Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her/Archive 7

RfC: Is Breitbart.com a reliable source for the opinion of Ben Shapiro
Breitbart.com editor-at-large Ben Shapiro in an opinion column at that site stated:
 * It is absurd to have [leftist] movie critics critiquing the politics of documentaries professionally; they seem unable to separate their artistic sensibilities from their political ones.”


 * 1)  Is Breitbart.com a reliable source for that statement?
 * 2)  Is the statement violative of WP:BLP per se?  00:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
These appear to be the issues regarding. Collect (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Wrong question. Are Shapiro's writings in the site a reliable source that he says the left controls Hollywood, critics are biased, universities brainwash children, the U.S. president is a criminal, global warming is a hoax? Yes. Should we post Shapiro's views to every article about every topic he writes about? No. TFD (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * So are you saying that Shapiro can be referenced per WP:BIASED? The RFC is just for this topic. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 04:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This RFC doesn't address whether the Shapiro quote should be included, is what I believe TFD, myself, and others are saying. This RFC is another poorly structured attempt to try and include material from a questionable source into an article, thus effectively ignoring multiple WP policies. Furthermore, Shapiro's writings could be referenced per WP:Biased if they are written in a source that is considered reliable. Breitbart.com is not considered a reliable source and therefore WP:Biased does not apply to the quote currently in dispute.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

1. Yes - Obviously Breitbart is RS for its own attributed, quoted opinions, just like the last RFC found. The section is dedicated to covering attributed, subjective opinions, and contains such quotes from sources like the Daily Kos, Media Matters, Salon.com, etc.. No rational basis has been presented for singling out Breitbart and trying to exclude its author's opinion (which is shared by a massive chunk of the population), especially since Ben Shapiro is actually notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article, unlike most of the other pundits quoted. Doing so would make this article fail in its task to honestly cover the reaction to the movie, and would constitute a gross WP:NPOV violation.

2. No - It's not a biography of a living person, but a subjective opinion about the state of a profession, used in a section full of subjective opinions about people and other things. It's certainly not libelous or defamatory. The sleazy personal attacks on D'Souza regarding his legal issues (and marital ones in the sources) by the Huffington Post bloggers currently featured in the same section come far closer to being a BLP concern. VictorD7 (talk) 06:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Reliable as opinion of notable person, and
 * Does not make any "contentious claim" about individuals, but about a large class of people Clear.   The opinions of notable persons are allowed even if in a "self-published source" which this is not.  BLP protects individuals and small groups from "contentious claims", but the group involved here is a large group.  And averring bias is not specifically a "contentious claim" in any event. Collect (talk) 14:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, the statement that professional critics are not competent to have written their published works could reasonably viewed as contentious. In the context of this article, WP readers could take that to be an expert judgment as to the professional qualifications of specific individuals whose reviews are cited here.    SPECIFICO  talk  15:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting claim if that were what Shapiro said. As it is not what he said, it is not precisely on point here.  What he said is that they seem to carry a political bias into their reviews.   I seriously doubt anyone actually demurs that such occurs. Collect (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * For the sake of this thread, we can use your paraphrase if you prefer it to mine. The issue and the policy concern remain the same.  SPECIFICO  talk  18:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It does not violate BLP. First it is about a group and second we can report negative things that people say, even if they are untrue.  There is a very good reason to exclude the source (weight) and we should not get distracted about every possible policy that can be used to exclude it.  TFD (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a sensible statement of the issue, TFD. Given context and credentials of this writer, the statement is basically a casual opinion and not noteworthy enough to include in the article. It's also a bit off topic, really.  The article is not about the state of what passes for film criticism in the mass media and at any rate that's not an area of expertise for Mr. Shapiro.  SPECIFICO  talk  19:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose inclusion. If Shapiro really said something of significance, it might be worth considering, but this statement from him is about as significant as stating that "people open their mouths when they speak." It's a "duh" statement which applies to everyone, especially Shapiro himself, who makes it his business to engage in exactly that behavior. Did he get up in the morning, look at himself in the mirror, describe what he saw, and then replaced "I" with "[leftist] movie critics"? It's just one of his typical attempts to poison the well and not worth including. The attempt to include it says more about the shallow thinking of those who favor its inclusion. It worries me that they think it really has any deeper meaning. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Broken RFC. The question should be whether there's a consensus to include this quote that I've been told is not specifically about this movie. A number of people have stated that the quote is about movie critics generally, and how Breitbart thinks they're too liberal to do their jobs. This is just embedding a shot at "liberal" movie critics in an article about a specific individual movie. Asking whether Ben Shapiro's words on Breitbart.com are verifiably his own, does not answer if the material is suitable for the article. __ E L A Q U E A T E  19:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I second the objections to the wording of this RFC. It's clear that this is another attempt to game the system, which is exactly what happened with the last RFC.  Editors are asked if something can be used, then their affirmative answers are used by ideologues to claim a mandate that their preferred material should be used, despite the multiple policy-based objections voiced by numerous editors.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Your personal attacks on motivation are completely false. You tried to delete both segments based on specific policy claims, and in both RFCs those policy claims are put directly to the wider community. VictorD7 (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You may not like the question presented in the RfC but that doesn't make it broken. The Shapiro's quote ALREADY had consensus and was removed because of an accusation of BLP problems.  If the BLP problems are not valid then a consensus will be needed to remove the quote (not to add it), because it already had consensus to add. --Obsidi (talk) 08:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * When there are more people objecting to the worth and wording of the RfC question than !voting, then it is broken. If this was supposed to settle whether to include the material in the article, it should have asked that question. When the wording was questioned, the proposer insisted there would be no negotiation. It looks like this quote wasn't in a single stable form for an entire month, so it's not correct to say there was any kind of stable consensus to include it. It looks like it was challenged by multiple editors, citing policies not covered by this RfC. No one can point to this mess as a mandate to include it now. Any closer should see that a question of whether something is verifiable does not speak to whether it has found a consensus to be included. __ E L A Q U E A T E  13:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I count ( at most) four actual opposes here -- but they account for 80% of the verbiage . And which policy based argument do you have against including an opinion from a notable person?  Policies count for more than "IDONTLIKEIT/HIM" last I checked in closing any RfC.   As opposed to six short supports. Collect (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Misleading numbers. Since you seem to be including people who would prefer to exclude the source as "supports" in the RfC, I'll take that as an admission that this RfC isn't about whether to include the material. It's patently obvious that the material is verifiable as the opinion of someone, but that has nothing to do with its inclusion. Asserting that people haven't made multiple, specific policy-based objections to the material at this point in the discussion, is pretty brazen. Multiple RS/N threads have found this source challenged as questionable source. WP:QUESTIONABLE says that questionable sources shouldn't be used for contentious statements about groups, even ill-defined ones, with people living or dead. This is true no matter how verifiable the opinions may be. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. __ E L A Q U E A T E  15:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And I'll repeat a bit of basic perspective on the issue I made further down in the discussion, if someone wanted to add the opinion, "All negative reviews were because those reviewers were conservative", to any individual Michael Moore film, we'd require a lot more than a single opinion piece in a highly challenged source. __ E L A Q U E A T E  15:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Straw man argument - the quote is from a notable person and is not comparable to your example, nor to your example of "'Mr X eats children''" either.  Can we stick to the quote at issue instead of ridiculous and inapt comparisons please? Collect (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to stick to a pertinent issue, then you can explain why you weren't open to modifying the question used in the RfC, despite multiple editors saying your wording was "poorly structured", the "wrong question", created a "broken RfC", and that this focus distracts from a straightforward discussion on inclusion. This RfC is about bare verifiability, not appropriateness or consensus to include, and that's why there's so few clear !votes.__ E L A Q U E A T E  15:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The issues stated in the RfC were the issues stated clearly by those opposing the material. The purpose of an RfC is to determine whether there are legitimate policy-based arguments against the material.   It is not a popularity contest for the material, and one may note the exact same people who objected to any use of Breitbart in the article at all are still the only ones objecting here.  And the wall-of-text "this is a bad RfC" is used frequently in Wikipedia, and is justly derided when the same people !vote the exact same way for any use of the same source - it is clearly IDONTLIKEIT in extremis.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't an AfD so adding material in bold or caps that everyone is using one of the arguments to avoid in AfDs is silly and distracting. "IDONTLIKEIT" is not a fair assessment of the multiple policy objections you've clearly seen, and explicitly responded to and argued against in this thread. It's WP:IDHT behavior to act like you haven't been in discussions you clearly have been in. Your argument admits that including this material is contentious, and has been contentious. It's contentious for more reasons than your argument admits here. If the RfC is supposed to address people's objections, then it should have covered more of people's policy-based objections, instead of structuring it as a question of simple verifiability. __ E L A Q U E A T E  16:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Breitbart has already been decided on this very talk page to be usable for opinions cited as opinion. So much for that. Nor have I said the material is a "contentious claim" covered by WP:BLP - and, in fact, I had thought you already conceded that point above.   Now what actual policy based objection is there?  The one that Breitbart is extremist?  Failed already.  That is is not a reliable source for opinions from notable people?  Already failed.   The claim that I have not participated in discussions here?  Absurd.  What is left?  IDONTLIKEIT is the only one. Collect (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Theoretically usable in some contexts" is not equivalent to "guaranteed usable in all contexts". No source is considered blanket usable for all of its "opinions cited as opinion", in all future contexts, and for different opinions, with different authors, to support different material. This is a clearly unsupportable argument. Now, you bizarrely say The claim that I have not participated in discussions here? Absurd. as a weird response to my statement that you've clearly participated in discussions. Do you understand how this is a 180 degree misreading? You're repeating your arguments, and adding new misreadings into the mix, so, again, since this seems to be devolving into more badgering by you when I was responding to another editor, I'll disengage.__ E L A Q U E A T E  17:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes and it is getting quite old to keep trying wear down the opposition in this manner. Arzel (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Should the Shapiro quote be included in the article? would be a more neutral and non-useless question to request comments on.__ E L A Q U E A T E  19:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The question was precisely stated in accord with your posts at the appropriate noticeboard. Changing your mind as to what the issue is when the RfC was clearly called for by your stated position is "moving the goalposts" a bit too far.  You stated that the source was not a "reliable source" and that the quote violated WP:BLP so that is why the issue is so stated.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The framing of the RFC question has no direct correspondence with any post I've made at any noticeboard, and was not negotiated previous to opening the RFC. As written, it doesn't answer whether it's suitable for the article. And you are misrepresenting what I said and ascribing words to me I never used. I never said the source could never be a reliable source for anything ever. It's patently obvious that any website is a generally reliable source for verifying what it puts on its website. Forum posts are "reliable sources" that someone once made a forum post. A subject's website obviously verifies what's found on a subject's website. Asking this in the form of an RfC is completely time-wasting and useless for determining if it's appropriate as a reliable source for the specific material in the context of this article. Maybe someone could make an argument that this might be a valid reliable source to find material for the article Ben Shapiro, but this is a different article.__ E L A Q U E A T E  20:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The RfC is neutrally worded, and RfCs are not "negotiated".
 * Quoting from your posts: There's no indication that Breitbart is a usable source for article material from its editorials which is specifically a denial of it being RS for its opinions expressed as opinions.
 * This is an article about a specific movie, not a place to opine about "the state of a profession" generally, or adding material criticizing named movie critics because the questionable source, breitbart.com, doesn't like their politics. (And BLP applies everywhere, not just in specific biographies again states that you deny Breitbart is a reliable source for its own opinions expressed as opinions, and that you find the quote to violate WP:BLP.
 *  This does not look like a high-quality source for article material. It's political invective from a minority source aimed at named people.) again states that it is not RS and that it violates WP:BLP.
 * The citation of opinions from questionable sources about living people is still subject to BLP and RS. An opinion about a movie is simply a different thing than an opinion about people. If the source is questionable, then there is no difference between adding "Mr X eats children" and adding "It is the opinion of Questionable Weekly that Mr. X eats children." is again your precise quote stating that Breitbart is not RS for opinions cited as opinions, that it violates WP:BLP and you imply that saying critics can be biased is the same as saying "Mr. X eats children." which I find to be a quite entertaining form of argument.
 * You further opined "Breitbart was not determined to be a reliable source for all claims. It's questionable for claims about living people." Again raising the issue of whether it is RS for anything at all, and also that the quote violates WP:BLP.
 * Now I have shown you repeatedly making the precise same arguments which you appear to disremember making.  This RfC was specifically written to determine whether those repeated arguments are, in fact, supported by a consensus of editors here.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I stand by all of those quotes. Your repeated interpretations that they somehow mean I said that Breitbart could never be used as a source for its own opinions is completely mistaken, however. You ignore that I actually said It could theoretically be considered a reliable source for article content for some of its opinions, not all of them. You are repeatedly painting my opinion that this source shouldn't be used for certain claims as a statement that it could never be used for any claim at all. You seem to have a serious problem with the concept that sources aren't automatically found to be reliable or usable for all claims if they happen to be considered usable for one. You're acting as if it was decided that we can use all opinions on Breitbart about people when that clearly isn't true or advisable.  You also ignore this thread where I say it's possible it could be a reliable source for an article more specific to Ben Shapiro. Saying you somehow tailored the wording to my concerns is clearly wrong, as the RfC question is essentially asking whether we think Breitbart impersonated Ben Shapiro or something equally unlikely and equally useless for the purposes of discussion. Other editors have expressed problems with your wording along these lines. __ E L A Q U E A T E   22:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And I'm surprised you seem opposed to wording an RfC based on a direct "Should we use this material in this article?" I don't see what possible objection a person could have to this, as the first wording does not address the other significant issues raised about this material. An answer to your proposed RfC question still wouldn't indicate whether we'd choose to use the material in the article.__ E L A Q U E A T E  22:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec)I cited what you said you did not say. The issues you raised were specifically about whether Breitbart is a reliable source for opinions stated as opinions and whether the opinion at hand violates WP:BLP.  Which is what this RfC is about.  As for your claim that Breitbart could fake Shapiro's opinions or the like or whether he could say Mr. X eats children - I regard such arguments as being  useless on Wikipedia utterly.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You cited what I said, then said it proved I said something else entirely, and that it was more extreme then what I actually did say. As for your claim that Breitbart could fake Shapiro's opinions Ha, that's silly. I never claimed this. Nobody could reasonably believe this. That's why having an RfC about how verifiable Shapiro's words are as Shapiro's words is a waste of time. __ E L A Q U E A T E  23:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Your exact words: If the source is questionable, then there is no difference between adding "Mr X eats children" and adding "It is the opinion of Questionable Weekly that Mr. X eats children."   The source has repeatedly been found to be a reliable source for opinions cited as opinions.  Repeatedly - including on the BLP/N noticeboard, the RS/N noticeboard, and on this talk page. And the accusation that averring bias in reviews is equivalent to saying "Mr X eats children"  is a mighty fail.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That was a theoretical example you're misrepresenting as if I said it was more than that. So twist, twist away, but policy, WP:RS, still treats opinions about third parties differently than opinions about less sensitive topics. You're saying Breitbart has been found usable in articles for all of its "opinions cited as opinions", and that's patently false. No source can be whitelisted for all contexts, and especially not when it involves third party people. You can't eliminate the question of context. As far as the noticeboards, you are cherry-picking a few supportive comments to represent a non-existent consensus, and ignoring the obvious policy challenges.__ E L A Q U E A T E  15:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Quoting someone exactly and precisely is not a "mischaracterization" by a few miles. And the RS/N results and the result on this very talk page are clear - that you aver I said something "patently false" is a direct violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA  and I urgently suggest you redact those offensive words.  Cheers.  Collect (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The mischaracterization of my words took place in your added editorial, not in the quotation of my words. Saying that you have said something I believe is not true is not a personal attack by any standard, on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Nor does it mean I said you were acting in bad faith without an honest motivation of trying to make a better encyclopedia (from your own point of view) when you asserted it. You are reading arguments into my words that are not supported by the words themselves. I think you are wrong in asserting that sources that many editors believe questionable can be used for any opinion they have, including commentary on third party living people. There are long-standing limits, and this is partly covered by WP:QS. You repeated on multiple occasions here that any word I uttered meant that I was saying that sources could never be used for "opinions cited as opinions". This isn't true. (It's not a personal attack to say this isn't true) I pointed out that I had argued against that interpretation of policy, but that still doesn't mean they can be used for all opinions cited as opinions, without regard to context. Breitbart is not whitelisted for any opinion they publish in articles not about Breitbart; this is supported by policy and shouldn't be a contentious point.__ E L A Q U E A T E  20:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You made a personal attack on me. I cited your exact words, which is more than I can say for you.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Saying that I thought you were wrong is not a personal attack. (If it was, you'd have made a lot of personal attacks.) Disagreeing with you is not against policy. You added personal interpretations and commentary on my words beyond the quotes. I feel that added interpretation mischaracterizes my arguments. __ E L A Q U E A T E   21:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You specifically wrote: And you are misrepresenting what I said and ascribing words to me I never used  which seems to be clearly a personal attack on me. Any words I "ascribed to you" were, indeed, your exact words.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And? This is still not a personal attack. I can think your arguments are based on a false characterization (and say so) without it being a claim about you personally. We're all wrong sometimes. You said You stated that the source was not a "reliable source" and that the quote violated WP:BLP... I certainly never said the word "violated". You do later ascribe that word to me in connection to all quotes where we're talking about what BLP says. I also never said the source could not be used as an RS in all contexts. This is an essential point that you omitted from your later characterizations of my argument. Arguing that I'm taking an extremist or absolutist stand is a mischaracterization, whatever your motive, assuming both good faith and the possibility of error. Pointing out your mistaken ascription is not a personal attack. I can assume that maybe you confused me with someone else when you wrote your first sentence regarding "violated", and none of your later quotations prove your assertion that I think the source could never be used as a source sometimes, in other contexts. Your characterizations of my arguments are directly contradicted by what I said, explicitly, at the start of this, It could theoretically be considered a reliable source for article content for some of its opinions, not all of them. It wasn't correct to suggest my position was otherwise.<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  23:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Might you cite my precise words where I said you took an "extremist stand"?  I do not recall so characterizing you at all, and I would like to see my exact words making that claim.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (Yikes) Your edit summary indicates that your standards for what constitutes a "personal attack" do not correspond with any policy you linked to. Criticizing your arguments is not a personal attack. If re-explaining where I think you've made an error would only be misinterpreted as further "attack" and lead to additional accusations of bad faith, then the discussion and Wikipedia is probably better off if do not engage you further on what I think are your mistakes. This remains a flawed RfC that doesn't address whether the material should be included.<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  00:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:QS already says that questionable sources can be reliable for material about themselves, that doesn't mean it can be included onto articles not about themselves. For the second question, "Yes" it violates multiple parts of WP:BLP which is not the only policy relevant to its inclusion or omission. Here are the multiple parts of BLP that apply to this quote directly:


 * "Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies" This specific quote does not strictly adhere to WP's three core content policies which specifically state that questionable sources can not make contentious claims about others.


 * "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Here Breitbart.com can be considered as poorly sourced just like tabloids are considered poor sources.


 * "When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources." Breitbart.com is certainly not a high-quality source and shouldn't be used to make claims about others.


 * "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed." The Breitbart.com is not a reliable source for making contentious claims about others.


 * "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards." Breitbart.com fails to meet many Verifiability standards.

Many of these policies are repeated multiple times throughout the article and the Shapiro quote only needs to satisfy one of them to be a violation of WP:BLP, let alone numerous other policies that the inclusion of the Shapio quote violates.Scoobydunk (talk) 10:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * All of the above claims have been found wanting both at the appropriate noticeboards and on this very talk page - twice now. I rather think they are dead issues by this point, even if presented in walls of text. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Your personal opinion on what's "wanting" is not relevant to the fact that Breitbart.com is a questionable source by nearly every standard outlined by WP:QS. Making baseless assertions is not constructive to the conversation. So, if you're not going to bother making logically valid arguments and insist on just dismissing policies and proof, then I suggest you move along. Cheers.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course, Scoobydunk, your QS arguments have been rejected by an RFC and refuted in discussions in above sections, but your BLP claims are especially comical since you were the one who added the partisan Huffington Post bloggers personally attacking D'Souza over a sensitive legal issue and (falsely) claiming his assertions had no support. Also, you apparently support the inclusion of far left blogs like the Daily Kos, Salon.com, and Media Matters, and have dodged every attempt to get your answer on the record as to whether such sources are allowable here under your interpretation of QS. VictorD7 (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * No, they haven't been rejected, they've been ignored since you and other editors think you can completely ignore WP policy and forumshop until you get the answers you want. Furthermore, I don't need to entertain red herring arguments. We are currently discussing Breitbart.com and it's individual merits or lack thereof, not any of the other sources. I don't entertain logical fallacies, while it's clear that's all you have to offer.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I've already linked to my own arguments refuting your QS argument and quoted and linked to the RFC closer stating that the community wasn't persuaded by your argument. Also, a discussion of the other sources is extremely vital here for consistency (neutrality), especially since you personally added the Huffington Post quotes (and possibly some others), and since due weight depends in part on context (e.g. How much coverage have we given other views?). Your continuing dodging and false accusations against other posters only undermine your assertions. VictorD7 (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Your arguments did nothing to refute my arguments and the RFC closer doesn't dictate WP policies. I don't have to persuade others with my argument if it is supported by WP policy and IT IS. Also, "No", other sources are not relevant to the reliability of Breitbart.com. Nothing in WP:QS defines a source as questionable based on comparing it to other publications, but defines based on it's own actions and merits. So you're making a red herring argument while also entertaining a false equivalency. I do not undermine my own argument, as it's been logically consistent and inline with WP policies since the beginning. However, your constantly changing the nature of your arguments, forumshopping, and misrepresenting what others have said do undermine your own arguments. Scoobydunk (talk) 06:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on whether your arguments have been refuted, whether your interpretation of policy is incorrect, and whether your continuing refusal to answer whether you think the section's other sources are QS, including the blogger quotes you personally added, is relevant from an WP:NPOV standpoint and for fully assessing the merits of your position. VictorD7 (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If the so called policy arguments (RS and BLP) have evaporated, and this is merely a question of weight and editorial judgment, what legitimate argument against inclusion is there? Here you have a notable best selling author and editor of one the internet's most widely read news sites author an entire article about the reception to this movie, so of course it's relevant, especially given the massive expansion of political commentary coverage undertaken in this section. That coverage mostly features "contentious" political commentary from sources more fringe and pundits less noteworthy than Shapiro. The belief that most pro film critics are leftists and this colors their reaction to movies is almost universally shared by conservatives, and frankly not something I've seen many liberals or film critics themselves deny. The reviews of this film themselves are invariably political. If we're covering the political reaction to this film at all, which we undeniably are (the section set aside for this is explicitly titled "Political commentary"), this perspective carries enormously significant weight and must be represented. There's no evidence that it's a "minority" view, much less a view so fringe that it doesn't merit coverage at all. It's also common for Wikipedia film articles, especially ones with some controversial aspects, to include pundit opinions about the reception itself, as I've shown on this talk page before. The claim that there's something wrong with supposedly commenting on the reception rather than just the movie per se is wrong and without basis in policy. The vital policy at play here is Neutrality, which would be grossly violated by heavily quoting from leftist sources, as the section currently does, while excluding noteworthy conservative commentary. Are we going to start holding RFCs on whether to include controversial quotes from far left sources like the Daily Kos, Salon.com, Media Matters, the Huffington Post, etc..? Is every quote and proposed new addition now going to be challenged for months on end? There is simply no legitimate reason to exclude Breitbart or any other prominent source of opinions here. Let's provide complete, honest coverage of opinions relating to this movie from across the major components of the political spectrum. Be open minded. Live and let live. Purging the page of cherry-picked views in one sided fashion would prevent this article from ever stabilizing or accomplishing its task of providing full, encyclopedic coverage of the issue. VictorD7 (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Breitbart.com is a political website. There is no reason to include a quote from the a source like breitbart, rather they are reliable for their own quote or not. The movie should be covered with sources that are like other movies. WP:Deadhorse Casprings (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This does not answer the question presented in the RfC. --Obsidi (talk) 08:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a worthless RFC as it does not get to the point of if it should be in there or not.Casprings (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The RFC directly addresses the policy reasons given for attempting to delete it. Besides, an alternative RFC along the lines you suggest would have to ask "Should it be removed?", since the last consensus was to include it. VictorD7 (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * But the movie itself is a political one. (The same is true for the book.) And both the movie and book have had some measure of impact on the political landscape. With this in mind the opinion of Shapiro is WP:NOTEWORTHY. – S. Rich (talk) 05:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * A far right wing guy being mad a far right wing movie is panned is not noteworthy. And if it was, it would have been picked up by another source that isn't like same as his own.Casprings (talk) 13:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * IOW, the viewpoint of the person whose opinion is being used overrides whether that viewpoint is from a notable person?  Source in policy for that position?  And why would another source have illegally printed a copyrighted column?  Collect (talk) 13:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think other people beside Wikipedia can use fair use. If the quote was imported, it would have been covered.Casprings (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , WP:BIASED says that sources can be reliable in the specific context, including a political one. WP:RSOPINION is also applicable here. It may seem "obvious" that a conservative commentator would challenge reviews of the film, but it also could have been the opposite where the commentator could have stated that the film was not representative of U.S. conservatism. Ben Shapiro is a conservative figure who has written for the National Review about conservatism and media (film/TV), so his opinion is worth referencing to show the conservative viewpoint here. Per WP:DUE, Shapiro's passage is marginal compared to the mainstream passages that have been added to the article in the past month. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:RSOPINION gives the example of opinions sourced from "mainstream newspapers". That's not this. WP:BIASED still says When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Adding a view described as "marginal" and non-mainstream is discouraged by WP:DUE, not encouraged. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  15:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ben Shapiro is editor-at-large for Breitbart. I'm not sure how fact-checking should be applied here, though, since it is political criticism of art criticism. When I say "marginal", I mean a minority view. WP:DUE says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." This is why I'm supportive of including the Shapiro quote in a very limited sense, especially when we have covered the mainstream viewpoints in major detail. The Shapiro quote is only part of the big picture. So in other words, I am saying that Breitbart is a representative viewpoint of U.S. conservatism. Would we be okay with including the passage if it was published at National Review or FOX News? Is it the nature of the website itself? I see that it has been called "fringe" and "far right", but I am not seeing it as different from the aforementioned sources. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We need to stick to the subject of this encyclopedia article. This is an article about a single film. Whatever the merits or noteworthiness of Shapiro's opinions, inserting them here creates a kind of WP:SYNTH suggestion that the unfavorable reviews cited here should be disregarded as biased or otherwise flawed film criticism.  Shapiro's views might be cited in an article about film criticism, politics, mass media, or other relevant topics, but they are not suitable for this article. Neither, for example, would the opinions about an optical engineer about the lamentable state of local theater digital projection systems on which the film was shown.    SPECIFICO  talk  16:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would be interested in a Wikipedia article about the political ideology of film criticism. :) Coverage in regard to Zero Dark Thirty would definitely be part of that. However, WP:SYNTH does not apply here. The article is full of mainstream viewpoints (balanced their way, obviously), and the Shapiro passage would be a small part balance-wise. I expanded the sampling of the reviews to flesh out each critic's response since the political and art criticism are sort of blended together, and readers can see why the mainstream thinks the documentary is not a good one. The presence of the Shapiro quote does not mean that all the heavily-emphasized viewpoints are to be dismissed. If there is a concern about Shapiro coming across as too much of an authority on the matter, then we can identify Breitbart as a conservative outlet to be more clear-cut, so readers can draw whatever conclusion they want from a partisan's opinion that is placed on the back-end of the commentary. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Anything that goes beyond "What people thought of the movie" and is instead "what people think of the state of movie reviewers generally" is arguably tangential to the scope of this article. If we add what Shapiro thinks of movie critics generally, do we balance that with what mainsteam reliable sources think of movie critics generally? I don't think the balanced common view is that movie critics should be disallowed from reviewing whole classes of movies on ideological grounds. You can't balance that fringe viewpoint with reviews of the movie. That could only be theoretically balanced by even more off-topic discussion specifically about the state of movie criticism from multiple RS who represent the non-fringe view.<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  16:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you saying there needs to be counter-criticism to Shapiro's criticism? In addition, how do you assess Breitbart in comparison with National Review and FOX News? Are they considered "fringe" viewpoints too, or just Breitbart? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think it needs off-topic meta-criticism on either side at all. It would require counter-meta-criticism if it were included, to be balanced, but that's why it's not helpful for it to be included in the first place. The "fringe view" I mentioned was contained in the specific quote; publishers aren't "fringe views". I think the usability of a source is often dependent on three things, (content, author, publisher), in context. A reliable publisher can often be more easily relied on to have chosen more representative and considered opinions. A questionable publisher might publish the least useful commentary from an otherwise arguably useful source. If Stephen Hawking does a guest bit on South Park, I wouldn't rely solely on the reliability of the author, and ignore the venue or context of the material.<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  17:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And to put this into this some kind of perspective, if someone wanted to add the opinion, "All negative reviews were because those reviewers were conservative", to any individual Michael Moore film, we'd require a lot more than a single opinion piece in a highly challenged source. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  18:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @Erik. I disagree.  Readers can reasonably be expected to relate Shapiro's view to the specific critics/reviews cited in the article.  That is SYNTH.  If Shapiro had given explicit rebuttals to the cited reviews, that would be entirely different.  SPECIFICO  talk  16:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTH says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Can you write what conclusion you think a reader could take away? The reviews panned the film, period. Shapiro says the negative reviews are politically biased, period. Is it a matter of placement that causes the implication? Shapiro could go into "Political commentary" instead. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've already given one example of such an inference above. SPECIFICO  talk  20:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Readers can reasonably be expected to relate Shapiro's view to the specific critics/reviews cited in the article." Is this what you mean? We can specify the reviews that Shapiro mentions -- the Los Angeles Times, Newsday, and McClatchy news service. Like I said, it can also be placed in the "Political commentary" to avoid any intra-section comparing. Is that not feasible? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The claim of "SYNTH" is absurd. No material is being combined from different sources in the quote. VictorD7 (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Stating that an alternate analysis is "absurd" does not promote resolution. If the combination were "in the quote" that would not be synth.  Please review WP:SYNTH and reflect.  SPECIFICO  talk  20:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You clearly need to read it. WP:SYNTH concerns implying something not said by the source, either through combining different sources or mixing and matching material from a single source in a misleading way. The segment in question, from a single source, does neither. What do you allege the quote is implying that Shapiro didn't say or imply himself? VictorD7 (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Victor, I have already explained that twice above on this page. Please read and reload.  SPECIFICO  talk  00:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You claimed readers might infer he was talking about the specific reviews in the above section, and that readers might infer they should disregard them due to Shapiro's comments. Our only concern regarding SYNTH here is to make sure the meaning of Shapiro's comments aren't distorted. They clearly aren't. As Erik pointed out, Shapiro was talking about negative reviews in general for this film, saying they should be taken with a grain of salt due to the politicization at play in the reception. Whether that causes readers to place credence in what Shapiro says and maybe take the critics with a grain of salt or not shouldn't be your concern, and has nothing to do with SYNTH. Shapiro cites several specific examples, but not most of the critics named in the above section. Claiming that a reader might mistakenly assume Shapiro is discussing a specific critic named above and that the segment is therefore "SYNTH" is beyond a reach; it's wrong because we're using Shapiro's general commentary about the profession's leftward tilt.  If we had quoted from some of his specific commentary about a certain critic (complete with pronouns like "He"), but left out that critic's name and placed it under a different critic's quote, then you might have a SYNTH argument, since we would be misleadingly implying he was discussing someone other than whom he was. But we didn't. Shapiro's general comments cover the reception in general (including the negative reviews we use), and stand accurately transmitted on their own. No SYNTH. VictorD7 (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In fact, no evidence has even been presented establishing that Shapiro's view is a "minority" one, since I've seen no one dispute it (certainly not his claim that most critics lean left), and I could produce sources agreeing with it (WND, Newsbusters, etc..). As for opinion on the film itself, the "mainstream" view of pro critics is mostly negative, the "mainstream" view of political pundits (a group which includes Shapiro, as well as the writers/guest writers at The Atlantic, Forbes, The National Journal, USNaW Report, etc.) is likely roughly split in half along party lines (the coverage is currently skewed heavily left, which I intend to correct through additions in the long run), and the "mainstream" view of almost everyone who actually watched the movie is overwhelmingly positive (hence the historically rare high CinemaScore grade and strong box office showing for a documentary). VictorD7 (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * How do you plan to "correct through additions"? The current sources are mainly mainstream. There's still the National Review pieces by Jay Nordlinger to discuss for inclusion, but beyond that, I was not finding any more additional commentary about the documentary. In addition, audience reception should not be used as a factor to "balance" the article. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * How are you defining "mainstream"? I'm not sure how "mainstream" applies to political commentary outside of being widely read and/or prominent. You've quoted several specific political commentators, most of them liberals. There are many prominent conservative commentators who have given views on this film too (I already mentioned WND and Newsbusters as sources, you cited NRO; I could mention The Blaze and others) and almost none of them are included. The set of political commentators is different from the set of pro critics; in the former the majority view is not negative, at least not clearly so. Our coverage should therefore reflect more balance in the Political commentary section than we do in the Critics' section.  VictorD7 (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * 1. Yes Brietbart is a reliable source for its own opinions cited as opinions when it does not involve BLP issues. WP:BLPGROUP specifies that this is not a BLP issue as the group that is being talked (movie critics) is large.  As such Brietbart is a reliable source for this statement as it is attributed to Brietbart.
 * 2. No This is not a BLP problem as WP:BLPGROUP for which BLP applies to small groups but not large groups.  This is a large group being talked about.  --Obsidi (talk) 08:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Question Why insist on using a source that has a poor reputation and a quote from the editor of the source with a bad reputation? If the point is to get the opinion of conservatives on the movie, there are plenty of options. I don't grasp the need to include a source with such a bad reputation for fact checking and then have the comment come from the editor in chief. Why not include what Rush Limbraugh said, which was picked up by the hollywood reporter, for example. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/audio-rush-limbaugh-predicts-dinesh-716217 Casprings (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it has to do with the content of the Shapiro quote. Shapiro is saying that the film has gotten negative reviews because of liberal bias. Limbaugh's not saying that here. We already have some commentary from Breitbart (Christian Toto and Kate O'Hare) as well as National Review (John Fund), but they do not say anything about a liberal bias behind the negative reviews. The "Reception" section also already highlights that conservatives are "thrilled" with the film. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Which is the larger point. So we already have the minority viewpoint represented.  Prehaps over represented by WP:UNDUE.  Now we are going to add a quote by an outlet that has a terriable reputation that bascially says, "they only reviewed it that way because they are partisan hacks."  If one include something by them commenting on the reviews of others, is media matters okay to point out that conservatives endorced a film based on a book that openly says blacks are better off because of slavery?  http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/07/09/five-media-figures-who-endorse-dinesh-dsouzas-r/200046   Casprings (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Breitbart doesn't have a "poor reputation", especially compared to most of the section's other sources, and, as Erik said, our job is to cover the salient contours of opinion, not simply repeat ourselves with different sources. There are other sources making the point Shapiro does, but he's the most noteworthy pundit on the most prominent platform to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VictorD7 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that any source that is not explicitly conservative is inversely liberal? You seem to be dismissing everything in the article body that is not conservative. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I think that all views should be represented by WP:Weight. I think if anything, there is an over representation of positive reviews. I think we should simply have text that is representative of the overall reception of the film.  Keep it simple.   That said, if you are going to include a source that has such a negative reputation that basically says, “everyone that reviewed this movie badly did so because they were liberals”, is it not fair to also include a viewpoint about the motive or meaning of those who reviewed it positively?  Is it not fair to also include the commentary from media matters? Casprings (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was directed at VictorD7, not you. I added commentary to the article from mainstream sources, but these seem to be dismissed as liberal. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Commentary from Media Matters is included. And no, we can't prohibit a view from the article just because no one disagrees with it. If anything, that bolsters its case for inclusion. But at a more nuanced level most of the quoted opinions included don't have direct counterpoints, so a consistent application of your principle would require us to wipe out most or all of the reception sections. And no, while the pro critics' reaction skewed negative the "overall" reaction to the film was positive, and the political pundit reaction was roughly half and half. VictorD7 (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think everyone has some type of political viewpoint, especially if they're writing political commentary. And I'm not "dismissing" anyone, but I want the landscape of political reaction to the film to be properly covered per NPOV, rather than heavily skewed. The politics of the people you chose to quote aren't exactly hard to discern. You didn't reply to my above comment, so I'll repeat that I'm still not sure how you're defining "mainstream" in this context. For example, the National Journal, a liberal leaning political magazine, has a circulation of about 15,000 and is ranked 3113 in the US by Alexa internet traffic monitoring. National Review has a circulation of about 166,000 and is ranked 1166 in the US by Alexa.  Breitbart is ranked 494 in the US by Alexa, and the author in question is a notable best selling author whose views are considered to be in the American mainstream. In fact the liberal outlets currently quoted include The Guardian, Salon.com, National Journal (Simon van Zuylen-Wood in particular used to write for the The New Republic and Salon.com), Daily Kos, Media Matters, The Huffington Post, Nicole Hemmer (a professor whose entire career is dedicated to marginalizing and defining conservatives in ways more palatable to liberals than themselves), The Daily Beast (a sampling from Andrew Ramona in particular), and Gabe Toro (just read his review, or his Twitter feed; his next to most recent Tweet refers to the "dimwits at Fox News"; for the record, Alinsky praised Lucifer; D'Souza didn't raise the issue on his own, contrary to Toro's idiotic and misleading piece).  I don't want to derail this section, but at times you seem to be implying a difference between "mainstream" and "political", so I'd appreciate clarification on how you're using these terms. VictorD7 (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * NO breitbarts sorry history makes it an inappropriate source for any content, opinions or otherwise, reflective of claims about living people. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC) *Yes, it is "reliable" for authentically representing the views of its editor at large. NO- it is in NO WAY shape or form reliable for any comments even tangentially about any living people. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless you have some evidence that Breitbart isn't accurately relaying its own editor's words, like Shapiro saying so in another venue, then the correct answer is "Yes". Do you have any such evidence? If not, your comment amounts to WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, and should be dismissed. VictorD7 (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * no, for BLP content, ie calling out other reviewers by name and making aspersions about them, there is no question. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  05:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Um -- the names are accompanied by direct quotes from reviews. In what way are the quotes "aspersions" about the individuals?    In simple point of fact, Shapiro makes absolutely no "contentious claim" about any individual, and we should put the "aspersions" bit to rest. Collect (talk) 13:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * YES Shapiro writes for Breitbart, and if they were not an accurate source, Shapiro would have mentioned it.-- TMD   Talk Page.  00:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @TMDrew: What is it that you believe Shapiro would have mentioned? That his employer's website was not accurately stating his opinion?  Could you rephrase your view on this in a way that doesn't entail your view as to what Shapiro   would do under a hypothetical scenario?  Thanks.   SPECIFICO  talk  00:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * His statement seems clear to me. VictorD7 (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Question 1 – Yes – Shapiro simply offers an opinion that seeks to describe the political leanings of other critics and thus undermine their objectivity as reviewers. Breitbart has an Alexa (international/US) ranking of 1,508/495, which is comparable to the other websites we see cited in the article. Mojo's is 3,048/1,622; Fandango's is 1,138/270; Metacritic's is 1,188/603; Salon's is 1,157/379. The fact that Breitbart per se is the vehicle for his opinion is immaterial in the RS analysis. Every media outlet has had problems with thruthiness, some more than others. (Outlets often have "corrections" features.) Their failures, and even distortions, in other news stories does not keep this particular opinion from being WP:NOTEWORTHY.
 * Question 2 – No – As I stated before this RFC was posted, Shapiro may be critical of a certain "group" of critics, but WP:BLPGROUP is not written so that any "group" of people with similar characteristics comes within BLP restrictions.
 * With regard to E L A Q U E A T E's question – "Should the Shapiro quote be included in the article?" – my response is Yes. The movie is a political one, and political commentary is appropriate. Shapiro serves to "show" that some movie critics are "leftist", their leftiness skews their reviews, and their leftiness has skewed their reviews as to this particular movie. – S. Rich (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Srich, we don't use Alexa eyeball counts to determine what's noteworthy, nor to asses due weight or SYNTH. Web traffic counts certainly have nothing to do with the criteria for WP:RS references. Reciting alphabet soup wiki-links of inapplicable or miscast policy doesn't help resolve the issue at hand. SPECIFICO  talk


 * No to the first question; Breitbart's poor reputation for fact checking alone would make it a questionable source, although I would also argue that it falls under a few other criteria, and the question of whether this opinion is relevant or not (which is part of what, in this context, we would be citing Breitbart for if it were the sole source) clearly amounts to a contentious claim about third parties. Yes to the second question; although, as WP:BLP says, applying BLP to groups must be done on a case-by-case basis, in this case it is clear that he is referring to a comparatively small group of people (specific critics, I believe).  Some people (above) seem to be focused on whether a Breitbart commentator can be cited to show their own opinion in a context where that opinion is relevant, but this is only part of what WP:RS requires; we would also need a reliable source to show the relevance of that opinion, and as I mentioned, Breitbart itself is a textbook questionable source and therefore cannot be used for that in this context.  Even beyond these issues, I concur with the numerous posts above indicating that this quote would be out-of-place in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 09:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP states that "This policy does not normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons", so the notion that these general comments would apply to the far bigger category of an entire profession is untenable. That said, even if they singled out one person, simply critiquing a publicly published work doesn't violate BLP anyway. If it did then the entire Reception section would violate BLP, as even (more like especially) the pro critics' statements are contentious, and certainly the other political commentary is. You presented no argument that Breitbart is any more "questionable" than the other sources used, which include blogs like the Daily Kos, Media Matters, Salon.com, etc., or for that matter The Atlantic, Indiewire, Slant (the very name is a red flag!), etc., nor did you explain why an alleged reputation for fact checking matters when we're merely quoting properly attributed, subjective, political opinions.  Have you even read the sections? Removing one but not the others would be a huge WP:NPOV violation. VictorD7 (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No is not a relable source as per our policies WP:QS and the fact not even Fox news thinks the site is relaible.. On Fox Shep Smith Slams Breitbart as an Untrustworthy Source -- Moxy (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Shep Smith's personal opinion doesn't speak for "Fox News". You should see what FNC employees have to say about CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, the NY Times, and PBS, let alone blogs like Salon.com, or for that matter the good things other employees have to say about Breitbart. Also, while Breitbart certainly is reliable for sourcing its own authors' opinions (the issue here), the obscure liberal blog you linked to is likely not reliable for covering the Fox News Channel, and what it calls FNC's "party line". VictorD7 (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * if "We on Studio B did not run the video and did not reference the story in any way for many reasons. Among them, we didn’t know who shot it. We didn’t know when it was shot. We didn’t know the context of the statement. In short, we did not, and do not trust the source." does not represent Fox News approach to sources, then that is a clear sign that they truly deserve the epitaph Faux News. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Studio B" was Smith's own show, and he and others have said similar things about NBC and other outlets I listed above. Breitbart has been extensively cited by FNC and other outlets for other news stories, however, and certainly for mere opinions. Here's the NY Times itself citing and quoting Breitbart's Ben Shapiro as a representative conservative response to a Biden comment last year. As for the extremely witty (no really) "epitaph" (? Did you mean epithet? An epitaph is a posthumous description, like on a tombstone.) "Faux News", it's only used by a small group of childish partisans. An editor using such dimwitted rhetoric only succeeds in exposing his/her hopelessly biased agenda. It certainly doesn't contribute to productive discussion.  VictorD7 (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)