Talk:Breitbart News/Archive 3

Lede changes
There are some issues with misquoting of the NYT article in the lede, but I can't change them due to the locked status. The full quote on the NYT article is: "The opinion and news site, once a curiosity of the fringe right wing, is now an increasingly powerful voice, and virtual rallying spot, for millions of disaffected conservatives who propelled Donald J. Trump to the Republican nomination for president." Issues:

1) The article lede states: "The New York Times describes Breitbart News as a "curiosity of the fringe right wing"' yet the NYT article says it was, but isn't any more ("was once"), as if to imply it's gone mainstream. Can someone please amend this so that is more accurate.

2) The article lede also states that "[Breitbart] was a "potent voice" for Donald Trump's presidential campaign". However this isn't mentioned in the article body, only in the title. Given clickbait issues I assume this is problematic from an encyclopedic viewpoint. It should be reworded.

3) Finally the overly negative spin on the lede isn't warranted in an encyclopedia. The lede states "The New York Times describes Breitbart News as a "curiosity of the fringe right wing", with "ideologically driven journalists", that is a source of controversy "over material that has been called misogynist, xenophobic and racist", and was a "potent voice" for Donald Trump's presidential campaign";- the subtle implication that Donald Trump's presidential campaign is negative, which is how it reads to me, i.e.: aligning it alongside those others. Indeed you may think Trump's campaign was negative, but this isn't relevant to the lede of an article on a news network. 151.229.53.102 (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, "Stephen Bannon serves as the publication's executive chairman" in the lede at the very least needs to be changed to "has served" in order to be factually correct. This article from Breitbart describes him as the former chairman: ; like the editor immediately above this comment, I am unable to make the change since the article is locked. Kekki1978 (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 November 2016
The opeds referenced in the "NEA Propaganda Story" section were written by Patrick Courrielche and he should included in the entry. The writer was intimately involved in the story, and the cite founder, Andrew Breitbart, notes his influential role in the story here: https://web.archive.org/web/20100704095116/http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/abreitbart/2010/01/06/thank-you-john-nolte/

Additionally, John Nolte should be listed as the first Big Hollywood editor, as also referenced in the above link. BenjaminJunto (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Check Citations

e.g. [9] USA Today contains the Bannon quote, but it sources it from Mother Jones. Surely the original source should be quoted not the secondary ?

e.g. [8] the CBS News piece is an opinion piece.

(personal note it seems editors are desperate to us the smear-label "Alt-Right" or "Far right-wing" so are inserting dubious sources) Stewgreen2 (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Compromise language: "right-wing"
I propose that the lead be changed to refer to Breitbart as "a right-wing   website". This language adheres to WP:NPOV more than the non-neutral "far-right", and it avoids conflating its editorial position with that of the entire American right-of-center, for many of whom it could be seen as tarring by association. It's clear and uncontested there has been an editorial shift under Bannon away from standard conservative views, but "right-wing" could express that in general terms without courting controversy. --Varavour (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

References


 * Far right is inclusive of right wing and widely used in reliable sources. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and consensus. Drsmoo (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "Far-right", you mean? It's not NPOV. --Varavour (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Far right is a descriptive term, it's not an insult/pejorative. There are policies and viewpoints associated with the far right, and Breitbart is described as far right by reliable sources. Drsmoo (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * At last count, 38 sources have been identified that describe Breitbart as "far-right", so WP:NPOV indicates that we do the same. If someone wants to present 38+ reliable sources that describe Breitbart as "right-wing", then there will be a basis for a debate over which term is more appropriate.- MrX 01:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Here are various reliable sources that describe Breitbart as 'conservative' and/or 'right wing'. Will you address this @MrX? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 151.229.53.102 (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As already mentioned, far right-right is subsumed into the more general conservative. A few of your sources are unreliable, but I have no objection to also including "right-wing" as one of the descriptors for Breitbart.- MrX 00:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Many of those sources are Op-eds. You can find many such sources (i.e. The Guardian) describing Fox News as far-right. There are specific articles on the website in the New York Times and the LA Times, that also describe the site as 'conservative'. And the leaders of the website deny any connection to the alt-right.Avaya1 (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Many are op eds, which are reliable sources, and many are not op eds, which are reliable sources. Drsmoo (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. - MrX 17:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Left wing op eds do not get to dictate the objective voice of Wikipedia, just like National Review and Dennis Prager calling Obama a socialist does not hold any weight in dictating the voice of Wikipedia on Obama. Trotting out your highly inflated list every single time while ignoring any debunking of your list and the fact that your list is filled with repeats and mischaracterizations is extremely dishonest. You have not responded to the fact that you can easily find just as many sources, including the newspaper of record, the NYTimes, describes the site as "conservative" other than a very partisan statement "Conservative and far-right are like frogs and toads". If reliable sources describe the site as "conservative" why should that not be in the lead? At the very least, if "conservative" is backed up by reliable sources then both terms should be included going by that logic. Marquis de Faux (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Breitbart is widely described in reliable sources all across the political spectrum, from The Guardian to Fox News, as far right. Your description of the reliable sources as left wing op eds is both incorrect and irrelevant. Drsmoo (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * @ Marquis de Faux, feel free to provide citations that the 38 sources I presented are "left-wing", or any Wikipedia policy that says we can't use Fox News, LA Times, NBC, NY Times, CNN, AP, Reuters, Time, Newsweek, The Times of India, etc.. Again, no one disputes that Breitbart is conservative. They are, and to such an extent that that they are widely considered far-right.- MrX 23:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * @MrX, well stated. Wikipedia is not in the business of shaping public opinion, but rather reflecting it. The most widely-read and circulated news sources describe Breitbart as far-right; it's not for us to suddenly decide it isn't. If for whatever reason the common viewpoint changes, then you can change the description here. Drummerdg (talk) 05:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus here or in the above section. Please do not modify the article until consensus is reached. Also, adding 6 different links to sources for the term looks ridiculous and is unnecessary. Phatwa (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I would say "right wing", "conservative". Describing Breitbart as "far-right" is somewhat reminiscent of the term reactionary, used so ardently by the old guard of the left-wing up till the protests of 1968. Now I guess "far-right" is the term of the day... IBestEditor (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Insertion of a random JDF article calling the website 'antisemitic'
A randomly chosen JDF article is being re-inserted here. Not sure why this opinion article was chosen, or constitutes anything other than POV. Attempts to remove it are being reverted without argument. I can't see any reason for this, unless you want to add a bunch more randomly chosen opinion articles from more notable sources, and showing both points of view. But I don't see any such section on newspapers, and I can't see how it is anything other than cherry-picking. There are no secondary sources reporting on this article's opinion, or suggesting that it is notable. Avaya1 (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a news article, not an opinion article, from a reliable source. I'm not sure what you mean by "randomly chosen". As far as I'm concerned, if the ZOA material stays in the article, so should this.- MrX 14:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As the user responsible for the original edit - the article is no more random than the Zionist Organization of America; both the ZOA and the JDF represent different spectrums of Jewish opinion (by sheer numbers, the JDF appears to have more subscribers than the ZOA has members, though it's fairly close), which is obviously relevant to the topic of alleged anti-Semitism. As MrX says, the JDF is equally as valid an opinion as the ZOA. My edit did not imply that either was more correct than the other, only that they disagree; articles all over Wikipedia report on differences of opinion and this is no different. Drummerdg (talk) 07:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The ZOA is an organization, comparable to the ADL - representing two different official bodies within the Jewish community, both with tens of thousands of members. JDF is a newspaper, representing the opinion of a journalist. If you randomly quote one randomly selected JDF article written by a non-notable journalist, then you need to randomly quote another newspaper from the other side. But there's no way, non-notable newspaper articles, which are not reported by secondary sources, count as notable here. Avaya1 (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * False equivalency - the opinion of the leadership of an organization is not the same as the opinion of all of its members. For instance, most NRA members support universal background checks even though their leadership strongly opposes them. Also, there's nothing "official" about the ZOA or ADL - that would imply some sort of government endorsement. And by the way, plenty of secondary sources (HuffPost, Washington Post, etc etc) are reporting that Breitbart has posted anti-Semitic content and that Steve Bannon has shown anti-Semitic tendencies, so either you just don't want to hear a differing opinion from yours or you didn't look very hard. And by the way, I saw your addition of Rabbi Shmuley - he's also a known far-right figure with very few followers, so I'm not sure what you're hoping to gain by that. Drummerdg (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Survey: Presenting far-right as an accusation
I'm concerned about the use of the term far-right in the definitive voice, since it has connotations including white nationalism, Nazism, and fascism which both Bannon himself and Breitbart have denied. I propose changing it to the accusative voice, phrasing as or similar to:
 * a conservative news, opinion and commentary website[ref] which is frequently accused of being a far-right publication.[refs]

Sarysa (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The relevant question is whether the description is based on third party, reliable sources, not whether the description has a negative connotation or the website in question would like to be described in a more anodyne way. See Stormfront (website) for example. It is described as a white supremacy site based on reliable sources, even though the owner denies this description. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Err... The page title of the homepage of that site says 'white nationalist community' and the meta description refers to itself as white supremacist... 151.229.53.102 (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * See my reply to you below . There are legitimate cultural reasons that make this a special case, and failing to account for these is akin to encyclopedic slander. Sarysa (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Change to Accusative Voice
 * Change for the reasons I stated. Additionally, I am of the opinion that Wikipedia must be held to a higher standard of neutrality than that of news outlets. Emotions brought about by recent events call into question the neutrality of recent articles not labeled as opinion pieces. Wikipedians should take the safe route, accepting Breitbart's self-labeling while acknowledging widespread accusations. This can always be reviewed in a few months. Sarysa (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a news outlet: WP:NOTNEWS. It's an encyclopedia. A core policy of this encyclopedia is WP:Verifiability. That means that information must be based on reliable sources. Reliable sources are third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Breitbart is not a third-party source, and is not considered reliable (we do accept self-published content, but not if it's self-serving or there is reasonable doubt as to its accuracy, which is the case here). If you want to convince people to use your preferred description, you need to show that reliable, third party published sources do not call Breitbart "far right." Unfortunately, other editors have already posted dozens of reliable sources that describe Breitbart News as far right. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand that I'm making an unprecedented argument that is hard to find an equivalent of, but to a large number of people the term far-right has a second meaning in the realm of "akin to Hitler". This article uses far-right and neo-Nazi interchangeably. This article demonstrates a business owner's fear of allowing a "far-right" organization to host an event due fear of association with Hitler, and aforementioned organization is not labeled far-right on Wikipedia! Godwin's Law and reductio ad Hitlerum are documented fallacies that prey on peoples' fears of being compared to Hitler. The line between the term far-right and Nazism is so blurred (including by reliable sources) that the term's use must be put under extra scrutiny. It's a very unusual case but using far-right flippantly is a violation of neutrality. Sarysa (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not believe most people believe far-right automatically equals "neo-Nazi" (although it's impossible for either of us to say that conclusively). I think those articles show that far-right can sometimes refer to neo-Nazis. The great thing about Wikipedia is that the term far right is linked to WP's page about it, and the page gives an excellent description of the term. I have more faith readers can understand the difference. In any event, your issue should be with the reliable sources that are using the term, not WP. There really isn't any policy that supports ignoring overwhelming reliable sourcing because of WP editors' editorial concerns. What can be added to add some context is mentioning that Breitbart describes itself a certain way. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If even 10% of readers get that idea from reading the term outright, a term assigned by a small number of articles (I debunk most of MrX's 33 here) then it's a problem. I stand by my argument that the term demands special treatment due to cultural guttural reactions to anything associated with Nazis or fascism. Claiming encyclopedic slander is not a stretch. sarysa (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, an overwhelming number of reliable sources describe Breitbart as far right. I think it's also safe to say that they are fully aware of what far right means, they're using the term because Breitbart is far right. Everything else is just WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT Drsmoo (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I make an argument on the Bannon page that Wikipedia reserves the right to buck media trends in the interest of its own policy, be it clarity, neutrality, or whatnot. (it's in reply to your most recent post there) As it stands currently the tally is either 7:6 or 7:7 across both articles (inc. misplaced comments) with 7 going to the "change" vote, so it's not simply me trying to assert my views. In fact one of the No votes is accusing of whitewashing which suggests they know exactly what is going on. The only thing "I just don't like" is that I got sucked into being the standard bearer for this crap. Trust me when I say I'm writing for the enemy as I'm personally not even a nationalist and I believe that people currently here illegally should have a path to citizenship because I personally feel they've been exploited for years. Now I have to have my contribution page filled with this crap while my goal was neutrality and fairness. sarysa (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, Wikipedia does not reserve that right. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources only. Drsmoo (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So then I can around Wikipedia and replace inexact references to "illegal immigration" and "undocumented immigration" with just "immigration", because I can cite news sources that have done so. You're misinterpreting Wikipedia policy as "leave your brain at the door." sarysa (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If you can cite reliable sources that describe the policies as being in regards to general immigration as opposed to illegal immigration than feel free to do so. Drsmoo (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Except they're not, they're referring to illegal immigration as "immigration" even though that's incorrect and not encyclopedic. Here is a reliable source doing so, and I could easily dredge up a dozen more if I felt like spending an hour. Like I said, use reliable sources but don't leave your brain at the door. Misuse of language is common in the media, and I make this case a little better over on the other side. sarysa (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The link you just posted refers exclusively to undocumented immigrants, so I have no idea why you used that as an argument. Please don't try to mislead people on here. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, period. Drsmoo (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It is just "immigrant" in the headline and the first paragraph. It's not until a few paragraphs in that "undocumented" is finally revealed to be what they're talking about. That is a RS misusing language, which I argue about here. sarysa (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, the first sentence refers to undocumented immigrants. Drsmoo (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I was afraid something like that might happen. You're right, I didn't re-check the link because I'm at 7 of 10 free NYT articles (though it seems I can revisit it whenever) so I did make a mistake. With that in mind, if someone were simply to glance at the headline, they'd have a half-truth at best. (I admitted my screw-up, now admit yours over at the other thread :P ) sarysa (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but Wikipedia policy just doesn't work like that. See WP:NOTCENSORED: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive—​​even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." Using reliable sources to describe an article subject is a core policy of this encyclopedia. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think WP:NOTCENSORED applies to this case. I'm arguing against a loaded term with numerous alternative meanings that are factually inaccurate, meanings more likely to be interpreted immediately by Europeans and the historically inclined. I'm not even personally offended by it, nor are most on the "Change" side. I'm concerned about slandering people I don't agree with. (plus I'm not arguing for its full removal) sarysa (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Change seems like a reasonable compromise, as long as the article makes it clear that Breitbart has denied those charges. Marquis de Faux (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Change - Particularly given the political significance of the current accusations, and the fact that many of the accusers are business or partisan rivals to Breitbart, accusative voice is appropriate. Gabrielthursday (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not - Original research is not permitted by policy. The preponderance of reliable sources do not say that Breitbart has been accused of being far-right.- MrX 12:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as Definitive Voice


 * Keep, you also can't wish away reliable sources. Drsmoo (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, this is a nonsensical proposal which falsely claims the website is "conservative" in Wikipedia's voice – an extreme claim that runs contrary to mainstream reliable sources. Would we describe Der Stürmer as "conservative" too? Also the premise of this discussion is false; far right simply means "right-wing politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right" (as it is defined by Wikipedia), it is a broad term not implying any specific ideology. The website has also declared itself the platform of a movement (alt-right) that is universally considered far-right. --Tataral (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You prove your bias. Breitbart is not Der Sturmer. It also seems that you have paid exactly *zero* consideration to anything written in the long discussion above and are basing your stances on entirely visceral reasons. It is a complete bold faced lie that describing the website as "conservative" is "extreme" or contrary to mainstream sources unless you consider the AP, Reuters, and the NYTimes to be extremist groups. Marquis de Faux (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Reuters: "Bannon took over Breitbart after the death of its founder, Andrew Breitbart, in 2012, and has turned the website into a far-right, pro-Trump propaganda arm." http://www.reuters.com/article/us-election-trump-breitbart-commentary-idUSKCN10U0CC
 * NYTimes: "Before that, he worked as the executive chairman of the Breitbart News Network, parent company of the far-right website Breitbart News, which under Mr. Bannon became what the Southern Poverty Law Center has called a “white ethno-nationalist propaganda mill.”" http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/opinion/turn-on-the-hate-steve-bannon-at-the-white-house.html
 * AP: "Donald Trump's choice of far-right publishing executive Steve Bannon as a top White House adviser is bringing new scrutiny to a troubling, decades-old ideology: white nationalism." https://www.yahoo.com/news/ap-explains-election-brings-white-nationalism-forefront-223702647.html Drsmoo (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Those are all opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are not RS. Sarysa (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, they are RS for the fact that Breitbart is far right in that they represent a consensus within the media. With that said the AP article is not an opinion piece. There are also many non-opinion articles which describe Breitbart as far right, I simply used those to show all the sources mentioned above describe Breitbart as far-right. Drsmoo (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Opinion pieces do not get to declare what is fact. They are free to accuse, which is what I'm arguing that far-right be framed as. If we cherry picked a few opinion pieces from RS we could call Sanders and Warren far-left (which is also inappropriate as it has connotations of Stalin and Mao) or justifiably make all sorts of BLP violating claims/slander against organizations. As for the AP article, the line is extremely blurry on that one. The term AP Explains indicates that it's a special type of section and it has a mixed voice. Sarysa (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thankfully, plenty of reliable sources (not just opinion pieces) describe Breitbart as far-right, and not just as accusations, but as statements of fact. "During the 2016 presidential campaign, Breitbart News emerged as a haven for far-right factions that actively pushed for the election of Donald Trump." http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/breitbarts-steve-bannon-might-be-trumps-chief-of-staff.html "Until he left in August to work for Trump during the campaign’s closing months, Bannon was the executive chairman of the far-right Breitbart News." http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/breitbarts-steve-bannon-might-be-trumps-chief-of-staff.html "Under his leadership, the Breitbart website became one of the leading outlets of the so-called alt-right, a movement often associated with far-right efforts to preserve “white identity” and oppose multiculturalism." http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/fbi-hate-crimes-against-muslims-up-by-67-percent-in-2015/ "But he also named Steve Bannon, the head of his campaign and of the far-right website Breitbart, as his “chief strategist and senior counselor”." https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/13/stephen-bannon-reince-priebus-donald-trump-white-house-staff "The far-right Breitbart site" http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/17/media/steve-bannon-breitbart-donald-trump/ "Breitbart continually defined the far right boundary of the Trump universe" http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/donald-trump-steve-bannon-breitbart-pravda-214451 "According to Bloomberg, the ex-Goldman Sachs banker used the internet-y phrase "honey badger don’t give a s---" as the motto for the far-right website" http://www.ibtimes.com/who-stephen-bannon-breitbart-co-founder-trumps-new-campaign-ceo-2403094 And on and on and on. Drsmoo (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Check here for my direct retort and my positing of the equally RS valid term right-wing. Too much content to retool for this discussion. Sarysa (talk) 23:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Your retort consisted of claiming Reliable Sources like New York Magazine and Politico don't count for some reason. Here are a few more from a quick google search. "Breitbart is a far-right news site that traffics in racism, anti-Semitism, and anti-immigrant hysteria" http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/11/donald_trump_s_pick_of_stephen_bannon_means_white_nationalism_is_coming.html "Bannon was the executive chairman of Breitbart News, a far right online outfit that made Fox News look fair and balanced, dainty even." http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-election/who-is-donald-trumps-trusted-adviser-steve-bannon-ex-breitbart-news-chairman-20161111-gsnsnf.html "One of Trump's most controversial hires to date, Bannon joined Trump's campaign as CEO in August after serving as the head of Breitbart News — a far-right outlet that is one of Trump's biggest backers." http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/donald-trumps-cabinet-picks-43643918 "White supremacists celebrate Donald Trump's appointment of far-right Breitbart boss" http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/steve-bannon-white-supremacists-celebrate-donald-trumps-appointment-of-far-right-breitbart-editor-a7416661.html and so on Drsmoo (talk) 06:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * NYMag is an editorial magazine and Slate is an opinion website. That's like citing National Review and Weekly Standard calling Obama a socialist and saying reliable sources support it. The newspaper of record, NYTimes, calls it conservative, and I can find more reliable source NEWS ARTICLES calling it conservative. NYtimes NYTimes, LATimes The Hill Associated Press Reuters (which also calls it "right-wing") Newsmax Abc news Politico Fox News Marquis de Faux (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please stick to one article. The Bannon talk page seems to be dominant so we should keep the discussion over there. sarysa (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No thanks Drsmoo (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I implore others to visit the Bannon talk page as this discussion will simply be a one-sided argument. sarysa (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep As a multitude of others have shown you in the Steve Bannon article, the consensus in the media is that Breitbart is far-right. The following additional serious reporting pieces have labeled Breitbart as "right-wing" or "far-right".,,,,,,, , , , , etc. Daaxix (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Process disruption - There's already a survey upthread to decide if 33 sources (and more available) support describing Breitbart as far-right. Posing the same question again simply wastes time and space. - MrX 12:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It'd be helpful if you could discount from those alleged 33 reliable sources, those of which are either a) op-ed pieces and b) those that use the term 'far-right' interchangeably in the same article as other terms such as 'alt-right', 'right-wing' etc. Phatwa (talk) 15:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Lol at alleged. If you have any confusion over what constitutes a reliable source, feel free to check the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Drsmoo (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep For what it's worth at this point. RS favors this description. I agree with below that this will likely need administrator intervention to adequately close. Lizzius (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Other


 * Discussion
 * Ultimately, I think we might need an administrator's intervention on the subject. I've been watching the Steve Bannon article and I've had to call out violations of neutrality on both sides. (this discussion is also a mirror of one over there, since MrX has surveyed both talk pages) The "notavote" template seems almost pointless since I fear a tyranny of the majority is what will end up being the "consensus". Sarysa (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. MrX has apparently disregarded the NOTAVOTE guidance as evidenced in this edit and tallied up, which isn't advised. 151.229.53.102 (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The website is clearly described as conservative in the NYT and LA Times specific articles on the site. The owners of the site themselves say they have no connection to the alt-right - and 'far-right' is a particularly contentious label. See the NYT specific article on the site (What Is Breitbart News?) written prior to the Bannon appointment controversy. Describing the website as 'far-right', defies belief to anyone who has read the website. Avaya1 (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I find what you say about the owners of the site denying a connection to the alt-right... odd, to say the least, considering Bannon himself said that Breitbart is a platform for the alt-right. Now, I think I know what he meant by that: Breitbart, while not necessarily being alt-right per se, is one of the alt-right's favourite/most trusted news outlets. So yes, there is a connection. Maybe it's an indirect one (Which, I think, it's the reason why people cannot agree on where on the political spectrum is Breitbart located; "indirect" ends up meaning "kind of ambiguous". That, and what formerly was mainstream right seeming more far-right-ish in light of its continuing opposition to social advances which have become more-real less-hypothethical than before). But even so, there is one. LahmacunKebab LahmacunKebab 12:48, 26 November 2016 (Spanish hour)


 * Avoid semantical "health warning labels" altogether in the lead, espcially contentious ones. I tried to bring this issue up at MOS in early 2015 --Pudeo (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Survey: Should Breitbart be described as far-right in the lead?
I'm seeking consensus for describing Breitbart as far-right in the lead. Please indicate your support or opposition (and reasoning) below. Threaded discussions go in the Threaded discussion section . — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talk • contribs)
 * Support
 * Yes - Prominent sources describe it as such. The Washington Post, The Guardian, Bloomberg Businessweek, The Independent, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, CNN, NBC News, New York Magazine, Politico, NPR, BBC, USA Today, Slate, Mother Jones, and Mic. That Breitbart is a far-right website is a widespread view which means we should describe it as such in Wikipedia's voice, per WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talk • contribs) Also Associated Press, Associated Press, Reuters, Orlando Sentinel, Seattle Post-intelligencer, San Francisco Chronicle, The Times of India, Chicago Sun Times, Sydney Morning Herald, Time, Newsweek, Wired, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, The Christian Science Monitor, Fox News, and Fox News. - MrX 17:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Also news articles in The Japan Times, The Australian Jewish News, The Arab American News, The Daily Dot, and The Daily Beast.- MrX 13:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes "Far-right" or "Alt-right"? but yes, I prefer the latter. NOTE: the alt-right article names Breitbart in the lede. Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has been widely described as such in reliable sources. In fact, the site itself emphasizes its opposition to what is known as "conservatism in the United States" and its position to the far right of the "mainstream" right-wing/conservative political current in the US, and its alignment with the openly racist "alt-right" movement (comprising "white nationalism, white supremacism, Islamophobia, antifeminism, homophobia, antisemitism, and ethno-nationalism"). Hence, describing it as "conservative" is highly misleading and an insult to those normally called conservative in a US context. I prefer far right in the opening sentence because it is a more established (and broader) term, with the neologism alt-right mentioned below in the lead in the current form ("Bannon declared the site "the platform for the alt-right" in 2016"). The site declaring itself as "platform for the alt-right" is also a recent development. --Tataral (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Describe it as "right wing" not far right.


 * Yes. Overwhelming support to call it "far right" based on multiple reliable sources. There are a few sources that describe it as conservative but are either brief articles that don't really discuss the website (e.g., or add caveats to that description. This one seems straight forward to me. Alt-right should be mentioned in the lead as well based on reliable sources. I would support it being mentioned in the first sentence as well. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's perhaps also worth considering that the site was somewhat less extreme some years ago (before it declared itself to be the platform of the alt-right), and that some sources may be out of date in regard to what the site is today. I think the opening sentence should be based on what the site is today, but that we should describe further down in the lead how it was originally conceived and evolved over the years (as we currently do). --Tataral (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Again this sounds like an opinion presented as fact, as per most of the other comments here. 151.229.53.102 (talk) 11:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Overwhelmingly supported by the cited sources, as cataloged by MrX. I also agree with Tataral: the history section can and should discuss Breibart's shift over time from the right to the far-right (e.g., (NYT: "Mr. Bannon took over Breitbart News in 2012 after the death of its founder, Andrew Breitbart, and shifted it further to the right"; SPLC: "Over the past year however, the outlet has undergone a noticeable shift toward embracing ideas on the extremist fringe of the conservative right"); Irish Times: "Breitbart’s premature death led to the site’s takeover by Bannon, who has shifted it editorially towards becoming what he himself has described as 'the platform for the alt-right' ... a term for a movement of extreme conservatives"). Neutralitytalk 00:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes - Reliable sources are clear on this, what more is needed? Grayfell (talk) 03:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources also describe it as 'conservative'. What Is Breitbart News? Avaya1 (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes. Per MrX above. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course -- to call it "conservative" is to put it in the same camp as some conventional newspapers, when in fact it is quite distinctive. We would mislead our readers if we aren't sufficiently specific here. And of course the sources at our disposal enable us to do this, rather easily.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes per the overwhelming number of reliable sources provided above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes per the thorough and extensive research in the initial post by at the beginning of this section up top. Sagecandor (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes There are many primary and secondary sources which now confirm that Breitbart is a mouthpiece for the "alt-right". The CEO, Bannon himself, said so to Mother Jones. Daaxix (talk) 04:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That is an entirely different term, and not under consensus here. Phatwa (talk) 11:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As a multitude of others have shown in the Steve Bannon article, the consensus in the media is that Breitbart is far-right. The following additional reporting and opinion pieces have labeled Breitbart as "right-wing" or "far-right", with the preponderance using "far-right".,,,,,,, , , , , ,,,, etc. Daaxix (talk) 12:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes' Absolutely, without a doubt. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes We don't right great wrongs on Wikipedia. The reliable sources have described Breitbart as far right, so that's what we should report. ~ Rob 13 Talk 05:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes Many, many, many WP:RS state that; also, one should add connections to Alt-right,with a short description of the Alt-right, as that is also represented in multiple sources.Casprings (talk) 15:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Oppose it is only very recent events that have meant it has been changed from 'conservative' to 'far right'. That previous description has been in place for years. Citing the Guardian and other left wing newspapers is an obvious ploy. I think this needs to be put out for wider discussion. The edit histories of the above Wikipedians suggest something untoward here. There are more academic ie. non op-ed sources for the term "right wing" than there are "far right" also. EG: https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=%22breitbart%22+%22right+wing%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= 151.229.53.102 (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC) — 151.229.53.102 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * When the site has declared itself the platform of the far-right "alt-right" movement, and also is considered as such by sources today, it doesn't really matter if this is a somewhat recent development. The lead should of course chronicle its evolution from what it started out as to what it is today. In any event, the site's platform was always very right-wing and would certainly be called far right in many parts of the world even before its turn further to the hard right during the last few years. --Tataral (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This sounds like an opinion. I see no evidence of Breitbart claiming to be far right. 151.229.53.102 (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The alt-right were once viewed simply as anti-immigration and patriotism, later it has been re-defined by left-wing news outlets. 88.89.178.194 (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Anti-immigrant is far right by definition in my book. --Tataral (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Anti-immigration, not anti-immigrant. To dislike immigrants who are leagal citizens, is not the same as not wanting more immigration (you probably know that, but just in case). 88.89.178.194 (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Your book doesn't define political terms. Marquis de Faux (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose, smear campaigns by left wing news outlets should not dictate wikipedia articles. The previous description has been in place for years. 88.89.178.194 (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC) — 88.89.178.194 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Marquis de Faux (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose, AP, Reuters, NYTimes, LATimes, all describe it as conservative. Most sources that describe it as far right are op-ed pieces by left wing authors. I would support labelling it "right-wing" as it is not tradictional conservative. However "far right" is way too extreme and is based on left wing characterization. Breitbart itself has stated "But Breitbart is not an alt-right publication, and the daily news content of the website speaks for itself. Moreover, there are no “white nationalists and unabashed anti-Semites and racists” working at, or published by, Breitbart." http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/17/bannon-breitbart-anti-defamation-league-backs-down/


 * Far-right "based on left wing characterization"? No, far-right is what conservatives, or indeed any decent person who is not an extremist, would call it. The attempt to whitewash an openly racist website as "conservative" is appaling and an insult to any conservative. --Tataral (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion that it is racist. It is not "openly racist" as the owners and editors have vigorously denied it. The fact is, Reuters, AP, and NYTimes, the paper of record, all describe it as conservative and you cannot find many non-left wing sources calling it far-right.Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * David Duke, grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan also calls himself non racist. Reliable sources of all stripes call Breitbart far right, even Fox news calls Breitbart far-right. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/22/trump-distances-himself-from-far-right-continues-to-attack-media.html. Perhaps Fortune is also progressive. http://fortune.com/2016/11/23/breitbart-news-ban-appnexus-digital-advertising-network/  Drsmoo (talk) 06:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per my comment below, this survey was premised on a misleading characterization of various sources. I'm open to the application of "far-right" to Breitbart if we had a preponderance of unbiased RS using that terminology. We do not, and this entire survey has been slanted by the inaccurate citation of sources by MrX at the very beginning. I assume MrX was acting out of the best of motives, but the misleading beginning vitiates the validity of any resulting consensus, even if there was one. I'd also point out that, given the political salience of Breitbart right now, and that many RS are direct competitors and rivals to Breitbart, we need to be particularly aware of potential bias in the sources we cite. Gabrielthursday (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose The neutral articles - LA Times profile and NY Times profile - describe the website as 'conservative'. The owners themselves say they have no connection to the alt-right. The content from the website is far from 'far-right' by any stretch of the imagination - unless you want to apply the same label to Fox News or the New York Post. Avaya1 (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose On some issues, like trade and immigration, they advocate positions left of the Republican establishment. It's hard to categorize their political philosophy in a word or two but when the better sources (Reuters, AP, and NYTimes) use conservative, so should we. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose breitbart is not far right (does anybody know what this means?) and 2 of 3 sources that are saying far right dont even say far right, they say conservative and right wing. but it doesnt matter either way, call everything far right / racist / blah blah cry cry, create cover for the real far right, racist and so on. KMilos (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose "Far-right" is a contentious, editorializing term, and, as has been pointed out by others, is mostly used by overtly liberal newspapers like the Guardian and the Huffington Post. The Los Angeles Times, a very reputable newspaper, uses the term conservative, not "far-right", as do a host of other newspapers. Password123 (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Password123 is a sockpuppet account used by multiple users (in fact there was edit warring occurring against itself on the Steve Bannon page), commentary from this account cannot count as separate/additional editorial commentary. Daaxix (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose A lot of users here are confusing the terms "alt-right" and "far right", even though there are ongoing discussions on the former term separately on the relevant talk page. I'd support a change to mention "alt-right" or even "neo right" or some other term, but the term "far right" is highly contentious and needs more sources than op-ed pieces in liberal/left-wing newspapers and websites (where in the exact same article they use other terms to describe Breitbart such as 'conservative' and 'alt-right'). Inferring slate.com or HuffPo as a "reliable source" is dubious in the extreme. Phatwa (talk) 11:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose Wikipedia policy is NPV, but both "Far-right" and "alt-right" are being used maliciously as smear words, in the  "label and dismiss trick". Neutral tradition is to use the label people self-describe as e.g. when it comes to tribal  groups etc. Here "conservative" is the evidenced self-descriptor. The "Alt-right" description is not a CURRENT self descriptor, nor is there proper evidence of it in the past. A comparison would be : Would you label a business a ponzi scheme  ? Well only if there has been an official court judgement. Here another comparison would be : Would WP label Mother Jones an extreme-socialist website , just cos a few Newspaper commentators used that description ? Stewgreen2 (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC) — Stewgreen2 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Limited Use
 * Restrict to accusative voice. It is our duty as Wikipedia editors to be politically neutral. The term alt-right is a self descriptor and has already become a slur among liberal circles, but since it is or was a self-descriptor it is valid. Unrestricted use of far-right causes Wikipedia to associate Breitbart with white nationalism, Nazism and fascism, which its proponents deny. If far-right is used as a term, it must be clear that the label is an accusation by commentators and groups. Sarysa (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Threaded discussion
 * Comment: These are all invariably from the past week. Older sources are needed to avoid the suggestion that this is a politically motivated edit. 151.229.53.102 (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As has been mentioned above, would "alt-right" not be a possible alternative? Dustin  ( talk ) 18:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. In my mind, alt-right is a neologism and not as well known as far-right. Obviously there is a large overlap. I'm not sure that our readers would benefit from the article using a word that has only recently started to enter the mainstream.- MrX 18:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I also believe alt-right it too much of a neologism to be used in the opening sentence; unlike far-right it isn't self-explanatory or a well-known term. Alt-right should be mentioned a little further down in the lead instead (as is currently the case) in the context of Bannon declaring the site the platform of this movement in 2016. --Tataral (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really. Id suggest that right wing or conservative are bette. regardless this needs more consensus from a wider pool of users. Please someone tag it as such. the leftwing groupthink here isn't a fair representation. 151.229.53.102 (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Half of those are op-eds. AP and Reuters describe it as conservative, as does NYTimes in news articles. Marquis de Faux (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. A few are opinion columns, but most are news articles. No one is arguing that Breitbart isn't conservative. Conservative and far-right are like frogs and toads.- MrX 04:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Holy cow. This entire nomination is laughable when you make statements like that. The leftwing cabal ie the same handful of users dictating political opinion as fact on Wikipedia is worrying. 151.229.53.102 (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a statement based on your personal biases. Conservative is not alt-right and the standards of journalism, AP, Reuters, and NYTimes all describe it as conservative. Marquis de Faux (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment This is pretty appalling. Many of these citations either are to commentary (New York Magazine, NY Times, USA Today, Slate) or do not attribute the term "far-right" to Breitbart at all (NBC, Bloomberg, Politico). There are other problems with some of the other sources cited. This is a misleading summary, and really invalidates the whole of this effort at applying this label. You can't begin a survey/RfC with such an incorrect premise. Not cricket. Gabrielthursday (talk) 09:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment It'd be helpful if you could also offer a Yes/Oppose vote in that case. 151.229.53.102 (talk) 11:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It seems you are throwiing in as many marginally relevant sources as possible to make your argument look credible.
 * Op-eds, which cannot be cited as WP's voice: Your NYTimes article (the actual NYTimes describes Breitbart as "conservative" in news articles), NYMag article (NYMag is an editorial magazine like National Review), New Yorker which is like NYMag, the Reuters article published in the website's "Commentary" section, Mother Jones, Slate, USA Today opinion article, Wired mag
 * Does not specifically call Breitbart News far right: The NBC News article, BBC.
 * You also took one AP wire article and counted it at least 5 different times because it was published in different sources. The quote exactly is, "Bannon led the Breitbart website, considered by many to be the alt-right's platform that has been widely condemned as racist, sexist and anti-Semitic." which does not say it is far-right.
 * NYTimes, US's newspaper of record, calls Breitbart conservative in all cases as does most MSM sources. NYtimes NYTimes, LATimes The Hill Associated Press Reuters (which also calls it "right-wing") Newsmax Abc news Politico Fox News Marquis de Faux (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You have shown a handful of sources that describe Breitbart as conservative (Newsmax is not reliable), which is not in dispute anyway. The question is whether it is a widespread view that Breitbart is far-right, a fact which been overwhelmingly demonstrated with 38 sources.- MrX 13:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * - I have presented 33 reputable sources from around the world. There are many more available. A tiny minority of the sources that I presented could be classified as opinions, and are discounted, although not entirely. Your claim of "inaccurate citation of sources" is without evidence or merit, as is your assertion that the survey is vitiated because I presented the sources at all. Not to worry thoughI'm confident that other editors took the time to read the sources, and probably even searched for some of their own.- MrX 22:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * A more accurate barometer would be using something like these, surely. https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-b&q="breitbart"+"right+wing"&oq="breitbart"+"right+wing" vs . Or the Google Scholar result that I posted above earlier; both of which show almost 3x as many results for 'right wing' versus 'far right'. 151.229.53.102 (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you're trying to present relevant sources. However, of the sixteen you first cited, I identified seven (on a first pass) that were irrelevant either because they did not attribute the term or were commentary. There were other difficulties I didn't enumerate. And, no, we cannot assume that everyone dug into each and every one of your sources. We cannot manufacture consensus on a misleading foundation. Gabrielthursday (talk) 01:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "attribute the term". Even if we ignore the few opinion sources, there are a plethora of bona fide news sources that say Brietbart is far-right. Unless someone here can present an equally large number of sources that say they are not far-right, we have abide by what the 33+ sources say, per WP:V and WP:DUEWEIGHT. Any argument against this descriptor that is not policy based and accompanied by evidence has little to no weight in this discussion.


 * When The Associated Press writes "Bannon was quoted before leaving Breitbart that he considered the site "the platform for the alt-right" — a movement often associated with far-right efforts to preserve "white identity," oppose multiculturalism and defend "Western values.", they are describing Breitbart as alt-right and far-right as a matter of reportage.


 * When Time magazine writes "But it was the announcement of Stephen K. Bannon, a former naval officer turned Goldman Sachs executive turned publisher of far-right vitriol, as chief strategist that signaled an astonishing departure from presidential norms." they are making an assertion of fact.
 * Attributing the claim that the website is "far right" would weaken the argument that it should be described that way in the lead. Because reliable sources do not see the need to attribute it to an opinion of the website's critics, it suggests that reliable sources consider it common knowledge and widely accepted. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * When Newsweek writes "His comments came two days after Trump appointed Stephen Bannon, the executive chairman of the far-right Breitbart News Network, as his chief White House strategist." they are informing their readers that Breitbart is a far-right News Network. Our policies do not permit us to ignore this preponderance of sources because some editors happen to disagree with them.- MrX 02:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The NYT and LA Times specific articles on the site, describe it as 'conservative'. The owners of the site themselves say they have no connection to the alt-right - and 'far-right' is a particularly contentious label. See the NYT specific article on the site (What Is Breitbart News?) written prior to the Bannon appointment controversy. Avaya1 (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Note to closing admin - note that the IP accounts above have no edits except this discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * By the same token the article has existed for years with the 'conservative' label. Many of the Wikipedians who support the change to far right have been active for years on here yet only now they have taken issue with this term. Wonder why?! 151.229.53.102 (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment: There is clear consensus to describe Breitbart News as far-right based on the above discussion. Several editors have demonstrated that this is how the website is described in reliable sources, by presenting solid policy-based arguments and sources. On the other hand, most if not all of the oppose "votes" (although we don't really vote, which is why numbers as such carry no weight) are mere assertions based on the editors' own personal views instead of Wikipedia policy or sources, otherwise known as WP:IVOTETRUMP, and should at least for a large part be discounted.

There is also the question of possible alternative terms to consider: in particular, using the term "conservative" to refer to a website that openly promotes white supremacism, islamophobia, homophobia, antisemitism and misogyny and which is known for and openly decares its extreme hostility to the mainstream political right in the United States (and elsewhere), amounts to outright falsification and extreme POV pushing. --Tataral (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * There is a certain irony in accusing others of injecting their personal bias when yours is so blatant. To claim that Breitbart openly promotes white supremacism and antisemitism is utterly ridiculous and vitiates any credibility you might have had. Almost as silly is your claim that there is a clear consensus here, when there is obviously a vigorous disagreement with both sides offering evidence and sensible arguments. Gabrielthursday (talk) 07:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * There is a clear consensus. I have yet to see any policy-based arguments or sources from anyone opposing it, or any policy-based arguments or sources supporting the absurd description as "conservative." --Tataral (talk) 07:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It's pretty clear that this !vote is being brigaded by newly created/WP:SPA accounts on the "oppose" side.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Revert / edit warring concerns
What is the point in a user asking others for consensus, then deciding their own take on the consensus without it being duly summarized or decided? The 'convervative' term has been in place on this article for many years, and there is no clear consensus. Something strange is afoot here, I have reverted it back to the previous "conservative" term until consensus is agreed upon. Note that means general consensus from a wide base of users, and not 'MrX Of The 38 Sources (TM)' consensus only. Phatwa (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Lack of consensus is not a justification for edit warring. That said, I think the sources in this version are clear in describing Breitbart as far-right. Other sources even in the current version of the article show Breitbart is aligned with the alt-right (even though they reject that label), and that's not a political ideology that could be termed simply conservative. I mean, even National Review thinks Bannon's Breitbart is too extreme . clpo13(talk) 17:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I believe there is consensus. In raw numbers, 11 support, 10 oppose. Of the 10 opposing, 4 are WP:SPAs and almost certainly sock- or meatpuppets. Of the remaining 6 opposes, one argues for cherry picking the sources that they want to use; one substitutes original research for verifiability; and one makes the demonstrably fallacious assertion that "Most sources that describe it as far right are op-ed pieces by left wing authors." without providing a shred of evidence to back up such a preposterous claim.


 * By the way, it's sheer hubris to express concern about edit warring upon reaching the brink of 3RR in your determined effort to force your will into the article.- MrX 17:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * There was no consensus achieved here - the above is just M X's opinion, feel free to edit it as you wish. Avaya1 (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I have provided 38 sources (above) that refer to Breitbart News as 'right wing' or 'conservative' (or both). As a result of that I am reverting the current change. Perhaps putting this out for wider discussion would be a good idea, and not the same group of 5-6 users? 151.229.53.102 (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * By the logic of reliable sources it is only fair to include the conservative label as well. Marquis de Faux (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I opted for 'right wing to far-right' until consensus is established. Perhaps if others feel this isn't the best solution something else might work. 151.229.53.102 (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , is there any scenario that you can imagine where far-right or right-wing could be interpreted to mean liberal, thus requiring the addition of the word 'conservative'? Should we also describe Breitbart as a website hosted on the internet? Adding the word 'conservative' adds no new information, and we're not striving for fairness here.- MrX 16:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Conservative is at least as well-sourced. Given the survey arguments are reasonably divided, better we use the less contentious description. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You can start your own RfC if you believe all that. I don't.- MrX 04:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware we owned the RfCs :) though one can certainly own articles. Regardless, we don't need an RfC to return to what was the long-standing consensus version. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Try changing it back and see what happens. The user decided long before starting the RfC what he would like the outcome to be 151.229.53.102 (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Protected Edit Request
Please replace the six citations after the word "far-right" in the first sentence with these. Each of these have been checked to ensure that they support the material, are not opinion pieces, and each cite conforms to CS1. Thank you.- MrX 15:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * clearly citation overkill. 151.229.53.102 (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No it's not. Six strong sources should keep people from whining about insufficient sources in the future. See the above the RfC for what that looks like.- MrX 00:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As an aside, now that this article's been placed under discretionary sanctions (1RR and consensus required) by, it may be okay to drop the full protection. If editors continue edit warring, they can easily be blocked as an AE action by any uninvolved administrator. ~ Rob 13 Talk 06:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * . Changed it back to the three months semi. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you everyone. Much appreciated.- MrX 12:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

NEA "propaganda" story
This is regarding this edit and similar. Only two of the non-Breitbart sources used mentioned Breitbart's role, and only in passing as the site which hosted the audio. If this is a legitimately significant story for the site, it should be supported by more substantial coverage, otherwise this could again devolve into listing every story they publish which is ever mentioned by another outlet. The story is also redundantly mentioned in the "Big Hollywood" subsection, but even that seems thin based on coverage. Grayfell (talk) 08:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Fake News
Some of the so-called news are blatant lies, for example this: http://www.deutschlandfunk.de/fake-news-wie-breitbart-fakten-aufbauscht-und-einen-mob.1818.de.html?dram:article_id=375553


 * Added. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

False report of Muslim mob
I removed this section for now. --Malerooster (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, without much justification. It's well sourced and indeed well covered. I put it back.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, without consensus. Is it so hard to gain consensus? --Malerooster (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What exactly is your objection to this content? There are eleven sources, so omitting would tend to run afoul of WP:DUEWEIGHT. It's 100% on topic. Mark me as supporting its inclusion.- MrX 01:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Section-blanking is premature, to say the least. A reason for removal hasn't been clearly articulated yet. Grayfell (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * @MrX, my objection is that we don't need to include every "controversy" discussed by the talking heads, which I assume is the case here. Another "controversey" or "notable stories" was just added about Paul Krugman. These type of sections become dumping grounds and almost lists which really isn't helpful. I will not remove the content again because 3 editors have objected, but I would prefer to wait to see how notable this really is and whether there are any further "developments", that's all. --Malerooster (talk) 13:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This isn't "every controversy", this is just one widespread controversy which received widespread coverage. Please don't drag out that ol' fallacious argument of "we can't include everything therefore we can't include this one particular thing I really IJUSTDONTLIKE".Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice strawman argument. Please try reading next time. --Malerooster (talk) 13:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, even Breitbart felt the need to follow up with this by now. It has been in many many newspapers for days now. It may be comparable to Breitbart News, because there are other news sites and that politician that fell for the false story. Eventually, we may be able to shorten this to the most important sources only. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Breitbart_News – Response from Breitbart
In the article http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/01/08/fake-news-fake-news-media-sow-division-with-dishonest-attack-on-breitbarts-allahu-akbar-church-fire-story/, Breitbart respond to the Critique. The part "and as of January 7, 2017, the article is still online and not corrected." should be updated. Nsaa (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Added. (Swapped this talk section with the unrelated section below to keep "fireworks" stories together). HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Sleeping Giants
Perhaps this article should mention the 'Sleeping Giants' campaign (NYT coverage) which has had some success in persuading major bands not to advertise on Breitbart? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Added in the most concise way to the Kellogs mentioning of the introduction. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)