is a core editing activity, and is not original research if the contradiction is obvious, unlikely to be challenged, or is supported by reliable sources that either directly address the inaccuracy or firmly establish that academic consensus contradicts the claim. Incorrect claims can be simply removed by editors who notice they are incorrect, or after consensus is reached on the talk page that the claim is incorrect.

Anyone who watches the video will that the this contradiction is obvious.

[the first 15 seconds of this video]

Laura says:

"Hey everybody, lara Trump here, I bet you haven't heard about all the accomplishments the president has had this week because there's so much fake news out there! We wanted to give you a glimpse into his week"

It is from that statement the CNN author lays the claim that Lara meant to imply the entire mainstream news industry in the US ignored the topics she brings up in the video. This would also include Fox News. It is an outrageous accusation.

Everything in the article is wrong. The headline "Trump launches 'real news' Facebook series to combat mainstream media" is wrong. There's been 50 episodes now. Nothing combative about it. She just talks about Trump.

The article claims they're "seeking to discredit the mainstream media and advertising what purports to be a reliable alternative," which is also wrong, Politcal Analyst Jeff Greenfield likened Real News Update to the "long and if not entirely noble tradition" of political campaigning During the same interview, President of ProPublica, Richard Tofel also said it looks to him like "politics as usual.". 50 episodes later and the show has never once claimed to be you could use it as an alternative news source either. The truth is it was launched as part of Trump's 2020 Presidential campaign, which Lara is Senior Advisor of.

Those are the only points made in the article and they are all false. The entire article is wrong and should not get a pass under the guise of verifiability.Blob Blobbed (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

References

• User:DrFleischman, User:Blob Blobbed - RFC is improperly worded to capture the dispute stated in Removed portion, so to try and help things along, per WP:RFC I will "add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template". If either of you feel it is not close to conveying the dispute in question, please let me know at my TALK. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry Mark, I guess I could have been clearer. The dispute here isn't about precise wording but whether the content should remain removed outright. Blob Blobbed thinks those sources (CNN and BuzzFeed) are wrong and this content should be removed completely. If you think the content should remain but be reworded, please just go ahead and edit it. You might also want to adjust your !vote accordingly. (Isn't a !vote like "Keep but rewrite" more precise?) Also I don't understand the "Background" addition you made to the RfC. It might confuse newcomers. Are you willing to remove it while we discuss? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

User:DrFleischman Well, I will add an addendum to my survey response to clarify that, but "Keep or Remove" is the question the RFC is phrased as. Markbassett (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

User:DrFleischman Per WP:TALKO, please do not do that again -- move the WP:RFC fix I had tried of alternative wording below the RFC template. I have returned it to where it was, and left the post you put after it. If it's not right, Blobby will mention it and I will strike it out, but at the moment he put forward you had not captured the dispute and I agree. There's no point to a RFC if it is not addressing the dispute. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't count on Blobby doing anything, and you're disrupting my RfC. I believe you're acting in good faith, but you're mistaken about the nature of the dispute and the info you added to the RfC is confusing and disruptive. I started the RfC and have the right to phrase it how I wish within the RfC guidelines. I'm going to hat your unilateral change to my RfC. If you don't consent then I will seek immediate admin attention. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I already objected to one TALKO violation, and asked you to not do a repeat ... Please DO get admin to explain WP:RFC that guides others to edit this way, and TALKO that says to not move others talk. Markbassett (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

User:MarkBassett I appreciate you trying to clarify but the second point in the template - "As BuzzFeed has noted, mainstream media outlets did cover the stories Lara Trump cites as being ignored," completely misses the point of this dispute. As I have noted above Lara does not say or imply the mainstream media ignored anything.Blob Blobbed (talk) 07:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Blob Blobbed CNN falsely restated Buzzfeed before WP falsely paraphrased CNN, and then gave half the space to that. Lots of deletion reasons here. But as for RFC wording, I take this as your saying my try was not right, so will strike it out as said above. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the RFC is incorrectly worded. Here we are several months past the date of what Lara Trump said or did not say in late July 2017, which shows the larger problems of "presentism" in the article. It dealt only with the first few weeks of the program. Anything L Trump said then has been superseded by events, anyway. Editors should not be attempting to make a list of examples to say that the media misinterpreted L Trump; their responses are verifiable, whether or not you disagree with them. There should be some attempt to get an overall view of how the Trump TV site worked and how people responded to it.Parkwells (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Alright, after a month long stalemate, that's 4 Removes to 3 Keeps. User:DrFleischman, can we remove the passage now?Blob Blobbed (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I changed my vote to Keep, see above. So it is 4 Keeps to 3 Removes. My vote is Keep and rewrite, as I did in a suggested edit on the main article page, to make clear what L Trump said and how two sources responded.Parkwells (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Let’s quit the endless arguing and get to the point

I was asked to take a look at this article. I see some problems: months-long edit warring over the same issues, not discussing in good faith. Let me remind you that we do not decide what goes in here by asserting our own opinions. Things like “This is false”, “I’m done with this, the excerpt is out”, etc., are improper comments. Nobody owns this article or gets to decide unilaterally what goes in here. We don’t decide what to say by how often or how loudly or how firmly someone expresses their opinion. We do decide what goes into the article by what sources actually say. If we have a difference in the interpretation of what somebody said, we talk it out until we agree on a wording we can all accept. So let’s do that.

In particular, it looks to me as if the long-running argument here is over what she said in the first episode: whether she said “the media has ignored stories about the president’s accomplishments”, or whether she implied it, or whether she never said or implied any such thing. Whether she said it or not is a factual issue, easily settled; it looks as if she did not use those exact words. What she did say was “I bet you haven’t heard about all the accomplishments the president had this week because there’s so much fake news out there. We wanted to give you a glimpse into his week.” OK, obviously that quote should be included.

So all that remains is, how much interpretation of that comment should be included? For example, it seems like we could say “some of the accomplishments she reports on have also been reported by mainstream media”, citing snopes and other sources, without saying she claimed they were ignored by the media. If we want to go beyond that - to include the snopes complaint that she appeared to insult White House coverage by other news outlets, or to offer more reaction to her “fake news” terminology - we can do that in the Media coverage section.

Let's talk about this, respectfully and in good faith and with brevity instead of walls of text. And let's agree here on what to say, rather than edit warring things in and out of the article. OK? --MelanieN (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

What is the point of pointing out that they were reported on when no one said they weren't reported on in the first place? This is just an attempt to say "Lara Trump was wrong" about something she never said to begin with. I don't care if you include the actual quote from her video, but there's not reason to take that quote and construe it in any manner that would insinuate she meant to imply that those things were not reported on, which is exactly what pointing out that they were reported on, in any capacity, would do. Pardon me for getting a little fed up here, but these people are obviously just looking for an excuse to malign the program.Blob Blobbed (talk) 00:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

And I'm trying to move beyond all that and actually discuss. You don't appear to be ready to do that. Please try again, and this time discuss my actual proposal and questions, instead of repeating what you've been saying for two months. --MelanieN (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Please, open up the discussion. How do propose we fix this excerpt?Blob Blobbed (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• There is a clear consensus among the last few discussions, including among some who !voted for Remove in the withdrawn RfC, that this subject matter is appropriate, supported by reliable sources, and should be addressed in some way, shape, or form. Repeatedly deleting our content with "it's false it's false it's false" is counterproductive and disruptive to the consensus-building process. I'm sorry Blob Blobbed, but you will simply have to accept that consensus is against you, and work with the rest of us to improve (but not delete) the content. If you cannot do this then you will likely end up getting receiving an administrative sanction. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
• Melanie, your most recent removal isn't in line with WP:CONSENSUS. If there's really no consensus for the content you deleted, then we should follow WP:NOCONSENSUS and revert to the last stable version, which is 15:25, 8 December 2017. The subject matter in dispute remained in the article and untouched from the creation of the article August 2, 2017 to January 6 when Blob Blobbed made their first edit here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@DrFleischman, BullRangifer, Emir of Wikipedia, Parkwells, Mandruss, and Markbassett: Folks, PLEASE let's move beyond the either-or edit warring and let's talk. DrFleischman, I removed your latest re-addition of the disputed content, because there is NOT consensus (much less "clear consensus" as you claimed) in the above RfC. And now you’re doing just what Blob Blobbed originally did: ignore my call for a new approach, and simply re-assert your previous arguments and continue to edit war. Blob has agreed to move beyond that attitude and start talking. I am hoping you, and the others, will do the same.

I am proposing a new approach in hopes that we can all agree on what to include and how to word it. For starters, we don’t have to be (and shouldn’t be) all-or-nothing about the disputed content - that is, insist on either including all of it or deleting all of it. My proposal is to take it apart and look at the individual components. My conclusion is: 1) We obviously should include what she actually said in her first broadcast. 2) We obviously should not quote her as having said something she didn’t. 3) That leaves the media commentary and interpretation of what she said. (CNN, snopes). Let’s agree on whether to include any of that commentary and where (Media response or Reception seem like obvious places). Now can we talk, please? --MelanieN (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, I see that you added some of the material under "reception". We can work with that (I made one change and asked for one missing reference), and we can see if others have opinions about doing it that way. --MelanieN (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I am all for going through it in detail and making whatever changes are necessary to reflect the sources. What I will not abide by is outright deletion because the sources are wrong wrong wrong. (Btw no need to keep pinging me.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. How do you and Blob feel about adding something like this to the "Launch" section? In the first episode, a video posted on July 30, 2017, Trump introduced herself and the webcast by saying, "Hey everybody, Lara Trump here. I bet you haven’t heard about all the accomplishments the president had this week because there’s so much fake news out there. We wanted to give you a glimpse into his week." We could cite snopes or NPR for the quote. --MelanieN (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Nobody objected so I have inserted this into the article. --MelanieN (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

...and I see you are continuing to tweak the material under "Reception". That's good. So far it looks to me like the material is neutral and sourced, and isn't putting words into her mouth. Of course others may want to tweak it as well, that's the Wikipedia way, but you've made a good start and good improvements. --MelanieN (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm fine with that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I like MelanieN's approach: "In the first episode, a video posted on July 30, 2017, Trump introduced herself and the webcast by saying, "Hey everybody, Lara Trump here. I bet you haven’t heard about all the accomplishments the president had this week because there’s so much fake news out there. We wanted to give you a glimpse into his week," with the Snopes and CNN articles cited. The current version: "In response to Lara Trump's statement that, "I bet you haven't heard about all the accomplishments the president had this week because there's so much fake news out there," various outlets noted that the stories she highlighted, such as the plans of Foxconn to build a factory in Wisconsin and the donation of President's Trump's second-quarter salary to the Department for Education, had in fact previously been covered by the mainstream media," still unfairly implies that she meant no one reported on those things, in my opinion.Blob Blobbed (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

And yet 3 reliable sources all interpreted Lara Trump's words exactly that way. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

What about about WP:DUE and WP:ONUS though?Blob Blobbed (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

We are not saying, in Wikipedia's voice, that she claimed those things had not been reported by the media. We are reporting, per multiple sources, how those sources interpreted her meaning. As far as I can see that is fair and honest, and consistent with all Wikipedia policies. --MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Melanie -I have not been following this one since my failed attempt to have the rfc reflect the dispute. The “I bet” quote is common enough to mention, though the Telegraph and US News skipped it. The “ignored” is not supported, and to lesser extent the phrasing of ‘in response’ (to the quote) and the over-emphatic ‘but, in fact, actually’ language is not supported. It would be more neutral to have the same line without the emphasis, simply relaying the statement sticking closer to the sources simply stating much of the material was also in mainstream media. Also, it seems iffy to stop there — Buzzfeed and a few others followed that by mentioning other stories getting more coverage that week. Lastly, NPOV.... should include due weight to less incendiary and even right-wing coverage. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 06:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

If you're aware of any reliable "less incendiary and even right-wing" coverage then please post links here and I'd be happy to include it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

What to call her

Throughout this article she is referred to as "Lara Trump" (possibly necessary to disambiguate her from Donald Trump, but maybe not; he is hardly mentioned) or as "Lara" (we shouldn't do that, Wikipedia uses last names). How do you all think we should handle her name? Wikipedia style would suggest we call her "Trump," to the extent possible while avoiding confusion with Donald. --MelanieN (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I think we need to call her either Lara Trump or Ms. Trump to distinguish her from DJT, since DJT is the elephant in the room. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

We certainly can't say Ms. Trump. We don't use honorifics. I agree it could be confusing to refer to her as "Trump". (We have the same problem at Melania Trump, although we do call her "Trump" in places.) --MelanieN (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we should call her L. Trump and refer to DJT as "the president". I am concerned that this article refers only to the first month of this program, and early responses by the media. My attempts to expand it have been deleted. It hardly rates as an article at all, if there is nothing more to be said. I can't find an episode program on Facebook past January 2018, and another editor had said the webcast had been discontinued. I am also concerned about the new content under Background: it is all about Lara Trump and not the webcast, and relies repeatedly on her criticism of the media, rather than third-party reviews of the program or the context. The article no longer even identifies who or what is financing this webcast - i.e., the DJT Re-election campaign. I think it is overstating the case to say that L Trump creates this webcast; she is host but no doubt there are other people working on it. She was only an associate producer at Inside Edition, and one source described her as not much beyond an intern. But this article is not supposed to be about her anyway.Parkwells (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Here is an episode from just last week, tagged as Week 58 and hosted by Lara Trump. On uspotus.com it is titled "Donald Trump Real News Update With Lara Trump". There is no doubt that this is still a real thing and that she hosts it. The article is tagged as needing to be updated, and we should do that, but it does appear to be ongoing and she appears to be featured, so that is appropriate for our article to be doing. --MelanieN (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for tracking that down! The challenge with this article is that the news media only covered this stuff when the first videos came out, and then again when McEnany hosted an episode. Since then the coverage has been minimal at best. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Funding

It was mentioned above that we no longer say it is funded by the re-election committee. According to CNN Money back in August, it wasn't clear at that time whether the webcast is funded by the re-election committee or the RNC. Do we have any definitive information on that? --MelanieN (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

This NBC News item says “Trump’s presidential committee is listed as having paid for the news spot.” In this article they quote a campaign executive as saying her program “helps drive donations to our war chest.” I think it’s pretty clearly funded by the campaign. I'm going to add it back to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

See also

The source which was used to justify inclusion of 'state media' and 'propaganda' is from a quote from a Washington Post op-ed earlier on the page. Firstly, since it is an op-ed, it is not reliable enough to justify such a controversial addition to the See also section without violating WP:NPOV. Secondly, the quote states "felt a lot like propaganda -- or state TV." So even the author is saying it "felt" like that -- not that it *was* that.--Jay942942 (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Jay942942, please avoid edit warring and respect the BRD process next time. Can you please explain your re-revert summary? I don't know what source you're referring to, and I personally didn't rely on it. Fake news, state media, etc. certainly seem related to the subject of this article. By including them in the See also section we're not implying that Real News Update is fake news or state media. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Of course you're implying that. The source I'm referring to is the one where a Washington Post op-ed writer is quoted; I explained this earlier on the talk page. There's also no mention of Real News Update on the articles you linked in See also. So if your additions to See also weren't based on the WaPo op-ed, then they have no basis at all other than your own thoughts, and are thus WP:OR.--Jay942942 (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

No, that's really not my intention. Just as critics of RNU might say that RNU is fake news, the RNU folks might say that the purpose of their show is to counteract fake news. So either way you look at it there's a nexus with fake news. Items in a See also section don't need to be linked by sources or content. They just need to be related. It seems ridiculous to suggest that Real News Update isn't somehow related to fake news. In fact many sources bear this out. Here are some examples: [1] [2] [3] --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

A wikilink to fake news in now included in this short article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that takes care of fake news. How about the others? Also, Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 is already linked in the article as well. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, I undid that wikilink for two reasons: (1) we don't wikilink within quotations, and (2) the Trump administration means something entirely different when they say "fake news". After his election, Donald Trump began to use the term "fake news" to describe negative press coverage of his presidency. Their use has nothing to do with truth, factuality, "fake", or accuracy, but purely whether it makes Trump look bad. It's a very deceptive use of the term, used exactly as Hitler used the term "Lying press", and for the same reasons. See also Lying_press#United_States.

I have now used the proper and direct wikilink in a place that is not in a quotation. The scare quotes should remain to signal that the term, as used by the Trump administration, is not the normal meaning. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer, I'm fine with that. FWIW I wasn't the person who added that link. In any case, we still have the question of whether we should include State media, Propaganda, Media bias, and Corporate media in the See also section. I see you restored them, but perhaps you can add your reasoning here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

RS describe it as such, and it obviously is. We expect this in autocratic countries, not in democratic ones. The rules for See also links is that they must, at the least, be tangentially related to the subject, so these are good ones. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)