Talk:Breitbart News

Quotes and cites
In the article, "Five of the best examples of left-wing bias on Wikipedia in 2017" is a quote of a Breitbart headline. So per WP:RS/QUOTE it is "best" to cite breitbart.com/tech/2018/02/01/five-of-the-best-examples-of-left-wing-bias-on-wikipedia-in-2017/ and per WP:CITE "what matters most is that you provide enough information to identify the source". I intend to add that, but will wait to see whether there are objections based on a policy or guideline. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Seeing no objections, added. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Peter Gulutzan The link needs to be whitelisted. Isi96 (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not going there, I believe the method I used is the best that can be done for now. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Isi96: I see that despite this conversation you reverted my edit. Are you making an objection based on a policy or guideline, or are you accusing me of spreading spam as a JarlaxleArtemis sock? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Peter Gulutzan No, I tried requesting the link be whitelisted in the spam whitelist talk page, but did not get a response. Per this discussion, the link has to be whitelisted before it can be used. Isi96 (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Isi96 Your unnecessary whitelist request, where you yourself said "it should be an acceptable use of the link", was archived without action. You're still not pointing to a policy or guideline or even an RfC result, just people commenting about citing Breitbart for a fact in another article. I have pointed to two guidelines, and this is about citing Breitbart for an opinion which is allowed according to the RfC, and this is not about whether the quote is due -- somebody else already decided that. Since this is a dispute between two editors, would you accept WP:DRN? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Peter Gulutzan I requested a whitelisting because the consensus for Breitbart mentions that links to the site should be whitelisted before it can be used: WP:BREITBART. I have no issue with the use of the link in this instance. Isi96 (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, your suggestion sounds good to me. Isi96 (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You're referring to an insertion in an essay by Newslinger who, I believe, as on an earlier occasion mentioned above, is giving orders without appropriate basis. Anyway, I'd like to interpret your words "I have no issue with the use of the link in this instance." as meaning you won't object if I put it back. But I could be misinterpreting your words (I made more than one suggestion), so I'll wait before doing so. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Isi96 Were you affirming that my suggestion to reinstate the cite sounds good? Or were you affirming that my suggestion to go to WP:DRN sounds good? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The second one. Isi96 (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have filed at Dispute resolution noticeboard#Breitbart News and placed a notice on Isi96's talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I saw this at DRN, where it shouldn't have been accepted (and I'm not sure why someone with 400 edits is trying to resolve DRN cases, however well-intentioned). This just needs a 3O. Here's one: I don't see what including that title really adds to the sentence. It doesn't actually illustrate the point any better than the rest of the sentence already does. Remove the headline and there's less of a reason to include the Breitbart link. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 13:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:3O was not requested and now you've made it impossible by becoming a third editor in this thread. However, since WP:DRN failed, I guess we'll have to discuss yet more and perhaps eventually try an RfC. The reason I think your idea won't work is that there are a bunch more direct quotes of Breitbart in the article, and a bunch of indirect ones (which I think are covered by WP:RS/QUOTE, I'd need to see an official ruling). So either all of them (or at least the opinion ones) have to be removed, or the same incompatible-with-guideline problem has to be addressed for them. My solution is less disruptive than yours, because it involves changing no words of the text, and is not partly reverting the editors who put a quote in. By the way I asked an administrator whether JarlaxleArtemis is a current threat. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: After I received a reply, I posted on WP:ANI thread Breitbart Spam Blacklist. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:3O was not requested and now you've made it impossible by becoming a third editor in this thread - Odd. By being the third opinion, I made a third opinion impossible? there are a bunch more direct quotes of Breitbart in the article - In this case, I don't see the addition of a quote being a net positive to the article, so the question is moot. However, where there are direct quotes, assuming there's consensus that including the direct quote improves the article as opposed to paraphrasing, then I have no problem including the Breitbart cite in addition to whatever source lent WP:WEIGHT to its inclusion. It seems like good practice to cite any source as directly as possible when using quotes. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 20:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This link should not be added. It was written by, so this inclusion would be proxying for a banned user. Even if the user were not banned, the fact that the article acknowledges that he has disputes with several of the people named clearly identifies it as score-settling. It's not "by Breitbart", it's by a banned user with a grudge. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I support removal of the headline. The sentence is clear without it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Clearer, if anything, and more respectable, since the sources give at least some credence to the idea that Wikipedia is hostile to conservatives (an idea I reject: we are hostile to bigots, but the fact that most bigots identify as conservative does not render movement conservatism as inherently bigoted; go back a few years to W or Poppy Bush and there was much less dehumanising rhetoric form the right about LGBTQ+ people, public health, climate change, and the rest. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * JzG/Guy had already removed it. Oogh, I guess by pointing on WP:ANI to a thread started by Jytdog I was "proxying for a banned user" but I think I'll survive, I see no Wikipedia PAG. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on that, I did not see any reference to Jytdog when I dipped in. What I do know is that editors - banned or not - feeding content to the media to fact-wash their opinions is not exactly a new thing. Writing the content themselves? A rather obvious red flag, especially in extremist media. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Re chopping off the tip of the iceberg, here are more quotes in the article.
 * "Huffington Post of the right" -- probably false that that was the initial concept, it apparently was said by Steve Bannon in 2012.
 * "to make light of a significant company event"
 * "war" -- judging from www.breitbart.com/the-media/2016/03/14/futures-markets-wrap-dow-continues-uncertain-climb that's probably misleading, Breitbart did use the word "war" but actually was accusing others of going to war against it
 * "has been our motto" -- I'm a bit dubious, why an MSNBC video? Anyway, MOS:LWQ should have been used
 * "Breitbart London" etc. -- if these are Breitbart's headings they should be cited to Breitbart, if not they're not quotes of anyone
 * "proof NAACP awards racism" www.breitbart.com/politics/2010/07/19/video-proof-the-naacp-awards-racism-2010/
 * "Secret Hagel Donor?: White House Spox Ducks Question on 'Friends of Hamas'." - Breitbart News noted that the two Lynches were different people by correcting and appending the original article -- but that's a fact so I won't point to it.
 * "advocated the narrative of 'birtherism'" -- didn't see the ultimate source for this one
 * "At New Year's Eve celebrations in Dortmund" -- again a fact statement so disallowed
 * Spanish police crack gang" -- fact statement
 * ... And that's only the direct quotes. Much of the article is indirect quotes of Breitbart (uncited) followed by direct quotes of Breitbart critics (cited) Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I always support pruning of cruft. All the back-and-forth only serves to obscure what Breitbart is, and was designed to be: an echo chamber for the far-right. That Breitbart has largely succeeded in this goal is obvious from the fact that nobody talks about the alt-right any more, because they are no longer alt. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * My request to WP:ANI re removing Breitbart from the spam blacklist has now been archived. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2023
Breitbart is NOT far right. That is the truth of it and I hate you people who lie on here WHY? 104.244.132.17 (talk) 11:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  11:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand this user's frustration. "Far X" is not a serious descriptor in common use by political scholars - it is a low-brow, pop-politics phrase used almost exclusively as a dismissal and a smear. Regardless of whether one could come to an objective, empirical understanding of whether or not Breitbart is "far right" or not, I find the use of the term in Wikivoice to be very troubling. I'd suggest attributing this statement to its authors, noting that sources W, X, Y, and Z have described Breitbart as "far right", rather than affirmatively stating it as an objective fact. Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * far-right does have a specific definition for wikipedia purposes. The question is whether or not Breitbart is described by the far-right page, not whether or not you disagree with the label. AstralNomad (talk) 23:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect. We use follow what reliable sources use to describe Breitbart, not our own analysis of whether or not they meet some "Wikipedia definition". –dlthewave ☎ 23:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We follow reliable sources, with great care to distinguish between factual descriptions and opinionated analysis. The Wikipedia article about "far-right" has no bearing on the term's use elsewhere on Wikipedia, nor does it have any bearing on how academic or popular outlets choose to employ the phrase. I don't want to put words in the IP editor's mouth, but it seems to me that their general gripe is that "far-right" is an example of RS engaged in opinionated analysis, not a factual description or an academic definition. I agree with the spirit of their comment, unconstructive though it may have been - too often, Wikipedia editors take opinionated statements from pop-politics outlets and enshrine those opinions as encyclopedic facts by using Wikivoice. I do think this is a problem that merits further constructive discussion. Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Which of the sources supporting "far-right" in the lede do you consider to be pop-politics, opinionated or require attribution for any reason? Do they outweigh the academic sources which are cited? –dlthewave ☎ 23:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think very strongly that "far-X" is an inherently opinionated term, which should always be attributed. There is currently no policy about this, other than "avoid stating opinions as facts" in NPOV, but in my view, this should be common sense. Saying "far left" really just means "to the left of what I personally believe to be reasonable", ditto for far-right. It's extremely rare for someone to use these "far X" descriptors in a positive or neutral sense - 99+% of the time that it is used, it's used as a pejorative. It's similar to the term "terrorist" - you've heard the adage "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", right? That's why, when I removed the word "terrorist" from the opening sentence of the Al-Qaeda article, it was unanimously acknowledged as a common-sense move, even though one could make a much better case for Al-Qaeda objectively being terrorists than a news outlet objectively being "far" anything.
 * I'd support keeping all the sources that describe Breitbart as "far right" - I oppose the removal of any content. However, it would be appropriate to remove it from the opening sentence, instead adding a sentence to the lede that reads "many news outlets have labeled Breitbart as 'far-right'", with the appropriate citations included. Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Here on Wikipedia, we go by reliable sources. If you'd like to write an article that describes Breitbart based on your feelings, I hear Conservapedia is good. –dlthewave ☎ 23:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's an extremely rude and uncivil comment. As I just stated - I oppose the removal of any content, including the "far right" descriptor. If someone were to remove the "far right" bit from the first sentence, without attributing it in the lede, I'd be the first to revert them.
 * What I am saying is that far-X is a "feelings" based term. It's not based in any objective, measurable political reality, isn't widely used by scholars of politics, and is used almost exclusively in a partisan setting with the intention to demean and dismiss the subject. Note that I've made the exact same point elsewhere - "far left" is just as problematic as "far right", "terrorist", etc. - they are markers of opinion, not statements of fact. We should be careful to delineate between the two - NPOV states very explicitly that we are to avoid stating opinions as facts.
 * The example on the NPOV page is "genocide is an evil action". This is noted as improper. Instead, NPOV advises us to say something like "genocide has been described by so-and-so as the epitome of human evil". If a statement like "genocide is evil" is too opinionated for inclusion on Wikipedia, "political group X is 'far-right' or 'far-left'" is incontrovertibly problematic in light of NPOV, and such descriptors must be attributed. That observation implies nothing about my personal political beliefs, and I'm disappointed that you would resort to casting aspersions against my character. Implicit in your comment is the insinuation that one's edits on Wikipedia reflect one's personal political beliefs, which may be true for you, but certainly not for me. Philomathes2357 (talk) 01:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with Philomathes2357. If the term "far-right" is not being used as described on its Wikipedia page (as I have been corrected), then the term used from approved sources is largely being used as a subjective, pejorative term and is not based off any objective measure. The term is fine to stay on the page, but I would suggest it is removed from the first sentence. I also want to remind dlthewave of WP:AGF AstralNomad (talk) 01:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking at the quality and quanitity of the sources, I just don't see how we can justify excluding "far-right" from the lead or cast doubt with an attribution while still maintaining NPOV. There's no evidence that these journals are using the term subjectively. –dlthewave ☎ 02:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The phrase "cast doubt" implies that there is some sort of objective, factual basis for the descriptor "Far X". Sorry, I don't mean to be rude or snarky, but you're simply mistaken. There is no such basis. No serious political scholar throws terms like this around, because it would severely degrade their credibility.
 * As far as "casting doubt", there is nothing to doubt. "Far right" is the opinion of those journalists, and I don't doubt that it's a sincerely held opinion. That simply does not make it an objective description of empirical reality. There doesn't have to be evidence of subjectivity - the term is in and of itself subjective. That's like saying "well, a bunch of journalists called so-and-so a scary person, and they didn't seem to be using the term subjectively" - no, that's not the right way to think about this - the term itself is inherently subjective and feelings-based. How else can you delineate exactly where "right" turns into "far-right", other than by referencing your own subjective view of what constitutes "far"? This isn't a phrase like "far out" - here, "far" has explicitly negative connotations.
 * Even if I could find 20 RS articles that call Al-Qaeda "terrorists", it's still the case that "terrorist" as a factual descriptor is not appropriate. If we can agree that "terrorist" is an opinionated term (which is the community consensus), even though we probably all think of Al-Qaeda when we think of terrorism, it really shouldn't be hard to wrap our minds around the fact that other negative, derisive political labels are similarly opinionated.
 * I'm sure we all agree that genocide is not cool (I hope), and we might even colloquially call that a "fact". But for NPOV purposes, it is definitively NOT a fact, it's an opinion - even if an RS, or 10, or 500 RS's say it, it's still not a 'fact', it's just a very widely held and widely circulated opinion. If "genocide is evil" is not a fact, then "such-and-such outlet is far X" is even further away from being a fact. This is epistemology 101 - facts versus opinions. This is so important and so commonly misunderstood.
 * One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and one man's far-left radical extremist is another man's eminently reasonable moderate. We must delineate between objective facts and what I call "colloquial facts", which are simply widely held opinions. We must be able to think very carefully and precisely about what a "fact" is versus what an "opinion" is if we are to accurately apply NPOV - and I have to say, I think this article misses the mark.
 * Final thought - I agree with you 100% dlthewave - we cannot justify removing a discussion of the "far right" label from the lede. It's too notable of an opinion to bury in the body of the article. This is why I don't suggest removal, I instead implore attribution, which is the only reasonable way forward if we're going to be epistemologically honest with ourselves and the readers of the article. Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid that much of the discussion in this section -- the contributions by Philomathes2357 in particular -- is based on a false premise. The term is not used only by "opinionated journalists"; it is common in academic research as well. Here's the very basic evidence for that assertion:. The specifics of usage in connection with Breitbart would need further exploration, but the term is by no means simply an "opinion". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * And now, taking a quick look at the list of sources used to support "far right" in the intro, what I immediately see is that several of them are articles from peer-reviewed academic journals. So now I'm pretty confused: the sources (at least some of them) are not "opinionated journalists" at all, there is academic support here...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Certainly - it is fair to point out that this sort of language has creeped into academia, especially in the last 5-10 years. That is an example of a fact, not an opinion, and I'm glad you pointed it out. I shouldn't have downplayed this fact.
 * However, there is a simple response: other terms, like "terrorist", also appear widely in academic literature, but there is still a community consensus that such language must be attributed on pages like Al-Qaeda. If a bunch of academic, peer-reviewed journals wrote "genocide is evil", it does not matter. It's still an opinion that must be attributed per NPOV. The lamentable fact that academics have begun to inject their personal views with words like "radical", "fringe", and "far X" does not change the reality that such language is inherently feelings-based.
 * Again, how can you tell when "left" has become "far left", other than by referencing your internal barometer of what feels "far" from what you conceive of as "normal"? If a laundry list of established film critics describes a movie as "terrifying", does it then become a fact? If someone watched the movie, and feels that it is not terrifying, are they factually incorrect? No. Feelings are not facts. There is no more factual basis for "far" than there is for a word like "bad" or "scary".
 * I can tell you that in all of my undergraduate and graduate studies of international relations, I was, and would have been, corrected if I used such language in an essay (unless I was writing about a group that the professor found distasteful, haha...) Surely, you'd agree that something doesn't shift from being an opinion to being a fact just because a social science journal proclaimed it so.
 * Social scientists are not epistemologists - we, on the other hand, must have a firm grounding in epistemology if we are to accurately apply NPOV, regardless of the state of popular or academic discourse. There is a widespread lack of epistemic comprehension amongst Wikipedia editors and the public in general - perhaps the best way to address this is at a more fundamental level, rather than at the level of individual offending articles. Perhaps a very rigorous debate is in order over at the NPOV page. Philomathes2357 (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you have it backwards: Academic usage is evidence that the label is appropriate, not the other way around, and we can trust these reliable academic sources to apply it correctly. I'm also a bit confused about when and how we decided that "far right" is a subjective label; you seem to take it for granted, but I'm not sure that opinion is widely accepted by the community. –dlthewave ☎ 21:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * While I absolutely think you're engaging with me in good faith, I do strongly disagree, and find it hard to understand why anyone would question the status of "far right" as a subjective label. I do, however, regard this as an important issue worthy of serious discussion, and I would like to engage you deeper on this question.
 * I don't want to leave a wall of text here, on a public talk page, so I just spent a few minutes jotting down a very simple and basic explanation of why any argument that "far X" is an objective label is extremely dubious. I have posted this to the top of my personal page. I would very much appreciate it if those who have engaged in this discussion would read it, and return here to explain, in light of it, why we should continue to regard the label as empirical and objective. Philomathes2357 (talk) 06:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem I'm seeing here is editors' lack of awareness of how supposedly "descriptive" and "objective" political language, like "far-right", is actually subjective and intended to mold how the writer thinks about the subject. I've been simply asserting it as self-evident, as have other users, because to us, such a label is self-evidently subjective.
 * I'm gradually realizing that just assuming that this is self-evident to everyone else is a mistake. This has led to people saying "you have no evidence that "far-right" is an opinion, other than your opinion!" - which is maddening for someone who sees "far" to be as obviously subjective as "delicious" or "scary". So I want to clarify that there are multiple published, reliable, academic sources that note the subjectivity of the "far-right" descriptor.
 * In Far-Right Politics in Europe by Jean-Yves Camus & Nicolas Lebourg (2017), it is explained that "far-right" is a weaponized normative value judgement used to "disqualify and stigmatize all forms of partisan nationalism by reducing them to the historical experiments of Italian Fascism [and] German National Socialism." (pp. 1-2)
 * Cas Mudde wrote in The Ideology of the Extreme Right that ""the term is not only used for scientific purposes but also for political purposes. Several authors define right-wing extremism as a sort of anti-thesis against their own beliefs." (pg. 10)
 * That doesn't mean we shouldn't note when reliable sources use the term - all it means is that we should be recognizing it as a statement of opinion, not an objective statement of fact. It would only help this article to attribute the "far-right" bit. Philomathes2357 (talk) 06:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There are big problems with your quotes, which I think qualify as misrepresentation of a source. Misrepresenting a source is a violation of civility.
 * Far-Right Politics in Europe by Jean-Yves Camus & Nicolas Lebourg (2017) is an analysis of the far-right in Europe. The very next paragraph past your dishonestly snipped quotation begins "All the scholarly literature concurs that a family of far-right parties does exist, however," and ends "To understand the far right in Europe as it now exists, we must in fact begin with French history. We will then be able to elaborate a general theory of the far right." https://books.google.com/books?id=_j5YDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA1&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=true
 * Mudde's very next paragraph likewise reads "Notwithstanding these political disputes, there is a rather broad consensus in the field that the term right-wing extremism describes primarily an ideology in one form or another," and the following paragraph "Most of the authors involved define right-wing extremism as a political ideology that is constituted of a combination of several different features." It should also be noted that the chapter is devoted to analysis of "the ideology of the extreme right," containing sections such as "subgroups within the extreme right party family," followed by "putting the extreme right party family to the test" and stating "despite several borderline cases there is a large number of political parties whose extreme right status is not debated." https://www.jstor.org/stable/b113ae62-56b4-3179-bdb8-230e3313de46?seq=24
 * And you further failed to mention that Mudde's book is from the year 2000 and thus misses the past ~2.5 decades of research, analysis, and reliable source reporting in this area.
 * If you are going to bring citations, you are responsible for accurately representing them. You clearly failed in your responsibility to do so here. 76.142.90.140 (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's unequivocal that Breitbart is considered far-right by nearly everyone, scholars, writers, etc. Andre🚐 07:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Repetition in Sources
I don't want to change anything like this without consulting others, first. However, in the lede we have a bundled ref of several sources that affirm Breitbart is far-right. This ref bundle is repeated later in the "Accuracy and ideology", but it is joined by two additional citations. So, I ask, should we remove the other two sources from this statement or should we just add them into the larger ref? Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * . In Special:Diff/1176535475, I've removed the Mashable citation from that location since it is unclear why the Mashable article is being cited for the far-right descriptor. I've also moved the Southern Poverty Law Center  citation next to the term alt-right, since the SPLC article explains Breitbart News's promotion and defense of the alt-right (which is a subset of the far right), but does not explicitly label it as a far-right website. —  Newslinger   talk   10:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2024
Remove the first two paragraghs or lable as "opinion", because none of the statements are factual or verifiable. 2600:1700:7D48:CA00:F166:9E00:B948:C847 (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The first two paragraphs have 30 sources.  (talk | contribs) 14:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)