Jump to content

Talk:Breitbart News/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

BuzzFeed

Why is the far-left extremist propaganda site Buzzfeed being cited? Buzzfeed constantly claims President Trump is racist without any evidence and actively promotes the deranged "transgender" ideology. In fact, it is a hate site that engages in unrepentant racism and sexism against white men in the name of the far-left buzzword "diversity."[1] It also promotes racist black supremacist feminist intersectional propaganda, claiming that white people have "white privilege." Buzzfeed is clearly not a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.77.186.210 (talk) 09:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Our WP:SPA probably doesn't believe the rest of our article on Buzzfeed, but it might help other readers understand why we use it. Doug Wellerf talk 16:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps the derangement the OP perceives in transgender comes from personal terror found inside male supremacists? After all, transgender ideas completely undermine their whole agenda. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
What is that supposed to mean, Epipelagic? Are you accusing me of being a white supremacist even though I am Jewish and hate white supremacists? (Personal attack removed) Buzzfeed actively promotes such nonsense. Therefore, Buzzfeed is an unreliable conspiracy theory source that denies science and reality and should not be used on Wikipedia for anything, least of all for attacking it's pro-reality and pro-Jewish (leftists hate Jews) enemy Breitbart. -- 110.77.186.210 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.228.252.106 (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
While the OP's comments are a non-starter, I have my doubts about the reliability of the recent Jared Bernstein expose. Why isn't this 4-day-old bombshell of a news story being picked up by the mainstream media? The closest I can find are Vox and Business Insider. (I'm excluding a couple of stories about Mitchell Sunderland, which is really a spinoff.) Direct ties between Breitbart and neo-Nazis certainly seems like broadsheet, network, and CNN-type material, yet none of those outlets have covered it, so something smells fishy here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Why isn't this 4-day-old bombshell of a news story being picked up by the mainstream media? I do not think this characterization is correct. I see several outlets who have commented on this story (apart from the couple you mentioned). Just a small sample:
Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
It's disingenous to suggest that that's a list of coverage by the mainstream media. The Boston Globe source isn't about Breitbart; it's about a Boston-area local who was quoted in the story. It no different from the stories about Sunderstein. Moreover while the Globe source describes BuzzFeed's conclusions, it does not cite them approvingly (typically down in news stories with laaguage like "According to BuzzFeed..."). The bottom line is that apparently not a single U.S. broadsheet, network, CNN, NPR, or similar caliber source has adopted BuzzFeed's conclusions, despite this being extremely newsworthy material. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
The New York Daily News isn't exactly a scion of professionalism, but notice how they handled the story. They accept the e-mails uncovered by BuzzFeed as true and conclude that Yiannopoulosbut did indeed cavort with neo-nazis, but they do not draw the same exceptional conclusions that BuzzFeed did about Breitbart. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand what your point is. What text in the article do you think should be changed? If there's no change you'd like in particular, why are we even having this discussion? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I haven't decided, but I'm considering whether we should remove this content--whether because the Buzzfeed source isn't reliable for the conclusions we're citing it for about Breitbart, or because the conclusions fall into WP:EXCEPTIONAL and the sourcing isn't robust enough. I wonder what other editors think about this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I support removing the quotation that begins, According to Buzzfeed, "These new emails and documents…clearly show." If another WP:RS were to draw such an inference, we should consider including it. But to reproduce Buzzfeed's damning conclusion based solely on its own exposé is unjustified. As to the sentences preceding According to Buzzfeed, however, I oppose deleting them. Buzzfeed's story represents a milestone in the history of Breitbart News and deserves to be noted. KalHolmann (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
It's a direct quote from Buzzfeed which summarizes what the story's about.Vox summarizes the story in very similar terms: "A scoop from BuzzFeed News’s Joseph Bernstein, based on internal documents from Breitbart, shows how the far-right site gave white nationalists and neo-Nazis a media platform while simultaneously courting reporters at the very liberal outlets that frequently criticized it." and "But one big takeaway is that despite Breitbart’s public insistence that it is not a “hate site,” its editors and writers were well aware they were offering white nationalists and neo-Nazis a platform." Volunteer Marek  00:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Except that was it really Breitbart that solicited the stories from neo-Nazis, or was it just Yiannopoulos? That's where the Buzzfeed story seems to make some exceptional and questionable inferences (which were not picked up by the NY Daily News). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
The text does not claim that Breitbart solicited the stories from neo-Nazis. Not sure what that would entail since Breitbart is not actually a sentient being - obviously it had to be SOMEONE AT BREITBART that did the soliciting. That someone was Milo with the blessing of both Bannon and Marlow and some help from Bokhari. What exactly are the "exceptional and questionable inferences" made by Buzzfeed?  Volunteer Marek  00:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with KalHolmann's proposal, with the additional provision that the statement in the lead that the group implicated with the leaked emails was "Breitbart's management, together with writer Milo Yiannopoulos" should be modified to read "the writer Milo Yiannopoulos, together with other Breitbart employees". --Epipelagic (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Dr. Fleischman asks "was it really Breitbart that solicited the stories from neo-Nazis, or was it just Yiannopoulos?" According to Wikipedia, Milo served as editor of Breitbart Tech from October 2015 through February 2017. According to BuzzFeed, Milo—preparing an ambitious article ("my big feature on the alt right") for Breitbart—solicited input from Andrew "Weev" Auernheimer, Curtis Yarvin and Devin Saucier on March 9, 2016. Breitbart published Milo's "An Establishment Conservative's Guide to the Alt-Right," on March 29, 2016. To suggest that Milo was acting strictly on his own in this, and not as a high-profile Breitbart editor, is inconsistent with the emails reported by BuzzFeed. KalHolmann (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Ok so I'm seriously at a loss as to why this story hasn't been picked up by the mainstream media. Any ideas? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Dr. Fleischman, I submit that this story, as other editors have pointed out here, has been picked up by the mainstream sufficient media.
These may not meet our gold standard of The New York Times or The Washington Post, but each of these outlets has its own Wikipedia page and is regularly cited by our editors as a reliable source. KalHolmann (talk) 03:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Dr. Fleischman, as an afterthought, if there is a Wikipedia policy or guideline advising editors to not cite a news story unless it has been picked up by the mainstream media, it would be helpful if you could point that out to us. Thank you. KalHolmann (talk) 06:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
The relevant policy would be WP:EXCEPTIONAL. But check out the sources you linked to. Almost none of them adopt the same conclusions as Buzzfeed about Breitbart. I'm not necessarily saying we should remove the content, but it's bizarre. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
It also got play in Politico although succinctly - they also repeat the same quote we have here. Volunteer Marek  13:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, good find. The fact that Politico quoted Bernstein might be read as an indication that it considers Bernstein's conclusion to be opinion content. Also, that's a news digest, not an article. I'm puzzled as to why Politico wouldn't consider the story worthy of its own article. I guess newsroom editors think this just isn't that big a deal? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Dr. Fleischman, at this point you seem preoccupied with second-guessing the editorial judgment of various media outlets without actually proposing a specific change to improve the article at hand. That is not constructive. KalHolmann (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure we're allowed to have a good faith, open-ended discussion about something that could impact whether the material stays or goes. There's no requirement that every discussion propose a specific change. This isn't an RfC. If you want to discuss your WP:NOTFORUM concerns further, I'm happy to do so at user talk. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Dr. Fleischman, the first sentences of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines state: "The purpose of an article's talk page…is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or WikiProject. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." Please, what am I missing here? KalHolmann (talk) 18:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
What you are missing is that whether or not to use a source is absolutely a proper discussion subject for a talk page, even of there's no proposed addition. In fact, there's a very concrete proposed removal of material being discussed here. Furthermore, I don't see a single instance of Fleishmann airing their personal views on the subject, so you seem to be missing that the entirety of discouraged conduct in your quote is completely inapplicable. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
MPants at work, the editor in question did not propose removing material. To the contrary, he wrote, "I'm not necessarily saying we should remove the content." Nor did he say keep the content. He made no concrete proposal of any kind to improve the article. Instead, he expressed personal opinions such as "something smells fishy here" and "it's bizarre." I challenged him on that and he responded. End of story. KalHolmann (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

There is a recent op-ed on the matter in the NY Times by Lindy West, one of the people mentioned in the Buzzfeed story. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

It's an op-ed, but notice how it doesn't any anything about Breitbart. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Sure it does: "Yiannopoulos, working under the orders of the man who would become the president’s chief strategist, was soliciting ideological guidance from overt white supremacists including Andrew Auernheimer, known as Weev, of the neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer. " What do you think that is talking about?  Volunteer Marek  19:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I understand the connection--I'm not daft. The question is why folks are talking about Yiannopoulos and not Breitbart. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Bannon was the head of Breitbart then, and he is the head of Breitbart now. In one of emails Milo told one of his subordinates (I am paraphrasing): "you don't need to link the honchos in an email thread showing how the sausage is made. They know how the sausage is made, but don't need to be reminded of the details all the time". Hence the title of the NYT op-ed: America loves plausible deniability. That is why people are talking about Milo and Breitbart together. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
No, they are not talking about Breitbart. Not in this op-ed, and not in most of the sources that are covering the Buzzfeed expose. That's a fact. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 October 2017

The article starts with "Breitbart News Network (known commonly as Breitbart News, Breitbart or Breitbart.com) is a far-right[6] American news, opinion and commentary[7][8] website founded in 2007 by conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart."

Using "far-right" to describe the website is in itself inflammatory and subjective. Additionally, the cited sources do nothing to support use of this adjective. Recommend changing to "conservative-leaning" as described in source #92. Joeimp (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done - There is currently consensus to describe Breitbart as far-right based on numerous sources. Please see archived discussions. - MrX 14:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

CPAC?

In the Steven Bannon image caption, what is "CPAC" supposed tp stand for? That should be explained if you ask me. Kind regards--Herfrid (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

A quick Google search brought up the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) which Bannon attended, which is possibly where the image was taken or sourced from. Yes, it should be explained better. -- Longhair\talk 14:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality of opening

One of Wikipedia's policies for articles is a "neutral point of view" yet the article for Breitbart News is anything but. It's not possible to write a more over-the-top introduction that would be praised by Breitbart's most hateful opponents. If those are issues with Breitbart, why wouldn't they be included in other common Wikipedia sections, such as "criticisms" or "controversies." Even then, accusations of misogyny and racism are hardly neutral. Instead, the clear intention of the article's opening is to simply smear Breitbart, its audience, or anyone even thinking about reading the publication. How is that a "neutral point of view?" 65.95.135.126 (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. The lead could use a bit of trimming in my view, but by and large it appears to be reflective of what the reliable sources say. Like it or not, the news coverage of Breitbart by independent media has been overwhelmingly negative. It is not our job to counteract that coverage by creating an article that reflects neither negatively or positively on Breitbart; that would create a false equivalence, contrary to our neutrality policy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Ideology of Drudge Report

You are invited to participate in the RfC at Talk:Drudge Report#RfC: Should the article say that Drudge Report has been described as far-right?. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2017

This sentence repeats the word "had" in "which had already had": The article summarized a previous story in the UK tabloid Daily Mail,[195][196] which had already had been described by climate change scientists as a "textbook case of cherry picking".

Should be changed to: The article summarized a previous story in the UK tabloid Daily Mail,[195][196] which had already been described by climate change scientists as a "textbook case of cherry picking". LaPlancha (talk) 02:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Done SkyWarrior 03:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 November 2017

" and some of its content has been called misogynist, xenophobic and racist." 2602:306:B854:4F50:B45A:2406:3C12:6F53 (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The above is a personal Opinion of the writer who describes Breitbart news and should never be in a Description of the Product.

Either delete the Personal opinion or put it in every Political website description and as well in every newspaper website description including the Washington Post and the new York Times....

 Not done - The edit request is based on a false premise. Also it's not specific, does not have consensus, and is unlikely to get consensus. - MrX 21:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Delingpole

There are several sentences in a section about writing by James Delingpole.

The first is: "In November 2016, Breitbart published an article by James Delingpole that falsely claimed that global temperatures were falling rather than rising, and accused "alarmists" in news media and scientists of a cover-up."

On October 10 I changed with the edit summary "Quote of Delingpole article should cite Delingpole article and not add Wikipedia-editor judgment of it". User:Nomoskedasticity quickly reverted with the edit summary "nonononono -- we'll use the secondary source...."). Nomoskedasticity was wrong because:

(a) Delingpole actually said land temperatures fell during a short period in late 2016, which is far different from "global temperatures were falling" and which is not refuted by the cites
(b) WP:IRS says "To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted."
(c) WP:USINGPRIMARY says "Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation."
(d) Delingpole didn't say "cover-up"
(e) The source that Nomoskedasticity prefers does not even contain the particular Delingpole statements that Wikipedia now refers to.

But it gets worse. The Wikipedia article goes on about the same Delingpole article: "It featured an unrelated video made by and for Weather.com about the El Niño cooling period that did not support the article's claims, which had already had been debunked after the Daily Mail article ..." and "Weather.com condemned the Breitbart story in an article titled "Note to Breitbart: Earth Is Not Cooling, Climate Change Is Real and Please Stop Using Our Video to Mislead Americans"." But weather.com is wrong. We have Wayback snapshots from the day of the breitbart.com publication and the day of the weather.com complaint. No video, no mention of weather.com. A chart that might be from a video was in an article that Delingpole referred to from The Mail On Sunday, which might have caused the confusion.

Then there are two sentences about another Delingpole article, which once again go against WP:IRS and WP:USINGPRIMARY, choosing instead to cite a blog critizing it.

I believe the appropriate thing to do with such material about a BLP is: remove. I'll hold off, though, to see whether there is a consensus to insert it despite it being false. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan, thanks for raising this issue. Since reading your points, I've made a couple of edits pertaining to Delingpole. However, I'd like to correct your final sentence, which erroneously identifies Wikipedia's page Breitbart News as a WP:BLP; its subject is an organization, not a person. As for the confusion about whether or not breitbart.com published a video by weather.com, I don't think we're going to resolve that with dueling URLs from Internet Archive. Certainly, weather.com claimed that breitbart.com published their video, so we probably ought to leave it at that. Removing weather.com's condemnation of the Breitbart story is unwarranted. KalHolmann (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
You are wrong, I never said the Breitbart News page is a BLP, I said the material I'd described is about a BLP -- WP:BLP says "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia ..." and Delingpole is alive. As for the idea that weather.com's claims should go in with Wikipedia's voice despite the evidence they were mistaken, well, not much I can do about such ideas. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
No, Nomoscedasticity was right here. a) While he may have said they fell in late 2016, the whole tone of the Breitbart article is written to suggest otherwise. NY Times correctly summarized and paraphrased it. b) That only applies to direct quotes, it's not an issue here. c) "Sometimes" does not mean "this particular time". And again, this applies to direct quotes, which is not the issue here. d) So what? The implication in the Breitbart article is pretty clear. e) The NY Times summarizes the Delingpole article. Volunteer Marek  21:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
a) You are saying what what you think is Delingpole's "tone" is more important than what he actually said, I don't know what Wikipedia policy allows that; b) WP:IRS does not say direct quoted material it says quoted material; c) WP:USINGPRIMARY applies for "alarmists" which is inside quote marks in the Wikipedia article; d) I'll take that as an admission that you realize he didn't say it and you don't care; e) the New York Times does not contain the statements that the Wikipedia article citing the New York Times claims that Delingpole said, it doesn't even contain the word "Delingpole". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the consensus here. There;s nothing wrong with the New York Times' coverage of what happened. In the absence of secondary sources that contradict it, it is better to rely on this reliable secondary source than to go back to the primary source material. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I did say that I'd wait to see whether there is a consensus to insert the material despite it being false, and I will believe there is such a consensus if nobody else pipes up. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
On review of the sources, I'm inclined to agree with Peter Gulutzan on all points; particularly that some of our article content is not in the sourced references. I'll also add that in this editor's engvar, "falsely claimed" implies an intent to deceive; that is a strong claim for which we have no sourcing. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Add to the above concerns. We state: The article summarized a previous story in the UK tabloid Daily Mail,[195][196] which had already had been debunked by scientists who called it "a textbook case of cherry picking".[197] The Climate Feedback source at 197 was published 2 Dec 16, 2 days after the Breitbart article (30 Nov 16); 5 days after the Daily Mail (27 Nov 16). - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
On closer examination, I do see some problems. Neither the NY Times source nor the underlying Breitbart source accuse anyone of engaging in a cover-up. The closest you can come is the accusation that Buzzfeed and "climate alarmists" ignored the cherry-picked information. And I don't think "debunked" is the appropriate word either. Too strong and not supported by secondary sources, should be replaced with "described." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Ryk72, thank you for piping up. Do you agree that all sentences about what Delingpole said should be removed, or do you have a different suggestion? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I made a couple of changes that I believe get us closer to where we need to be. Personally I don't have a problem with "falsely claimed," as the New York Times source says that the report was "debunked." Debunked means proven to be false. "Falsely claimed" doesn't imply any intent to deceive. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Ryk72, you're mistaken on the chronology. The Climate Feedback source is dated November 26, after the Daily News and before Breitbart. You may have been confused with the New York Times source, which was published on December 2. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
DrFleischman, Please check again. The Climate Feedback source here is dated as published Dec 2 (at the bottom of the page). It is an analysis of the original Daily Mail article, which was published on Nov 26; it is to the DM article that the CF's use of the Nov 26 date relates. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
So true. It's a confusing page, thanks for walking me through it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Update: DrFleischman has removed "activists" and "cover-up" so my objections (c) and (d) are handled, but nothing else. I continue to favour removal, but Ryk72 has not replied so I don't gauge there's enough support for that for now. I don't care whether the "pov-section" tag remains in the article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
@Peter Gulutzan: I apologise for the slow response. The edits of DrFleischman in ensuring alignment with our P&Gs are noted appreciatively; but significant issues remain. The section starts poorly with a lead sentence (Breitbart published an article by James Delingpole that falsely claimed that global temperatures were falling rather than rising.) which is a claim contradicted by the Breitbart article itself, but also a claim not made by the referenced source. The Weather.com aspect is just bizarre; I also cannot find anything which shows the use of the video. Have been turning things over in my head trying to find if there's a way to salvage something from this section. On balance, I think there's not; and concur with you in favour of removal. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't understand the remaining problems. I did make a slight change to the first sentence that hopefully addressed your concern there. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
The attempt at addressing the concern is appreciated. However, neither global temperatures were falling rather than rising (before the edit) nor record-high global temperatures were unrelated to global warming (after) is something that the referenced source suggests is a claim made by Delingpole in the Breitbart News article. It does assert the latter claim was made in The Mail on Sunday. That is, the source does not support our article text. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 03:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Now there's no consensus for keeping the sentences in and it's a BLP issue. So: let's wait a few more days in case someone who's merely been watching wishes to comment at last, and in case DrFleischman wishes to continue bit-by-bit removing. Then, if the situation remains approximately as it is now, I intend to remove all sentences between "In November 2016 ..." and "... flawed reasoning". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
In other words, you propose to delete the entire section. That's not going to happen. If there are specific issues that still concern you, we can explore them further. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
The concerns have already been stated. However, adding your apparent "keep" opinion to ones from KalHolmann + Volunteer Marek + DrFleischman, I must withdraw my "there's no consensus" judgment. If I'm not sure in the end that it's proper to say that there's no consensus, then I won't remove. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman: The changes that were made addressed only a few of the stated concerns, as previously stated. I'm not acting on this in the face of four editors who (I think) want to keep as is -- but since you want to discuss it more, good. First, WP:IRS -- Delingpole is still supposedly being quoted but the cite is not to Delingpole. Here's a parallel -- did you notice that KalHolmann claimed I'd erroneously identified "Wikipedia's page Breitbart News as a WP:BLP", and did you believe that, or did you look at what I actually said and realize that KalHolmann was wrong? If the latter, then you just preferred a so-called "primary" source -- but if this talk page went by the rule that folks are applying to the article, then you wouldn't have even seen my own words. Second, WP:V -- the source that was cited for the Delingpole quote is still being cited, but that source doesn't mention what Delingpole supposedly said so you can't verify from there. Additionally WP:V says to use a source that "directly supports the material", but a source that doesn't even contain the word "Delingpole" won't meet that criterion. Third, WP:NOTRS -- "Questionable sources should only be used as sources for material on themselves". The weather.com writer was demonstrably wrong about the most basic point of her assault on Delingpole (see the title), and Ryk72 correctly described the situation as "bizarre". The fact that went public shows lack of "meaningful editorial oversight" (WP:NOTRS's words) and, since the defence could only show that "weather.com claimed" not "weather.com's claim shows something more than weather.com's bizarreness", quoting it was wrong. (I see that there is now an additional cite to the Guardian, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the weather.com sentence that it follows.) Fourth, WP:SPS -- According to whom is Climate Feedback a news magazine? Who says it has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? Fifth, WP:BLP -- I've seen no further dispute that BLP "applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia" so this was all supposed to have been written "with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." The fact that you've had to do bit-by-bit removals should, I hope, help you realize that it wasn't. Sixth, a little more about "primary". I've seen this word used in cases like this but don't see how it applies, it seems to me that if we didn't cite people that we're quoting then we can't use attributed cites at all. If you know of a WP:NOR discussion that concluded this, please show. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't follow all of this. Which specific source are we citing to that doesn't cite to Delingpole or mention what Delingpole said? Which source is questionable and why? What's wrong demonstrably wrong about the reference to weather.com? Where do we say Climate Feedback is a news magazine? I don't want to hear about what policy applies or does apply, I want to understand what content you want removed or changed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
In order: New York Times; weather.com; the unreliability; you don't and you can't; policies matter; all sentences between "In November 2016 ..." and "... flawed reasoning". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Again, Peter wants to remove the entire section. Again, this isn't going to happen. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Peter, not constructive. I agree with Nomoskedasticity at this point. Nothing more is getting deleted at this point. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
DrFleischman, Both Peter Gulutzan and I independently identify the same issues; which are as he has outlined them above. I, therefore, do follow all of this, and may be able to clarify. The first issue is that the first sentence, In November 2016, Breitbart published an article by James Delingpole that falsely claimed that record-high global temperatures were unrelated to global warming., is not directly supported by the source referenced[2]. The source does assert that this was suggested by The Mail on Sunday, and that that TMoS article was summarized by Breitbart News; but we cannot synthesise these into the current text in our article. I'm not sure what the best approach to resolving this is - text that is supported by the source would be overly complex: In November 2016, Breitbart published an article by James Delingpole that (summarized,referenced,referred to) an article in The Mail on Sunday which falsely claimedsuggested that record-high global temperatures were unrelated to global warming. That's not great prose. But it is aligned with the sources and with policy. The second issue is the inclusion of the Weather.Com article title, "Note to Breitbart: Earth Is Not Cooling, Climate Change Is Real and Please Stop Using Our Video to Mislead Americans", in our article text. Weather.Com is not a reliable source for facts about the content of Breitbart articles (and appears to be actually factually incorrect in this instance). It is also a primary source for a claim (about the use of the video) which has no coverage in reliable secondary sources. Without secondary coverage, inclusion of this aspect is undue. Remove the article title. I hope this is clearer. Am in the process of reviewing the last paragraph of the section. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)'

First sentence

Thank you. Let's start with the first sentence. What is the relevance for the purpose of our article of the fact that the report first appeared in the The Mail on Sunday and then was summarized by Breitbart? Breitbart repeated the conclusion of the Mail. Scientists debunked it. What am I missing here? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
WP:SYNTH? The distinction was important enough for the NYT to make it. We can't synthesise two parts of the source to make a conclusion ourselves. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
By "the distinction," you're referring to the fact that the Times said the report was debunked, rather than the summary of the report? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I mean that the New York Times does state that a report, which appeared in The Mail on Sunday, suggested that recent record-high global temperatures were unrelated to climate change. The Times does not state that Breitbart News published an article which falsely claimed that record-high global temperatures were unrelated to global warming. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
The Times says that a report that was summarized in Breitbart News was debunked by scientists, correct? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I feel as though the issues with the first sentence have already been sufficiently articulated. The Times does not state that Breitbart News published an article which falsely claimed that record-high global temperatures were unrelated to global warming. or its equivalent. The Times does not state anything else which would directly support that statement or its equivalent. There is no way to take what the Times does state; to synthesise it into supporting that statement; and to remain aligned with core policy. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Then I guess we're done. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I'll start making some edits to align with WP:NOR then. I think removing Delingpole's name is a good start. He's not mentioned in the referenced source, and Peter Gulutzan has highlighted WP:BLP concerns. If anyone has any better wording that that above, please suggest it. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 05:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Please propose your changes here first. I do not think you should be editing to reflect your concerns that have been discussed and for which you do not have consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Ryk72: Obviously you don't have to obey DrFleischman, but I fear any editing that you do would just be reverted, and explaining hasn't worked. Do you think an RfC is worth considering? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Weather.com

On the weather.com sentence. Ok, I understand your concern about using a primary source, but how can you say the use of the video has received no coverage in reliable secondary sources? Did you research this at all? I am going to switch this to use a reliable secondary source that verifies the content as written. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm happy to clarify my previous comment to say for which we do not currently reference any reliable secondary sources. If they exist, then that's great. We should use them. Inclusion of the title is still undue. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

"cited in right wing circles"

I cannot find support for this aspect in NBC News and USA Today sources. The WaPost source is paywalled from where I am (or I've read too much this month). Is the support in that source? If so, could the relevant section be copied for discussion? I don't personally doubt that it's true. I think the cite of Breitbart by the US House Committee on S, S & T is likely to have made it a popular discussion point in a number of circles. But we require verifiability. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 06:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 December 2017

Remove the biased and opinion from this entry. Saying that the sight has been called bigoted and racist is deceptive to uninformed and those that are truly interested in reading, understanding, and learning something. In this day of social media and armchair reporting, anyone can be called any anything by anyone. The founder of Wikileaks has been called a rapist...yet he is innocent until proven guilty. 104.129.196.155 (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

 Not done - You did not specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it.- MrX 20:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Leftist political goggles

It's ridiculous that I even have to be here writing this. After reading this article, I skipped over to the Wikipedia entry for CNN, which cites objectively who founded it, and the history of the news network. It goes on to detail controversies, but is at least fair. This article starts out defaming the legitimacy of the news outlet based on partisan opinion, and continues as though it is some kind of leftist "snopes" debunk of everything they have accomplished or reported. I am frankly disgusted that whoever wrote it thought this was an objective description. I'm an educated scientist that spends time writing objective HONEST scientific papers and opinions, and there is NOTHING objective about how this article is written. It should be completely deleted and rewritten. The Wikipedia description of CNN doesn't open with how Donna Brazile unfairly fed Hillary Clinton debate questions, or how the network continually advances the totally unproven conspiracy theory about Russian collusion to win the 2016 presidential election, and the Breitbart article shouldn't lead with: "The site has published a number of falsehoods and conspiracy theories,[9][10][11][12] as well as intentionally misleading stories.[13] Its journalists are ideologically driven, and some of its content has been called misogynist, xenophobic and racist.[14]". REALLY!? CNN's description doesn't describe them as "intentionally misleading", "ideologically driven", and "xenophobic and racist", although from the point of view of the right, THEY CERTAINLY ARE! Let's keep encyclopedia journals objective. This one is frankly insulting to anyone with any amount of intelligence, and anyone who defends its supposed objectivity is a partisan fascist by the literal description. The term alt-right should only be used with quotations "alt-right" as everyone seems to have a different opinion about what it means.

If Wikipedia wants to inform people that Andrew Breitbart founded the news outlet to provide a voice to the pro-Israel movement, that is fine, and accurate. Labeling the entire organization as "intentionally misleading" is definitely partisan rather than objective. CNN is certainly intentionally misleading, and ideologically driven, and it is NOT stated in the opening of their description. Lets keep the punches above the belt. If you want to rant about Breitbart on political forums, that is fine, but the "encyclopedia" articles should be objective and devoid of opinions. Whoever wrote this needs to clean it up to have a clean conscience about their objectivity, or admit they are a partisan fascist.

Xlaziox (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia new editor! CNN and Breitbart are not remotely in the same league, so trying to compare the two articles is not useful. You claim that the entire organization is labeled as "intentionally misleading", but that's not true is it? What the article actually says is that "The site has published... intentionally misleading stories." which is a different thing altogether. The lead rightfully highlights the things for which Breitbart is most notable.- MrX 21:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
CNN is an enormous news organization which protects itself from revenue loss by maintaining a rigid adherence to a certain minimum standard of journalistic ethics; in doing so, they ensure that their news coverage remains in demand to a wide audience, and thus reduce the incentive of any of their customers to pull advertisements from CNN. This reputation allowed them to grow to a size where a single advertiser pulling their business out would not have any appreciable impact upon their annual earnings. As a result of that growth, CNN faces no appreciable political pressures from their customer base. Their news programming is allowed to stand, even when it offends their customers. This reputation also stands as a powerful incentive to maintain their standards of journalistic ethics; as their entire business model is based upon the trust shown to them by the public, the loss of said trust is one thing that could quickly bankrupt the business.
Breitbart, on the other hand, operates on such a small budget (in comparison to CNN), that a single advertiser pulling out could cause them to experience a loss of revenue. This loss of revenue could drive down prices, resulting in further losses of revenue, and possibly even bankruptcy. However, they were established as having a specific political view, and as such tend to attract advertisers who share their political view, or who wish to advertise to people who share their political view. This served as a sort of filter; Breitbart could never get too large (they would never achieve any appreciable market share in large cities), but ensured that they enjoyed a cozy relationship with their customers. This severely reduces the incentive for advertisers to pull ads from Breitbart, but drastically increases pressures upon Breitbart to misrepresent the truth in order to maintain said political ideology. It provides no incentives whatsoever to maintain any journalistic standards.
These differences had the utterly predictable result of a neutral, non-partisan encyclopedia such as Wikipedia thus describing these two organizations in vastly different ways. CNN is notable for being a news outlet. Breitbart is notable for publishing numerous falsehoods. There is little we can do about this difference without sacrificing our own set of ethics, because the difference between the two articles is reflective of the difference between the two groups, and not of the politics of this wide open organization which anyone can contribute to, even without joining (namely, Wikipedia).
In summary, if you think Breitbart and CNN are the same sorts of groups, only with different political stances, then I'm afraid you have no business editing articles such as this one. I would suggest you start editing articles which are less controversial, and stick to that until you feel you have a solid understanding of our policies and guidelines before returning to edit political articles. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add direct quote from 2017 book on birtherism

This edit contradicts the NYT[3]. There is no way for any of us to check the source without buying the book. Could user:Iselilja send a picture of the page in question or post direct quotes from the book that substantiate that Breitbart never promoted birtherism? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Luckily, there is a way to check it without buying the book. Direct quote "they have never advocated 'birtherism' ". Iselilja (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
User:DrFleischman Thanks for trying to copyedit, but you introduce some inaccuaracies. The incident did not happen at CPAC but at "The Uninvited" counter conference arranged by Bannon for people who were unwelcome at CPAC. Green makes a point of Taitz not even being welcome among "The Uninvited". Besides, the statement that the Breitbart site did not promote birtherism stands for itself. It's not like this epiode is "the evidence" and should not be written as such. Please consult the source. Iselilja (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Ok thanks for correcting me. I was thinking about getting rid of that bit about Taitz anyway. It does seem a bit far afield. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Infobox: website or newspaper

There's an RfC on whether a news website should use {{Infobox website}} or {{Infobox newspaper}}: Talk:The Times of Israel#RfC on infobox. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 December 2017

Remove the "far right" from this entry. The use of the phrase is subjective, opinion, and misleading. The purpose and reason for continued support of this sit depends on impartial and consistent facts....not opinion. Thanks. 104.129.196.155 (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

 Not done - Consensus is to maintain the far right description. See previous discussions.- MrX 20:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
This is why I and many others no longer actively participate in this site and nobody takes this place's political articles seriously anymore. Its devolved into just a handful of rabid partisans squatting on their own personal fiefdoms. No rational person can think systematically going around frontloading the intros of rightwing organizations and people with labels from their opponents and negative info is 'neutrality' just because they got a few of their buddies together to agree and selectively googled a few 'citations' saying what they want to hear. Enjoy your 'victory while WP goes further down the toilet. Jarwulf (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
No one's going to force you to understand how Wikipedia works. You are free to wallow in ignorant self-righteousness. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is the 5th most visited web site in the world. You might want to re-think your critiques a bit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Promotion of identitarianism

BullRangifer, what's wrong with this content? I don't see the WP:OR or WP:PROMOTION angles. It appears to be supported by the cited secondary source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I missed it, but was there a secondary or tertiary source there which proved that to be true? -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes - a book source, for which MichiganWoodShop helpfully added a quote. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay, let's see if there's another way to get this to work. (I'm an inclusionist. ) First, WP:LEAD is violated by placing that content and ref in the lead without it first being used in the body. It needs to be there first, and then a very summarized version might be appropriate in the lead, but not necessarily. We don't summarize every detail and source and then add it to the lead. We need to look at the important subjects covered in the body and summarize them. That usually means a short summary of each section. (More on this in my essay: WP:How to create and manage a good lead section.)
BTW, that book clearly identifies Bannon as a racist: "his racist and anti-Muslim views". That is in the context of commenting on Trump's anti-Muslim agenda. That should be used here and at Trump's and Bannon's articles. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

More than a year ago it was decided in a discussion that Breitbart should be described as 'Far Right'. However, there are multiple issues regarding this

  • (1) The majority of editors opposed the term being used - Not even close to consensus for 'Keep'
  • (2) A high number of sources were op-eds - not neutral
  • (3) Some of the listed sources, such as the BBC source labelled Breitbart 'Right Wing', but never 'Far Right' - misleading readers
  • (4) The use of 'Far Right' is used very prominently without context, such as 'John Doe of the New York Times described Breitbart as Far Right.' This indicates it is an unquestionable fact (it isn't)
  • (5) The fact that the term gets removed so often demonstrates a clear lack of consensus on the issue.
  • (6) Far Right is associated with white nationalism, Nazism, and fascism

If we are going to keep this description, these points need to be addressed. KU2018 (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding (1), If you don't think there was a consensus there, then bring it up with the closer, Black Kite. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

::Ok, I will check with Black Kite. This discussion should continue though as that was closed a long while ago. KU2018 (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding (6) - and? Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Every single one of these claims has been directly addressed, by me, either directly to you, or to another editor in a link I provided you in my recent comment on your talk page. To summarize:
  1. That is completely false. The clear majority have supported the term through several discussions. (That particular discussion was 14 in favor and 10 opposed.)
  2. Opinion sources are not inherently biased or unreliable. In addition, not all of them (not even most) are opinion sources.
  3. "Far-right" is a more specific label, and a subset of "right-wing". The relevant fact is that absolutely no reliable sources ever dispute "far-right" or apply a different subset of "right-wing", such as "center-right" or "moderate right". This is not sources disagreeing, this is certain sources being less specific than others.
  4. That is due to our policy of not presenting facts as opinions. There is no dispute in the reliable sources over Breitbart's political views. Hence, we present them as facts.
  5. That doesn't matter one bit. We don't base our content decisions on the views of editors.
  6. Not our problem. If Breitbart doesn't like us calling them "far-right" they should stop publishing far-right content. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

*1. No consensus - not even close. Sorry for miscounting.

  • 2. The lack of the far-right terms outside of op-ed suggest it is an opinion, not a fact. If it was so clear then nearly all sources would use 'Far Right'
  • 3. Being more specific does not mean the label is true: The Republican party is Right Wing (broad) or far right (false)
  • 4 There is dispute between the reliable sources. BBC does no use the term
  • 5 Well Wikipedia clearly does because the view of the editor was to perform a closure without consensus
  • 6 Just because they published some material consistent with far right views, it doesn't mean that what they primarily, without question, are.

Saying 'right wing' would still be accurate and is far less controversial and would be compatible with people and sources arguing for far right and far right is part of the right wing, not vice versa. A thumb is always a finger, a finger in not always a thumb. KU2018 (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  1. You demonstrably don't know what a consensus is. Please read WP:CONSENSUS. Continuing to make false claims such as this quickly becomes disruptive and can result in sanctions.
  2. See my response above. I have already addressed this.
  3. Multiple sources stating it and zero sources disagreeing with it does.
  4. Bullshit.
  5. Bullshit. See WP:V.
  6. Doesn't matter. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
MPants point is that the BBC source does not conflict with the other sources - it does not dispute the far-right label, but merely uses right-wing. If it used center-right, that would be conflict. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't see why it matters that it would be less controversial. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

::Because this would help achieve consensus. Using right wing does not contradict far right. If you said John Doe was from London instead of 1 High Street, London, there would be no contradiction. 5 and 6 are not BS by the way, these are obvious points. The reasoning of 6 should be considered in every article for fairness KU2018 (talk) 14:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

5 is a bullshit claim on your part. Either you are misrepresenting the facts or unaware of them. The latter can be corrected with research on your part, the former can be corrected by a mouseclick on the part of an admin. It is up to you which it will turn out to be.
6 is simply not a concern of ours. We label white supremacists as white supremacists, Nazis as Nazis, KKK members as KKK members, regardless of whether or not they are offended by the labeling. See WP:NOTCENSORED for more on this. Also see WP:YESPOV which clearly states that anything which is asserted uncontested and unattributed by the reliable sources can be asserted uncontested and unattributed here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

:::: When did 58 percent become consensus - the other side also put up reasonable arguments? In terms of WP:YESPOV - why would a writer contest their own opinion in an op-ed? KU2018 (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

See here for a clearer consensus on it; this has been discussed a lot so I don't see the need to argue further. (see FAQ at top) Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

::::::They use the argument that it is the stronger descriptor (it is) but that does not mean that far right is accurate - nor do most of the commenters argue the case that it is. KU2018 (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, 58% is a majority. But the real meat of the consensus is that the arguments made by those opposed to it were not in keeping with WP's policies and normal editing practices, while the arguments in favor of keeping it were. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
For the record, I have seen a consensus emerge from a single editor opposing three others with sound, policy based arguments, while the three used emotive, rhetorical arguments. An admin came along, saw the 75%/25% split and then did their job by reading the discussion and weighing the quality of the arguments, rather than counting heads and moving on. I'll search for a link to see if I can find it. It's a wonderful demonstration that consensus is not a vote. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

::::::You raise a valid point. I am still unconvinced that Breitbart is far-right but I will not argue it any more. I have issues with using op-eds (as a general rule) as facts as these are opinion pieces, but I will let this one go. I am just concerned with how the right hand side of the spectrum articles are portrayed on Wikipedia. KU2018 (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  • KU2018, you've mentioned several times that we're using op-eds for facts. We shouldn't be doing that, and I didn't know we were. Can you please point to the specific op-ed sources we're using for facts, preferably with links? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Breitbart News. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2018

However it provides much more truth than other main stream media's like CNN. Snowstormz04 (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

[citation needed] GMGtalk 20:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but... Deep State! Big Government! Lame Stream Media! Libtards! Your argument is invalid. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Connotation of "far right"

Although I'd rather not reopen a rather old can of worms, it would perhaps be good to replace the "far-right" designation. The connotation of the word makes it appear to fall under neo-nazi territory, which would (first off) be ironic considering its favorable treatment of Jewish and Israel-related topics. Perhaps "paleoconservative" would be a more appropriate term noting its viewpoint.--TZLNCTV (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Far-right and neo-Nazi are not synonymous, but there is some overlap. Yes, Breitbart has a far-right stance, even more so than when we had the RfC. No, we should not change it simply because Breitbart posted an article complaining about it.[4] - MrX 🖋 22:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
This very point has been discussed over. and over. and over. again. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I know that it has been debated a lot, and that far-right was the initial consensus. I am not debating that Breitbart isn't a far-right website, I'm merely stating that the connotations of the word "far-right" generally lead one to imagine Breitbart as a neo-nazist or fascist website, and using it is counterproductive when a more specific term is available. It's a bit like how in the Dolphin article, it lists the dolphin first as an aquatic mammal, not just a mammal.--TZLNCTV (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
(Addendum) Though that was undoubtedly a terrible comparison.--TZLNCTV (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
"Far right" has gradually evolved into a common euphemism for neo-Nazi or racist. Perhaps "hard right" would be a better term than using "far right". Rreagan007 (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I disagree that far-right connotes neo-Nazism, at lest in the context of an encyclopedia. In any case, we have to follow what reliable sources write and that's what we have done.- MrX 🖋

Opening statement 1: "some of its content has been called"

The opening statement has the last line saying "some of its content has been called..." This is a smear job. Why doesn't CNN, MSNBC, or NYT. Have this in their opening statement? Because some of their content has also been called bad things. Wikipedia is becoming a fascist "fact" site that promotes only good information about things and people that the editors agree with, while smearing and silencing any who dissent. Lktwnr08 (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

First off, don't put spaces in front of your signature, or even sign on a new line: it's very ugly and makes it difficult to read your comments in a thread. Second, please read WP:N or possibly WP:ACNU. Wikipedia does not take sides. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say. Reliable sources do not call the content of CNN or MSNBC or NYT those things. Reliable sources DO call the content of Breitbart those things. If that is not to your liking, then you should go edit conservapedia, because here on WP we deal exclusively in verifiable, reliably sourced information. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

'Reliable sources' who just happen to be commercial rivals to Breitbart would never smear a competitor's site would they? The naivety of you leftist propagandists is beyond comprehension. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.253.26.23 (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

If you think CNN, MSNBC or the NYT are "rival" of the po-dunk, miniscule little website that is Breitbart, then you have no idea how business, money or competition works. Though I do love the irony of you complaining about the "naivety" of others while defending one of the worst offenders in fake news. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
The reliable media has been reporting on the conservative media for decades. The contention that these sorts of stories are magically rendered unreliable because they are "commercial rivals" is utter hogwash and completely contrary to our reliable sources guideline. CNN, MSNBC, and the NYT report on one another all the time and we cite those sources all over Wikipedia. But we can't cite their stories on Breitbart? Come on. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
For the record, the phrase "has been called" violates WP:WEASEL. It should be changed.
Regardless of this, I recommend that the last two sentences of the first paragraph be moved further down in the intro. It creates the appearance of bias (and like in law, we should take even the appearance seriously), and it certainly isn't so important that we should note it before saying anything else. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • At the very least, it's not a violation of WP:WEASEL, as the recently-added tag claims. Per WP:WEASEL: The examples given above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. The words in question both accurately reflect what the NYT says (But it remains an outsize source of controversy — for liberals and even many traditional conservatives — over material that has been called misogynist, xenophobic and racist.) The only issue is that we ought to have a corresponding section in the article itself that goes over these accusations in more detail. EDIT: Although thinking about it, for now we can just use "liberals and even many traditional conservatives" from the NYT source, since that's specifically what it says. But we still need to elaborate on it further down the article eventually. --Aquillion (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Subjective politicized description of BreitBart.com: Labels and adjectives

The description repeats several anti-Breitbart News obsessions popular in the corporate and left-wing media: that the site has “misogynistic, xenophobic, and racist content,” and a single throwaway comment from former Executive Chairman Steve Bannon describing the site as a “platform for the alt-right.” Breitbart News has consistently rejected the alt-right label, which has been applied to the site by the mainstream media.

The online encyclopedia publicly claims that “anyone” can edit it, yet in reality, this article has a lock on it and a gatekeeper.

Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbot Luigi (talk • contribs) 00:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It obviously hasn't "consistently" rejected the label if your position is that Bannon's comments were inconsistent.
It has a lock on it because people kept vandalizing it. The goal is to write an encyclopedia, not provide a battleground for edit warriors.
Regardless, Wikipedia is a tertiary source which, by design, has a what could be described as a mainstream bias. This is because articles are based on reliable sources, which have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. This implies some documented acknowledgement from academic and journalistic peers, which correlates with the "mainstream media" boogieman. Additionally, articles are expected to prioritize third party sources. Breitbart is neither reliable, nor third-party to Breitbart, so the article will reflect what other sources have to say. There is plenty of non-corporate media which also describes Breitbart as far-right and white nationalist, such as Democracy Now (among many others, to be sure). If you know of any reliable sources which dispute this description, let's see it. Grayfell (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Note that the OP quotes (without attribution) from this Breitbart article, where the site whines how evil Facebook now links their articles to this "biased" article. Expect more pitchforks and torches in the next days.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest to the OP that a temporary lock is not the same thing as a ban on edits. If there are edits that you think should be made, you can propose them here in the talk section for in-depth discussion/verification. If you can make a compelling case, I am certain that the other folks here will have no trouble accepting your suggestions. That said, there is certainly something...different about the tone of this article from what I typically expect from Wikipedia entries. I can't quite put my finger on why just yet, but it is amusing to contrast this article (since we're discussing the far right) with the one on, say, the National Socialist German Worker's party.WeeSquirrel (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Consensus

From the talk section of this wiki article, it would seem that there is no consensus at all. Why is it that a bunch of anti-Brietbart people can post a lengthy diatribe referencing less than credible sources and then require edits to have consensus?. frontier_teg (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

You want to change consensus, you'll have to do more than just kvetch about people you don't agree with. What sources are you talking about? Why, exactly, aren't they credible? Because they're "left wing"? That doesn't make them less credible, as I'm sure you've noticed if you're reviewed the talk page's many archives. You see where this is going? We've already been over this countless times, so if you have real questions, ask them, and if you have actionable proposals that haven't already been discussed to death, make them. Grayfell (talk) 00:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
You haven't read through the talk page archives. There are links near the top of this page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
There is NO consensus on this article. This article, as published, violates the rules of wikipedia and has gone off the rails due to the political bias of the gatekeepers locking the article. For Shame. Abbot Luigi (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
The very fact that you have labeled the sources politically "left wing", or accused me of doing it, has proved the point. This is not an unbiased article, nor does it comply with the rules of wikipedia. Release the lock on the article and let the 'consensus' develop over time. Abbot Luigi (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word consensus, or how it applies to Wikipedia content. Please read WP:CONSENSUS and our other policies and guidelines so that you don't disrupt the talk page with further complaining. This is WP:NOTAFORUM.- MrX 🖋 16:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I completely understand that there is NO consensus on this article, nor can any consensus be achieved on this article. Release the lock and allow the consensus to develop over time. Abbot Luigi (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Consensus develops through discussion on this talk page. You need to review the talk page archives before drawing conclusions about whether there is or isn't consensus for anything. There are links near the top of this page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I am aware of the consensus page, and in it is not stated that archived content determines consensus, but rather it's a "natural process"--for the alt-right label for example, how the treat can be more nuanced, as per NYT Hylton, Wil S. (August 16, 2017). "Down the Breitbart Hole". New York Times Magazine., which has not previously been discussed. Sugaki (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Opening statement 2: "ideologically driven"

Opening statement, midway through line 3, contains the phrase "Its journalists are ideologically driven", with a citation to an NY Times article (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/27/business/media/breitbart-news-presidential-race.html). The current implication in the wiki article, by way of phrasing, is that all the site's journalists are ideologically driven. By contrast, the phrasing in the NY Times article is "For Mrs. Clinton, it was a strategic attack that linked Mr. Trump to leading avatars of the hard-line right. But among Breitbart’s ideologically driven journalists, her remarks were taken as validation.", followed up by a quotation from site editor Alexander Marlow. This phrasing does not suggest that all Breitbart journalists are ideologically driven; rather, it implicates a defined subset (e.g. those who took her remarks as validation). Thus, this summary does not appear to accurately reflect the context within the cited article. I would suggest altering this phrase to read "Some of its journalists are ideologically driven" or, since that is a sufficiently weak statement that can be made of any major news outlet, strike the ideologically driven phrase entirely. Enough is said in the remainder of the wiki article to let the reader know BB is a right-wing site. Apologies in advance for any errors made here format-wise. First time posting.WeeSquirrel (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. It definitely should be reworded, or at least attributed.- MrX 🖋 23:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I concur as well. The current article wording is a mischaracterization of the source material. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Here is a secondary source summarizing that specific part of that Times article. It summarizes it the same way we do (Breitbart’s content has been called misogynist, xenophobic and racist and The New York Times has described its journalists as "ideologically driven”.). --Aquillion (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Several other sources also summarize this same NYT article having described its journalists as "ideologically driven". This makes the (alleged) mischaracterization understandable, but has no impact on its accuracy. I suggest that a good parallel would be if I were to write a science manuscript asserting that x therapy caused a y reduction in tumor volume at the 1 month timepoint in a mouse model of breast cancer, and then Wikipedia were to cite the news stories stating that there is a new cure for cancer (which nearly every news story would). A common mischaracterization, but still flawed. Apologies for the delay in response. Could not figure out how to respond, and thank you to the individual who kindly changed the topic heading to avoid confusion with a prior entry.WeeSquirrel (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
The analogy is inappropriate, as you misunderstand the point of Wikipedia. We are summarizers of reliable sources, not scientists or truth-tellers. If your goal is to right great wrongs then you will end up disappointed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
As has been already stated, the sentence as made is not a valid summary of the reliable source, in exactly the same way that most science articles are generally not valid summaries of the science that is actually done. In fact, what is being done here, is the summary is being outsourced to less reliable sources, then inappropriately attributed to NYT. If you believe these less reliable sources are adequate, then the article should cite them, not NYT. People can then feel free to wonder why you're citing an interpretation of NYT rather than NYT itself.WeeSquirrel (talk) 22:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry I don't follow. We say its journalists are ideologically driven, citing a New York Times sources that says its journalists are ideologically driven. So what do you mean about other, less reliable sources? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
The problem is a set subset issue. The statement, as made in the NY Times (see original objection up top), suggests that there are some ideologically driven journalists (e.g. a subset of Breitbart journalists are ideologically driven, and these journalists reacted to being called out by Clinton by by etc. etc.). The statement as made here implies that the set of all Breitbart journalists are ideologically driven (in much the way that saying 'fish are blue' would suggest that all fish are blue). In response to this objection, another user was trying to make the case for the validity of this interpretation by citing an independent.co.uk article that had the same interpretation. As such, this is citing the independent.co.uk interpretation of the NY Times, and not NY Times.WeeSquirrel (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Breitbart_News/Archive_8&oldid=1087959933"