Talk:Breitbart News/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Falsehoods and conspiracy theories

Following on Power's most recent comment, the second sentence ("Breitbart News has published a number of falsehoods and conspiracy theories, as well as intentionally misleading stories.") seems lead-worthy to me, but placing it as the second sentence sees undue to me. I'm in favor of demoting it to between the alt-right (3rd) paragraph and the personnel (4th) paragraph. Thoughts? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it's central to the topic and belongs in the second sentence. And that is also where the RfC placed it. Carl Fredrik ^talk 20:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Is there a specific RfC you're referring to? I see several, none referencing this. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Carl, I'd like a link to the RfC as well. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Overall, it's more credible than The National Enquirer, and I don't think the article reflects that. I would remove the two words "falsehoods and", and move the sentence to the 2nd paragraph, right before "The New York Times describes Breitbart". Power~enwiki (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

According to whom is it more credible? Carl Fredrik ^talk 20:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you at all familiar with this topic or industry? I consider it common knowledge that The National Enquirer is primarily a supermarket gossip column. While it occasionally reports news stories ( John Edwards ), reporting news is not the primary function of that publication. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's a shitty source — but so is Breitbart, and reporting news isn't a function of Breitbart either. Carl Fredrik ^talk 20:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

reporting news isn't a function of Breitbart either - is there a source for that? A secondary source for a claim that the website's primary function is to promote editorial voices rather than to report the news would improve the lede. Newspapers are technically competitors to Breitbart and can't be assumed to be unbiased (and we already have the NYTimes quote), a book or academic article would be best. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Describing newspapers as biased because they are competitors is a stretch, or at least a distraction. If a newspaper is reliable, it's almost certainly reliable about journalism. Grayfell (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Not only a stretch, it is extremely disingenuous and damaging to the general discourse — it is exactly the type of rhetoric of false equivalences and misinformation that is spread by "ultra-partisan sources". But just to prove the very poor nature of the argument, here is a source that fulfills your criteria: of not being a newspaper; while simultaneously: undermining your argument that other papers would be biased and the notion that Breitbart's main objective is covering news. See: http://niemanreports.org/articles/post-truth-politics/ Carl Fredrik ^talk 23:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

My main point was that we already have one newspaper quote in the lede, and we certainly don't need two. It might be useful to include some other type of reference on this point, if one exists. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• We have strayed from the discussion topic, which is whether to move the second sentence lower in the lead section. The only response said it was against a prior RfC consensus but didn't point to the RfC upon request, limiting the value of the response. Would anyone like to weigh in before I make this change? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

As if other news outlets don't publish falsehoods or conspiracy theories (which does not even mean one such theory is false)? The CNN Comey source inaccuracies, Russian conspiracy theories reported en-masse, etc.? While this may be true for Breitbart, it is not true ONLY for Breitbart. Like failing to apply to far-left label to sites objectively as left-ring as Breitbart is right-wing, the failure to apply this label beneath CNN or Buzzfeed (urinary dossier...) is yet another example of bias. All concerns about their reporting can be directed to the controversies sections...as they are with other controversial items. Disappointing that the politics veer so extreme to be discriminatory against one of the most prominent right-wing journalistic outlets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:6697:3000:C5EB:3D8E:ADB6:C26F (talk) 08:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Before seeing this, I moved it from the second sentence. It does not matter if an RfC decided to place it there, because it CLEARLY violates WP policies. We cannot let our personal views of Breitbart overshadow WP policies on NPOV. This already reads like a hit-piece, at least leave that out of the SECOND sentence. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 13:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• Just think about the precedent it sets: New York Times is a yada yada. It has published misleading and false stories.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]..... It would not be hard to find examples of the NYT messing up. I know it's different, but then it's also NOT. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 13:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

While I agree that the placement of the sentence is non-neutral, and I certainly appreciate you both weighing in in support, I would caution against suggesting any sort of equivalence between Breitbart and reputable news organizations such as The New York Times, CNN, or BuzzFeed. They are in completely separate categories on more than just ideology. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

But the bottom line is they are both media outlets, and they can't be treated differently. And I hope you were joking about Buzzfeed lol ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 13:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Of course they can be treated differently. We are not required to treat different things as if they are the same. The New York Times has a far different journalistic and public reputation than Breitbart, as is extensively discussed in reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a total tangent by now, but suggesting we use news sources to determine if other news sources are reliable is kind of eerie. The NYT thing was just an example- just because something is well sourced or there are examples of it doesn't mean it belongs in the second sentence- I never argued it should be taken out. The bottom line is it does not belong as the second sentence. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 15:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, this is precisely how policy directs Wikipedians to work - we are to base our articles on what is verifiably published in mainstream reliable sources. The New York Times is a mainstream reliable source, Breitbart is not. The end. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

No one was arguing that NYT was not reliable, and no one argued Breitbart was. And 'mainstream' is irrelevant. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 20:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

RFC: Where should the statement about misleading sources be?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is that the sentence about falsehoods should appear at the end of the first paragraph. The sentence is undoubtedly well-referenced and cites numerous reliable sources. Due to the widespread opinion shown by said sources that Breitbart has published false statements, the argument against the sentence being inserted on grounds of undue weight is at best flimsy. (non-admin closure)DrStrauss talk 17:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

---

Breitbart has also published a number of falsehoods and conspiracy theories, as well as intentionally misleading stories.

Currently the statement about misleading sources has been moved from the first paragraph of the lede to a position lower down, apparently without any consensus to do so. This was where it was placed after confirmation that the passage should be included. With a few comments to the effect that it should not be there I seek now to achieve firm consensus as to where it should go. Carl Fredrik ^talk 14:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support end of 1st paragraph or beginning of 2nd paragraph as it is a central point about Breitbart, and something that is supported by a multitude of sources. The arguments of bias are dubious and play to a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Carl Fredrik ^talk 14:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose inclusion as second sentence. It does not make sense for it to be the second sentence. No matter how much you hate the outlet, the fact that it publishes false/misleading news should not be the second thing mentioned. It appears to be a blatant POV violation to me. The ENTIRE second paragraph is criticism-- why not just include it there? ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 15:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Because this is probably the most important and most unilaterally accepted piece of criticism and deserves to be mentioned early. As I stated in my original argument, I also support it being the first sentence in the second paragraph. Where it is now, at the end of a paragraph, behind far less important statements seems wrong. Carl Fredrik ^talk 15:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Since when is criticism included in the second sentence of an article? Making the criticism more prominent than other facts IS POV. It is putting what YOU think is most important about the subject BEFORE the subject itself is even properly defined. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 17:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support end of first paragraph. I came here from the RfC notice, and I am not entirely clear as to where this RfC stands in relation to other talk here, but I am simply responding to the RfC question as it was asked. This is such a defining characteristic of the page subject that it belongs in the first paragraph of the lead. It should be as shown at the top of this RfC (but maybe delete "a number of", which is too vague), not as the shorter version that I see now on the page. I think a good case can be made that the first paragraph should also include the sentence about the NY Times' characterization, followed by this sentence. Then the second paragraph would be about the founding and alignment. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

How is a NYT characterization of a news outlet the most significant thing about the news outlet? Wouldn't the NYT opinion be an opinion which should not be given undue weight in the second sentence? ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 17:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Because it is a reliably sourced summary of the overwhelming view of mainstream sources. It's really no different than how I would treat a page about pseudoscience. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support end of first paragraph. In the second sentence is too soon, but in later paragraphs is too late. Readers need to read it soon. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The end of the first paragraph IS the second sentence though- that's my issue. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 17:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. Including both "falsehoods" (wikilinked to Fake News) and "intentionally misleading stores" is redundant and I'm not convinced either is supported. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support end of first paragraph per BullRangifer and the excellent sourcing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Why is sourcing relevant to this discussion? It's not about inclusion, it's about whether it should be the second sentence. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 17:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Strong sourcing, especially when there is a plenty of it — indicates it is important. Carl Fredrik ^talk 17:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support end of first paragraph per CFCF, Tryptofish, BullRangifer, and Volunteer Marek. Agree with CFCF that strongly sourced material was moved down, apparently to de-emphasize material, apparently without any consensus to do so. Agree with CFCF that this is a central point of the topic. Agree with Tryptofish that This is such a defining characteristic of the page subject that it belongs in the first paragraph of the lead. Agree with BullRangifer as to placement of location of the sourced material. Agree with Volunteer Marek about the quality of the excellent sourcing. Thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support end of first paragraph. This is appropriate placement for a significant and well-sourced fact. Neutrality^talk 00:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support end of first paragraph, recognizing that there is a zeroth paragraph before the first paragraph, consisting of one sentence. In other words, it belongs at the end of the first paragraph following the one-line lead sentence-paragraph. For reasons I agree with Neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anomalocaris (talk • contribs) 16:49, July 2, 2017 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) Support first paragraph, more or less per Tryptofish above. The consensus among reliable sources is quite clear. Vanamonde (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Extended content
P.S. I saw the above section Talk:Breitbart_News#Falsehoods_and_conspiracy_theories and have self-reverted (you never know with these DSs), but I still contend it should be in the first paragraph, or at the very least at the absolute beginning of the second paragraph. Carl Fredrik talk 14:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

First two sentences of the Nazi Party: "The National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: About this sound Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (help·info), abbreviated NSDAP), commonly referred to in English as the Nazi Party (/ˈnɑːtsi/), was a far-right political party in Germany that was active between 1920 and 1945 and practised the ideology of Nazism. Its precursor, the German Workers' Party (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei; DAP), existed from 1919 to 1920." Should Breitbart have a more negative lead then the Nazis? ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 15:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS — and I would support the addition to the first paragraph that "The Nazi Party was instrumental in orchestrating the Holocaust, leading to the death of more than 11 million jews". Carl Fredrik ^talk 15:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Your example is also especially poor as it invokes Godwin's Law, and if we look just a little further — we find this as part of a very special second sentence/ first paragraph:

As dictator of the German Reich, he initiated World War II in Europe with the invasion of Poland in September 1939, and was central to the Holocaust.

Carl Fredrik ^talk 15:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

People cite Other stuff exists, despite the fact that it explicitly states that such arguments can be valid or invalid... ie it in no way counteracts an argument. And Godwin's law also does not make an argument invalid or untrue-- especially since I purposely used Nazism as an example due to its extremeness- which is the concept behind the law. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 17:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Objection to discussion. Carl's opening of this discussion is disruptive for multiple reasons. First, there is already an ongoing discussion on this very topic above, one in which there is already consensus to move the sentence in question down from the first paragraph to a lower position. It's not like Carl was unaware of this; he posted multiple comments in that discussion, and was the only editor who !voted to keep the sentence in the first paragraph. Second, Carl has now twice asserted that this issue was previously decided by an RfC (which, unless I'm mistaken, does not exist). After the first assertion, two editors asked him in good faith to point to the RfC ([1], [2]), but instead of doing so he ignored them and repeated the unfounded assertion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I see you took the liberty of combining the two discussions. I've taken the liberty of moving this to the discussion area here as well so that we do not separate them. As I see it we are going to need widespread discussion on where this goes, otherwise nothing is going to happen. I had frankly forgotten that I had commented so recently — and I was incorrect in stating there had been an RfC. I didn't so much ignore the issue as realize my mistake and shut up. Carl Fredrik ^talk 18:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I suggest you strike your sentence about the RfC then, so that no one is misled. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• Note- "end of first paragraph" seems a poor characterization, when the more notable point is that it is the second sentence. This is not a substantial lead paragraph, it is two sentences long (now one sentence long.) ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 17:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

References
References

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.

Brietbart

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.

---

The Wikipedia article on Breitbart is absolutely disgraceful. It is a leftist polemic. It is not object. It is not unbiased. It's character assassination. It should be withdrawn and rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.234.119.181 (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Curiously enough, this article was written by both left- and right-wing editors, some of whom have admitted being quite fond of the site. So... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

This isn't an article about Breitbart. It's--ironically enough--an editorial written by those who consider it to be an unreliable source of information. I understand the emotional state of many zealous editors, but there is very little actual information here compared to what is there for even the most fringe media sources. I know it's just a sign of the times or whatever, but I'd appreciate people trying to be logical instead of emotional and objective instead of subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.142.104.5 (talk) 07:08, 22 August 2017 (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.

Reinsert "described as" in opening sentence?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resounding oppose. The addition of "described as" is a direct violation of WP:ALLEGED in light of the lack of reliable sources that describe Breitbart as anything but far-right. (non-admin closure) — nihlus kryik  (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

---

I like the addition "described as" in the opening sentence, which was removed. I am not considering any other additions by other editor. I am simply asking for modification of the opening sentence, i.e. "Breitbart News Network (known commonly as Breitbart News, Breitbart or Breitbart.com) is described as a far-right." Or maybe "reportedly", "considered", or whatever. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Breitbart is described that way as a matter of fact by at least 40 reputable sources. Adding "described as" borders on WP:ALLEGED. Furthermore, there are a large number of supportive sources that explain why Breitbart is considered to have an extreme right bias. In fact, much of it is explained in this very article. Also WP:SPADE.- MrX 17:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:SPADE does not apply here. WP:SPADE is specifically stated as advice and opinions of contributors and not policy or guidelines. WP:SPADE is really focused on encouraging editors to be civil to each other and not launching into personal attacks - summed up as "it's ok to call a spade a spade but don't be uncivil". WP:SPADE is not editorial advice. Even if it was it would not apply to political labels. You need a clear verb that everyone agrees on to be able to call something the noun of doing that verb. There is no succinct set of verbs that clearly define the actions of "far right" and many sources are using different definitions, especially now that it has crept into political discourse to use hyperbole against your political opponents. WP:SPADE doesn't apply. --Quadrow (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• Discussion moot, see RfCs. Carl Fredrik ^talk 18:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• (linked in the FAQ banner at the top of this page) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Not how we use RS descriptions, unless RS disagree among each other. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support - It is an objective addition. Not everyone agrees that Breitbart are 'far-right' and many reliable sources describe them as 'conservative leaning'. As the two are mutually exclusive descriptions (as in you can not be merely conservative leaning and also far right - the two are very different) then we should be balanced and use words such as has been suggested. Furthermore, if you read this carefully (you'll have to expand and read the admin statements), uninvolved admins have stated "frankly, I find flaws with that prior [RFC]" and there is support for a new one.--Quadrow (talk) 12:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

  Actually, the admin wrote: "Quadrow, you are as wrong as wrong gets. There was an RFC held [30], it was closed, that close was not contested, so it demonstrates consensus. It doesn't prove it, but it demonstrates it better than an empty claim. You can always start a new RFC (and frankly, I find flaws with that prior one although it is still clearly valid)."- MrX 12:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you MrX for expanding the quote, although by merely including a bit more and not the whole thing is still being selective. You will see that it does confirm that the admin thinks there are flaws with the prior RFC. I would add that the admin thought I was wrong about my interpretation of what consensus means on account of me being an inexperienced editor (if anyone thinks that is relevant then I encourage you to read the referral in full), but no one involved disputed that the previous RFC was flawed.--Quadrow (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Essentially, a violation of WP:ALLEGED. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

These are the objections to that line of reasoning. You may find one or more of them pursuasive but if one of these objections is not pursuasive to you then please do not reject the others. WP:ALLEGED is not imperative instruction, it is guidelines. WP:ALLEGED makes no specific reference to "describe as". WP:ALLEGED does state that words that express doubt can be appropriate. WP:ALLEGED recommends you should use "called" instead of "so-called" and "called" is synonymous to "described as" and so WP:ALLEGED actually can be read to support using the words "described as".--Quadrow (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I've read all of your alleged objections, and my opinion remains the same. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I assume that you are making an alleged joke about the alleged objections about the whether WP:ALLEGED applies. I allegedly laughed.--Quadrow (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - "Described as" is vague and only makes sense of we have reason to think that the many reliable sources are wrong, or that this is entirely subjective. That's superficially reasonable but misguided. Wikipedia, and many reliable sources, treat political position as a simple statement of fact. This is a simplification of an endlessly complicated issue, but the entire left-right spectrum is a simplification anyway. Not all simplifications are subjective. We should, as we do now, follow sources and treat it as a simple matter without fillers or equivocating. I get the feeling I'm repeating myself, here. Grayfell (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
• Quadrow, I was going to withdraw the request, but your rebuttals on every oppose vote makes the consideration impossible. I'm not sure why you're going against the whole majority here. If you're not satisfied with the results, may you please notify some more WikiProjects, like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism? I already notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States about this. --George Ho (talk) 11:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
• George Ho, I would support the withdrawal of this request in favour of the one below. I think one should be entitled to disagree. If I am right then I should put forward the strongest case possible. If I am wrong then it forces others to put forward the strongest case. Either way it strengthens the outcome. It is also still possible to decide on this even though I have rebutted the arguments. I haven't referred it because I simply don't know how to. If you could post on my talk page with advice, I'd be grateful.--Quadrow (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Quadrow, you have to withdraw the below rehash proposal as well. No one is supporting what you were proposing. Please? --George Ho (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the below needs to be played out. Close this one and let the below play out. I've posted some pretty solid reasoning for it. If I am to only person that posts on it or if my arguments really are full of holes then what is the harm in it.--Quadrow (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

You want this one closed, so yours can be reopened? Geez, that's bureaucratic. I'm having a hard time accepting that this is a sincere proposal. How many RFCs do we have to hold on this specific issue before opposing editors will be satisfied? We've already seen a never-ending stream of editors asking "perfectly reasonable questions" long after this issue has been resolved. Some may be sincere, some are definitely not. Humoring them all disrupts the project. Grayfell (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Close this one - don't close this one. It's your choice. I didn't open this one and I'm not objecting to it being closed. Since participating in this RFC I thought about it and realised that the proper RFC to have was the one that re-asks the original question because of how ambiguous it was when it closed. And it would be so much quicker just to let it happen rather than obstructing it with all these 'meta arguments'. And have you ever paused to consider that the reason why there is a never-ending stream of editors raising this point is because it really isn't neutral to simply declare that Breitbart is far-right in the leading paragraph, and in fact the neutral thing to do would be to remove it from the leading paragraph and create a subsection where it goes into detail about this label that they've received. That way it can be stated clearly that it doesn't mean they are racist of white supremacists or Nazis or all the other things that people usually associate with 'far-right'. After all that is exactly how the original RFC concluded - that sometimes it might be appropriate to call them far-right but not all this other nasty stuff. --Quadrow (talk) 09:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I hope this changes your mind, Quadrow: Talk:Breitbart News/Archive 2#Self identification as alt-right. "Self-identification" approach was tried but then turned down. --George Ho (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Please spell it out because I can't tell what this is supposed to persuade me on as there are a lot of points I've made. If it's about what a publication says about itself then it is valid in Wikipedia policy WP:SELFPUB to quote a source in the matter of what it say's about itself even if that source may be considered unreliable in other matters. However, it's not neutral to entirely ignore what a source says about itself. But reading all the previous stuff in this talk page and archives, I'm noticing a pattern. An editor comes on and makes an objection to this blatant bias in the article and then after some time of trying to persuade people to adopt neutrality, they eventually conclude that the whole project has rampant left wing bias that is impossible turn around and eventually gives up. This place has ended up as an echo chamber. --Quadrow (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose In American society today, Far-right or Alt-right is a different political movement than Christian conservatives or libertarians or mainstream conservatives. Very roughly, the first group is pro-Trump and often takes views that are described as "controversial" by liberal (or progressive?) media outlets such as HuffPost. There must be some way of describing this distinction in the lede, and "far-right" is the best way presented. I would consider supporting "alt-right" if it is a less-controversial term. In all these situations, "described as" is unnecessary and makes the meaning less clear. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - someone should write an essay called Wikipedia:Improper distancing, because these kind of proposals crop up now and then. Bottom line: when the reliable sources directly state something without contradiction, Wikipedia should state it in its own voice. That's a core tenet of WP:NPOV. Neutrality^talk 21:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose unless and until someone manages to scrounge up a respectable number of sources which either say that Breitbart is not far-right, or say that Breitbart is something which is mutually exclusive with being far-right (such as center-left or something). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support - A qualification definitely seems appropriate. I'm not especially familiar with the site but of the 6 sources given for the 'Far Right' claim in the Wikipedia article, at least 2 of them have a strong left-wing skew and checking the Media Bias\Fact Check site revealed at least one other is definitely skewed left. If you compare the treatment to that by say Fox - a non-left-wing media company which simply references the Breitbart organisation e.g. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/12/07/german-companies-pull-advertising-from-us-website-breitbart.html there is a major disparity! That linked article is about advertisers boycotting Breitbart after a social media campaign to deprive the Right of all funding. Note the article also says that AP News is refusing to advertise on Breitbart meaning they're not a neutral source either. 人族 (talk) 08:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

You misread the source. The AP was reporting about REWE, BMW, and Vapiano no longer advertising on Breitbart--not the AP itself. The AP doesn't advertise. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 13:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Note the article also says that AP News is refusing to advertise on Breitbart meaning they're not a neutral source either. That is a very poor argument. Judgement does not imply bias. Judgements can be neutral, based entirely upon practical considerations. For an outlet to decide not to advertise with another does not, in any way, imply that the former is biased, only that the former made a judgement that advertising with the latter was not in their best interest. Hell, it is entirely possible that a business with very favorable views of Breitbart, whose management holds far-right political ideals could decide not to advertise with Breitbart.

Plus, as the good doctor pointed out, AP doesn't advertise. They certainly wouldn't advertise in another news outlet, nor would any news outlet carry advertisement from their competitors willingly. Especially a competitor who is ideologically opposed to their editorial stance. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

How did I miss that? "Supermarket group REWE, automaker BMW and restaurant chain Vapiano also told The Associated Press that they had stopped advertising on Breitbart ..." is not the same as "... The Associated Press ... had stopped advertising on Breitbart ..." No clue how I misread that! -.- Still doesn't affect my original point that only Left\Far Left sources are prefixing Breitbart with an adjective like Far Right whereas right-wing sources simply refer to Breitbart.人族 (talk)

Still doesn't affect my original point that only Left\Far Left sources are prefixing Breitbart with an adjective like Far Right whereas right-wing sources simply refer to Breitbart. I wouldn't refer to that as a "point" considering that it is obviously untrue. You "claim" is a more accurate phrasing. The list of sources supporting the claim in the lede include The Japan Times and Newsweek, both of which are absent any appreciable political stance, The Sydney Morning Herald which is and has been a conservative publication as well as The Christian Science Monitor, a longtime (if low-key) defender of the Religious right as well as the paper with possibly the best reputation in the industry for avoiding the exact sort of sensationalism you are accusing it of. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Ironically your're advancing a counterclaim. The SMH may have been a conservative publication 40 years ago, but now has a clear bias to the left. Newsweek has a left-of centre bias. As for the Japan Times, I've just had a look again at them. Do they refer to Breitbart as Far Right? Per the linked piece in question "[Breitbart] ... has drawn criticism for promoting far-right, sometimes racist views" but that's not the same as saying they are far-right, and other Breitbart articles don't refer to them as far-right, at least not those I looked at. It looks like the CSM piece is about the only one strongly supporting the far-right claim, but other CSM pieces sometimes refer to Breibart as a conservative news site instead. Yes I'm aware original research and all that, but the facts aren't adding up. 人族 (talk) 01:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Consensus is already clear. I'm not repeating myself because you can't be bothered to read the rest of the thread. Also, that's not what ironic means. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: "Considered as" may be part of an explanation about why Wikipedia decided to describe it so, but such an explanation shouldn't be part of an opening sentence. An article's opening is for describing things succintly; explanations are for other parts of the article LahmacunKebab (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Are editors inside the heads of people at Breitbart? Is there some sort of psychic network that hard-line Breitbart haters are tuned into? If so, let me know. I will dial in. Or, can anyone scrape up a first-hand account of the groupthink at Breitbart from someone who is/was involved in their philosophical sit-downs? If not, there is no fair choice other than to state that the outlet "has been described as..." I suggested a while back that disinterested (non-press, non-competitor) sources be used, but that reasonable approach is apparently beyond the grasp of most. I could care less about Breitbart, but I do fear that WP runs the risk of being commandeered by editors with a blatent political agenda, i.e. to tar and feather any outlet with which they apparently disagree on philosophy. Breitbart probably IS far-right. PROVE IT, without using a gaggle of sources which could equally be viewed as far-left or left-leaning, or diametrically opposed in terms of editorial philosophy, or which are competitive commercially. Would those who "oppose" in this discussion see Fox News as a suitable critic of CNN? I doubt it, and neither would I. Learner001 (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

...a gaggle of sources which could equally be viewed as far-left or left-leaning... Please explain how The Christian Science Monitor, Newsweek, The Japan Times and, of course, the reliably conservative Sydney Morning Herald are actually left-wing or left-leaning. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

You left out WAPO, which is heavily left-leaning (read the editorial page on I daily basis. I do. There's a pattern, and it's called editorial philosophy). A WAPO commentator calls Breitbart far-right. That's fine, and it may very well be true, but it's not a definitive fact simply because any given writer says so. The takeaway from that source is that the source described Breitbart as far-right. No journalist can make a definitive judgment on ANYTHING. They report news in the all-but-dead realm of unbiased "straight news," and elucidate their views in the modern replacement of news by "analysis/commentary." But none of this is the point. Periodicals can do, and say, whatever they want. Thank the Constitution for (dying) Free Speech! The larger issue is whether or not competitors in the press are RS in any attempt define their counterparts, and whether there might be better, more RS, independent non-press sources. Please address that issue. Learner001 (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I left out WaPo because I agree that they have a left-wing focus. But leaving them out does not, in any way change what I said about the rest. Similar to the way your response does not, in any way, address what I actually said. Your logic seems to be that anything WaPo says is true must, by definition be false, no matter who agrees with it. Well, WaPo says the sky is blue, water is wet, and being able to breathe is beneficial to your health. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Fake news. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

<BLP violation removed>

Please read WP:BIASED. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Doing more digging, I found exactly zero evidence that anything in this comment is true. Specifically; The Christian Science Monitor is listed at mediabiasfactcheck.com as being "least biased". mediabiasfactcheck.com itself is implicitly endorsed by a number of reputable fact checkers and news outlets, so it's findings are generally pretty trustworthy. Note that mediabiasfactcheck.com bases their findings on a number of sources, including reader polls, with the result that they tend to exaggerate left-leaning biases and understate right-leaning biases. Not enough to affect their reliability, however. They also list Newsweek as being left-center biased, while noting that their factual accuracy remains high. Note that this is a category that includes the BBC, Bloomberg, NPR and other outlets who are widely considered to be among the least biased and most reliable news outlets.

As for the comments about Dan Murphy: I can find absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this individual is antisemitic or anti-Israel. Finally, referring to Saeb Erekat as a terrorist demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of what the word "terrorist" even means. So good effort, but a complete and total fail. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

But he's Palestinian!!! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. He's Muslim, that's what makes hm a 'turrist. 'Murika! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I found over eighty thousand reputable sources that says pizza is delicious. Perhaps we should modify the pizza page to show that. Obviously subjectivity doesn't make your opinion correct, it just makes it an opinion. Even if the majority of people believe Breitbart is (opinion here) it's irrelevant and ultimately still just an opinion. Breitbart IS "described as" even if a thousand reputable sources describe it as. It's still described as. I'm ashamed to see this even evolved into a debate. It's intellectually dishonest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.142.104.5 (talk) 07:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that Ronald Reagan was a far-left commie drug-loving lib'ral. Yeah, it sounds pretty stupid when someone else makes a statement of fact and couches it as an opinion, doesn't it? Now imagine what arguments like these sound like to the rest of us... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant. You have simply added your incorrect belief that opinions are not actually opinions. Your bumper sticker zeal notwithstanding, an opinion is still an opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.190.170.126 (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Wow. That really went right over your head, didn't it? Oh well, not my problem. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Also not relevant. The case remains unchanged. This entire article looks like it was written by a campaign manager. It's unprofessional, biased, and sourced with opinions of those who oppose the organization. Kind of ironic, since many people consider Breitbart to be exactly those things, but the fact remains: this violates NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.190.170.126 (talk) 04:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

As useless as your friend. This article is locked and is against Wikipedia policies. The fact it's not being addressed effectively is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.142.104.35 (talk) 08:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it's time to request a close on this thread. The consensus is blatantly obvious, and completely unchanged since the last one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:54, 23 August 2017 (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.

NOAA data vs Breitbart claim

@DrFleischman: you recently reverted an edit by @Redxiv: which contrasted data from the NOAA with the claims of Breitbart. You classified the claim as WP:OR, but Redvix did give a source, which directly supports the added text. It looks to me as if you are suggesting that the NOAA data isn't useable for the claim because the claim contradicts Breitbart, in the context of Breitbart. The problem with that is that SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition. Care to discuss? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is original research (specifically WP:SYNTH). The juxtaposition is obviously intended to refute Breitbart's claim. The cited source makes no mention of Breitbart and should not be used in this way.- MrX 15:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

It is a factual statement that provides context to the subject of discussion. The conclusions drawn by the segment were:

1. Breitbart published a story claiming that the past three years were cooling. (Verifiable in the source)
2. Breitbart was incorrect. (Verifiable in the source)
3. Those years were actually the warmest on record. (Verifiable in the source)

If your objection is that the juxtaposition concludes that Breitbart was incorrect: that was explicitly stated in the other source. SYNTH is when two or more sources are used to draw a conclusion that is not stated explicitly in either. There's no such conclusion in this edit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :What Mr. X said. It's not exactly clear what material in the the given source was being cited. If it was intended to be used for its annual global temperature data, then it reads as if a Wikipedia editor dug through the primary source data to undercut a contention made by Breitbart. That would be textbook OR and non-neutral to boot. If the cited material was the "past three years" language, then it fails verification, as that paragraph is specifically about Europe. It doesn't work either way. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Mjolnir, I think you misread the source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Or maybe I did. There is a table showing that 2014-2016 were the three warmest years for global temperatures. I need to think about this a bit more. Surely there's a secondary source pointing out Breitbart's...error? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The NYT source points out Breitbart's error.

"Scientists on Friday debunked a widely circulated news media report suggesting that recent record-high global temperatures were unrelated to climate change." – New York Times

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

There you go, let's use that. And I noticed the story has been covered by many other reliable sources, including Politico, USA Today, NPR, CBS, etc. etc. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think those will all be necessary, but feel free to add them in (apologies for the notification you're about to get, but one click is the easiest way). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• Mjolnir, you might have misunderstood. There isn't consensus to restore the content with the NOAA source, so technically you're violating the "consensus required" arbitration rule. Please re-write and cite one or more of the news sources listed above. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The only objections to it have been addressed, as you yourself acknowledged. If you think it need re-writing, I'm certainly open to that. I don't really tnink it needs further sourcing, but I have no objections to further sourcing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The NOAA report does not say anything equivalent to "Those "last three years" at the time of the article's publication were the three warmest years on record." That would be original research of a primary source. It's not allowed.- MrX 19:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The NOAA report directly lists those three years as the three hottest on record. See the chart under the heading "Twelve Warmest Years (1880–2016)". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

That's not in dispute. The NOAA report says nothing about "at the time of the article's publication". Let's just use secondary sources that directly discuss Breitbart's claims.- MrX 20:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Then let's change the wording. The reason I like this content is because is helps contextualize the subject (the Breitbart story). It's certainly relevant, it's verifiable, it's not undue, it's not OR, and the SYNTH issue boils down to wording. If the sentence were to be re-written as "The NOAA released a report which indicated the three years in question (2014, 2015 and 2016) were the hottest recorded at the time of that report." that would pretty clearly address every problem that's been raised with it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• Meh. I'm falling on the side of OR on this one. Specifically, if no reliable source has combined the material in this way then it shouldn't be in the article. If they have, then we should be citing those who do, and not citing NOAA. TimothyJosephWood 19:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The NY Times source directly contradicts the Breitbart narrative already. It would be OR if we sourced the Breitbart content to show that the story was published, then sourced the NOAA content to show that the Breitbart story was wrong, no question. But we already have a source stating definitively that the the Breitbart story was wrong. This sentence doesn't introduce anything new to the list of conclusions that isn't explicitly stated in the NOAA source (provided we word it right). The sentence you quoted from SYNTH is taken from an example that draws a novel conclusion from two sources. That isn't being done here. We're drawing three conclusions, each of which is explicitly stated in the source. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem here is the writing, not the sourcing. The cited sources should be enough to say that Breitbart was wrong. Instead, it has a whole paragraph on the Breitbart claims (probably too much), and then relegates the media response to a second paragraph. In that second paragraph, it merely says that the House committee report was "criticized" and that Weather.com "condemned" the Breitbart article. This is not neutral treatment. As Mjolnir points out, the Breitbart story was debunked by scientists, not criticized by the lamestream media. And if we're going to say something was criticized, then we should describe the criticism; otherwise the criticizers come off as crybabies. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Maybe I'm just slow today, but can you help me understand why the NOAA source is needed at all? The New York Times seems to cover the subject well. Besides, the real story is not that the last three years were the warmest on record, but that Breitbart "cited incomplete data and drew incorrect conclusions" and that the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology foolishly parroted it. - MrX 23:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I see it as a good addition because there's a huge gulf between "Breitbart said these years were cooling, but they're not," and "Breitbart said these years were cooling, but they're not. They were the warmest years on record." The former relates the paper publishing a partisan article, whereas the latter relates the paper publishing an article that was incredibly -and intentionally- deceptive. I'm sure you've all seen me mention my rule of thumb about WP:DUE before; if it changes the narrative and it's verifiable, it's due. Well, this information certainly changes the narrative. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Then use the NYT source. That avoids OR. TimothyJosephWood 23:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The NYT source doesn't mention that the years were the warmest on record, that's from the NOAA source. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'm feeling a certain amount of bark-like texture on my palms right about now and I'm wondering if it's time to let go. So I'm hoping I can get a quick yes/no answer from the three of you. I'll go with the majority here.

Do you feel like the mere fact of including the NOAA source and its claim (that 2014, 2015 and 2016 were the hottest years on record) is OR?

If two of you say "Yes", I think that's a clear enough consensus for me to give it up. If the "No"s win out, then I think we should probably discuss what we can do to fix it. I agree with much of DrFleischman's criticisms of that section above, so a re-write might be in order. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• For this purpose, yes. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@MrX and Timothyjosephwood: Just want to make sure you guys see my question above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Umm... I think this is probably getting more into the area of independent investigative journalism. We're not really the ones that are supposed to reach up and out and find the larger context for readers. We're just kindof supposed to dumbly mimic the people who do. Using this source makes it look like NOAA read BB and felt like they needed to set the record straight, when really all they did was dump a big pile of "here's the facts boys", which happened to contradict the otherwise unrelated assertions BB made. TimothyJosephWood 10:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's original research. - MrX 12:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Alt right sentence

The sentence in the lead says:

"Breitbart News later aligned with the European populist right and American alt-right under the management of former executive chairman Steve Bannon."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/16/magazine/breitbart-alt-right-steve-bannon.html?mtrref=undefined

We have a reliable source here saying Breitbart is not alt-right itself:

"The last thing Yochai Benkler noted before I left his office at Harvard was that his team had performed a textual analysis of all the stories in their database, and they found a surprising result. ‘‘One thing that came out very clearly from our study is that Breitbart is not talking about these issues in the same way you would find on the extreme right,’’ he said. ‘‘They don’t use the same language you find on sites like VDARE and The Daily Stormer’’ — two sites connected to the white-nationalist alt-right movement. He paused for a moment, then added: ‘‘Breitbart is not the alt-right.’’

It does say, however, that "Shapiro’s story suggests a more complicated view of Breitbart’s relationship to the extreme right: not an exponent of all the most incendiary rhetoric but its willing conduit. Under Bannon, the site seemed content to welcome its alt-right base."

In other words, Breitbart is not alt right itself, but under Bannon, became sort of a conduit.

Therefore, I think the sentence should be changed simply to "Breitbart News later aligned with the populist right under the management of former executive chairman Steve Bannon." as right wing populism fits its nationalist anti-globalist position without out-right describing it as alt right, which is inaccurate according to the New York Times and the cited professor. This can be further elaborated in the following paragraph using the above New York Times profile to clarify its ideology. Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, first off, thanks for highlighting the issue. Second, the Times did not adopt Benkler's statement, so the question isn't whether the Times article is a reliable source, but rather whether Benkler's comment is reliable under WP:SPS. I'm not an expert at SPS, but I believe the answer is no, since Benkler did not publish it himself, and as far as I can tell this is not his area of expertise (though I could be mistaken). Finally, even if Benkler's statement is a reliable source, our neutrality policy dictates that we should describe the disagreement among the sources, not remove it entirely. Moreover, I don't believe your "seemed content" language is supported by the sources. All that said, even if Benkler's conclusion isn't reliable, it may be worthy of inclusion in the body with in-text attribution. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

(Personally, I think Benkler's analysis is completely bogus. Breitbart's language isn't what you find on VDARE and The Daily Stormer, ergo, it's not alt-right? By that logic,Richard B. Spencer, the claimed leader of the alt-right, isn't alt-right. Come on.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The second sentence I cited is the Times, not Benkler. Second, VDARE and Daily Stormer were given as examples, not as the only representation of the alt right. Spencer IS a white nationalist and does align with the language used in VDARE and Daily Stormer. Breitbart, while certainly right wing populist, is not white nationalist.

Also, I would say Benkler is a RS as he is a credited academic at Harvard who is studying this issue.

As for the source, the current cited New York Times article for that sentence does not outright say that Breitbart is alt-right either, but uses similar language to the NYT article I linked above that described it as "a willing conduit". Changing the sentence to simply "Breitbart News later aligned with the populist right under the management of former executive chairman Steve Bannon." does not outright *exclude* the possibility of it being alt right either, and its role in the alt right movement can be discussed in more nuanced terms based on the sources cited. The current statement lacks nuance and does not represent what the sources are saying. Marquis de Faux (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that the source you're citing doesn't contradict the current lede. The sentence you want to change doesn't accuse Breitbart of being part of the alt-right, but of "aligning itself" with the alt-right, a state which is never described as "joining", "becoming a part of" or indeed, given any permanence. Given that Breitbart itself said it was the "platform for the alt-right", it's going to take a lot more than one source to change this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Bannon said it was the platform for the alt right when the term first started coming up and wasn't really defined as it is now. The current editors say they have nothing to do with the alt right. Marquis de Faux (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

And we cite three more reliable sources that say that Breitbart is alt-right. There may be more. The question here isn't whether there are reliable sources calling Breitbart reliable sources; the question is whether the Benkler comment creates a dispute among the reliable sources that requires us to give due weight to both viewpoints. Marquis de Faux, has Benkler's work in this field been published by reliable third-party publications? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

And yes, Benkler's work "in this field" is published in various publications from Columbia Journalism Review to NPR to New York Times. https://www.cjr.org/analysis/breitbart-media-trump-harvard-study.php http://www.npr.org/2017/03/14/520087884/researchers-examine-breitbart-s-influence-on-misleading-information Marquis de Faux (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The NPR piece is an interview, not published work. The CJR piece is a good example, however. Given that Benkler is a professor of Entrepreneurial Legal Studies I don't think a singe cite establishes much, however it's far from clear that he's not an expert per WP:SELFPUB. I'm fairly certain that one could dig up enough evidence to reasonably claim him to be an expert on Breitbart's political stance.

But again, the problem is that Benkler's comments don't contradict the claim "Breitbart aligned itself with the alt-right and others under the control of Bannon." Indeed, it doesn't really even address that claim. With a rebuttal from Breitbart to charges of being part of the alt-right already in the lede, I'm not sure why you want to change anything. I'm going to refrain from assuming that you're engaged in attempted white-washing, but I have to be honest: it looks that way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the CJR source gives Benkler "expert status" under WP:SPS. It is not self-published and it's in the relevant field. I also believe that Marquis de Faux is commenting in good faith and not trying to whitewash anything. I would support some appropriately nuanced summary of Benkler's conclusions (beyond simply saying that Breitbart is "not alt-right"). That said, I think Mjolnir is right--I don't see any language in our article that needs changing. We don't actually say that Breitbart is alt-right, we say it's aligned with the alt-right--and that appears to be quite consistent with Benkler's analysis. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)]]

The problem with the current wording is "aligned with the alt right" may lead some readers may make the conclusion that Breitbart itself is alt-right. Therefore, for the sake of clarity and nuance, I believe Benkler's sentence should be added in addition to the current wording. Marquis de Faux (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I also believe that Marquis de Faux is commenting in good faith and not trying to whitewash anything. I agree; In case I wasn't clear enough, know that I was playing devil's advocate in the last line of my previous comment. I'm sure Marquis is working in good faith, just giving them a heads up so they aren't surprised if someone else shows up and starts shouting about POV pushing. This looks to me like good faith discussion, but I know a lot of editors who would not see it that way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it's because of my profession, or my native language, but the quote in question is "Breitbart is not the alt-right" (my emphasis), which is different from "Breitbart is not alt-right". The first says it is not identical to the alt-right, which I would interpret more loosely as "does not represent the whole spectrum of the alt-right movement". The second one uses "alt-right" as an adjective, and would be equivalent to "is not part of the alt-right spectrum", a very different meaning. For me, the first (in the looser sense) is obviously right, and the second is obviously wrong. I would expect an academic like Benkler to make just such a distinction. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Biased

Non-WP:TPO discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is a joke. Undermines my trust in the whole of Wikipedia. Just in the opening paragraph: "far-right", "falsehoods", "conspiracy theories", "intentionally misleading stories", "alt-right." Not going to try to edit it because it's probably going to be useless, just let you know it does undermine the trustworthiness of the whole Wikipedia project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.9.77.220 (talk) 06:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC) Thanks for your feedback. What brings a Cambodian with perfect English to this article, if I might ask? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Alexa US rankings

Is it necessary to put the Alexa ranking for the US in the infobox? This causes problems with consistency between the rankings, because Alexa does not show whether the US one has increased or decreased, at least for people like me who don't have a paid account. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 06:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I think, for websites that it's an important bit of information. That being said, I agree with your edit to it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Fake photo of DACA recipients

I have removed the recently added "Fake photo of DACA recipients" section here as undue. The only thing close to a RS found for it was Think Progress, I also found a Media Matters blog on the subject. With just those covering it, it is not notable enough for it's own section. PackMecEng (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

If there's firm coverage of the blatantly obvious bullshittery of this Breitbart story (seriously: that number looks impressive until you realize that it's only about 0.26% of DACA recipients. Wouldn't life be grand of only 0.26% of the general population were criminals?), then I'd be okay with adding that. But complaining about the photo? Ffs, the use of stock photos, sometimes without description or attribution, sometimes in misleading ways is common practice is yellow journalism and is about as remarkable as breathing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support reinstatement — properly sourced. Argument holds no sway. Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Argument holds no sway. Oh, the irony. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

So a whole section based on, what I can find as only one source, saying that a stock photo was used incorrectly and then removed has enough weight for the article? WP:WEIGHT has not been established for this trivia, especially given the source used. PackMecEng (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

There are at least 5 more sources. Carl Fredrik ^talk 20:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Where are those? PackMecEng (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The thing is, it's the second time in a relatively short period of time this has happened. See the Podolski photo. Volunteer Marek  17:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd be willing to bet good money that any journalist who looked into it would find that it happens with some regularity at Breitbart. If/when said journalist writes a story about it in a major publication, then the question of mentioning this should be revisited. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• Tentatively support exclusion for now. I would like to see better sourcing, and I'm surprised other outlets haven't picked this up yet. I've always had misgivings about relying on ThinkProgress and MMfA. I could be mistaken but I believe there's no consensus either way on their reliability. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

If this was just MMfA I'd agree. But I think TP is a bit better. Anyway, I'll let consensus decide. Volunteer Marek  17:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

TP is the closest thing to a left-wing Fox News I can think of. They're reliable enough for most of their reporting, but they're also reliably biased, and you need to check the fine print for corrections. That being said, the issue here seems more one of weight. This is just one criticism among a flood, and it's one that hasn't stirred up any appreciable fecal weather phenomenon as of yet. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support reinstatement Seems to fit a pattern looking at the other issues that have come up on their site, the Lukas Podolski is just one of those for example. Also other sources have popped up. is just one of many when searching Breitbart using a fake photo now with some of their past issues mixed also. ContentEditman (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@ContentEditman:if you can find some better sourcing than what was used above, I don't think reinstating this content would be a problem. I've pointed out that the criticisms were unremarkable and others have pointed out both that there's very little coverage of it (see WP:DUE) and that the sourcing is questionable. But if there's additional sourcing of a higher quality, that would overcome all of the objections, mine included. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

EA Worldview is a self-published blog and as such is probably unreliable. I agree that we need something better. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Here are 3 others I found by Photo search Those are just some filed under News at google using the Photo search. ContentEditman (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@ContentEditman: those are all blogs. They are not usable as sources for this content. Please read WP:RS and WP:IRS, pay special attention to WP:SELFPUB. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Forbes

Uh, why exactly it's suppose to be non-reliable?  Volunteer Marek  08:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Opinion source. Source link here. "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

That does not make it unreliable. See here for example. Regardless, the lede does not need inline citations if the text it's summarizing is well sourced in the main body. Which it is. I've also added buzzfeed (which you yourself added to main text) so... problem solved?  Volunteer Marek  06:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Forbes content problem solved, thanks. I didn't really add Buzzfeed as much as I simply extended the use of the existing Buzzfeed source; as I mentioned in my edit summary, I have lingering doubts about the reliability of that Buzzfeed source, but that's a separate matter. (And just to be clear, I am not waiving my AE report, so to speak, as we should have had this discussion before you reinstated the Forbes source, not after.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

If you consider the problem solved, what exactly is the point of your WP:AE report?  Volunteer Marek  17:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I just explained it, and it's not appropriate for this page. I'm sure you're aware of the distinction between a content dispute and a conduct dispute. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of discretionary sanctions is to facilitate the resolution of disputes. It turns out there wasn't much of a dispute here to begin with. And your edit summary made it unclear as to what little dispute there was here was about. Since you added the buzzfeed source, you could've just said "hey, mind if I replace the Forbes source with the buzzfeed source?" Or you could've explicitly asked me to do it. Running to AE over this made a mountain of a molehill. Rather than using the DS to resolve the dispute, it only inflamed it. And now, the dispute is resolved, yet you still insist on keeping the AE report active because... .... ...? Because you can?  Volunteer Marek  02:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

New York Times Main Article About Breitbart News Describes It as Conservative-Leaning

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.

---

I am not trying to be disruptive. I am merely trying to help build a great encyclopedia. A great encyclopedia respects WP:BALANCE.

As you probably know, WP:BALANCE says, "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint."

Is not a reputable source the New York Times? The New York Times has an article with "What Is Breitbart News?" as its title. Thus, the article is a highly prominent source for what Breitbart News is. The Times article reports, "The Breitbart News Network, usually just called Breitbart, is a conservative-leaning news website." ["What Is Breitbart News?", New York Times; https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/18/business/media/what-is-breitbart-news.html]

To balance this Wikipedia article's lede, I propose that we build a table of how reputable sources of relatively equal prominence describe Breitbart News. Below is a start of the table. What do you think? Técnico (talk) 03:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

How Reputable Sources of Relatively Equal Prominence Describe Breitbart News

Publication	Article Title	Description of Breitbart	Link	Editor
New York Times	"What is Breitbart News?"	conservative-leaning	[3]	Técnico (talk) 03:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ linked at the top of the page. Volunteer Marek  06:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and didn't you get topic banned from this article by User:Bishonen for exactly this kind of stuff?  Volunteer Marek  06:24, 14 October 2017 (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.