Talk:Breitbart News/Archive 4

Clarification on terms & consensus
The lede of this article has been in place now using both "right wing" and "far right" for a while and both are sourced; would it be wise to update the other articles for example the Milo Yiannopolous article lede to reflect these terms. I have tried it but got reverted instantly - unclear why. Perhaps someone with more resolve can do it as I don't want to get into an edit war. Phatwa (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * For starters, please refer to the WP page on consensus where it plainly states that consensus is not a vote, but a weighing of which side of a debate has a better grounding in policy. With that in mind, please refer to this section which I know you've read before in which two editors argue a policy based position in support of the term "far-right" and one editor argues a non-policy based position against it, while the OP made a weak policy-based claim against it that was responded to sufficiently to discredit it. There is, in fact, a consensus to refer to Breitbart as "far-right" per the preponderance of sources, per the fact that it's not a pejorative term, and per the lack of significant dissent among reliable sources. I'm not sure how the current phrasing managed to stay in, but the edit summary in which it was inserted is a bald-faced lie. So I'm correcting the article to reflect the actual consensus now. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Further evidence of consensus which is against your assertion:


 * Talk:Breitbart News/Archive 3
 * Talk:Breitbart News/Archive 3
 * MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  13:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I propose that we remove "right-wing". It adds nothing to readers' understand of the subject. Obviously, right-wing is subsumed under far-right, as is "conservative".- MrX 15:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * According to who? Using the weasel term 'obviously' means very little. 81.157.83.173 (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * already did. The consensus was clear, contrary to Phatwa's claims. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The consensus wasn't clear, hence no action being taken. Revisiting the same idea later and claiming "consensus has been reached" without referring to the archive of the conversation implies an axe to grind. Can you point out where there was a consensus reached to use the term "far-right" exclusively? Note that the previously used term "right wing" had been in place since, as far as I can tell, 2011 or possibly even further back. What a joke this website is, when MrX can ask for consensus on this Talk page, realise there is none, then simply wait a few months when other Wikiepedians have lost interest in the topic, and ask another user overwrite it with their personal viewpoint. How often do you want a consensus vote to be held? It was only 6 weeks ago. If this were a left-wing interest article, it would have been put out for consensus from a wider pool of users long ago. If there is anyone left here with any integrity, perhaps they can do it. 81.157.83.173 (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * To clarify the above point, as it might not be clear so far, I am NOT disagreeing with the description of Breitbart News as 'far-right', for which there are several reliable sources. My objection is to the removal of the term 'right-wing' which is as equally, if not more, well-sourced. Or indeed the previous term which was in use for many years in the article: 'conservative'. 81.157.83.173 (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you understood the consensus (or how consensus works here) doesn't change the truth of what I said. The most !votes were for including the phrase "far-right" and the most well-supported policy arguments were for including the phrase "far-right". The phrase was already in the article, "hence no action being taken". That's the very definition of consensus. You can't change that by claiming (or pretending) to not understand. Also, you say I didn't point to the archive where it had been achieved after I posted three fucking links to the archive?! lol Try again. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate that you feel you can't get your point across without swearing. My understanding of a Consensus discussion is that a closing statement is made with the decision and reasons why that decision was made, but I can't find any such comment there. 81.157.83.173 (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's more unfortunate that I can't get my point across with swearing. It's a blatantly obvious point that's unarguably true. There is no policy which states that "consensus discussions" must be closed with a closing statement. Also, there is no such thing as a distinct "consensus discussion". All discussions are for the purpose of arriving at a consensus. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2017
{{subst:trim| Captbub (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * {{not done}} The comment includes no request. Please state the request as clearly and specifically as possible (such as {{tq|change XX to YY}}) and include reliable sources to support the suggested change. Timothy Joseph Wood  19:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2017
WP precedent is to refrain from describing editorial stance in the lead sentence of articles on news organizations. Seems it would be more appropriate to describe Breitbart as a "political journalism website" than as "far right." That claim should be made in a later part of the article, and objective language ("Critics say") should precede that description. Silitech44 (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. There are already discussion about this above, and "critics say" would be weasel wording, also. Grayfell (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is more than critics who have called Breitbart "far right." All of the citations are to reliable sources, which is the core requirement of Wikipedia's verifiability policy. And it is quite commonplace for the ideology of political organizations and media outlets to be placed in the first sentences of their articles, especially when there's no significant dispute among the reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Strange how all of those "reliable sources" are all left-wing websites and newspapers. What's funny is that the Huffington Post article calls the website "left-leaning". Why aren't ThinkProgress and Media Matters for America called far-left? Do we need any more proof that Wikipedia is biased against conservatives? Every left-wing website is labeled "progressive", but if it's a conservative outlet, then it's "far-right".  Thismightbezach (talk) 03:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Adding "far-left" to those article based on a handfull of obscure/unreliable sources, as you tried to do, is false balance, shows a very poor understanding of the issue, and appears to be disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Please confine your arguments about this article to this page. Grayfell (talk) 05:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Forbes is now considered obscure and unreliable? Really? There's a double standard here and i'm simply trying to balance things out.Thismightbezach (talk) 06:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The place to discuss this in detail is the articles' talk pages, but yes, Forbes is frequently unreliable because most of its content is blogs which are hosted by Forbes without editorial oversight or fact-checking. Hence the "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own" and "The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer." disclaimers under all of their "contributor" content. Grayfell (talk) 07:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Muslim mob
The section about the Muslim mob is very overextended to a non-encyclopedic point, with unclear and repetitive quotations that lays it on pretty thick. This is coupled with WP:NPOV claims like, "Breitbart News is broadly considered to be a fake news website" (Fake news is made up news, not biased news, and dubious truth that claim). This section needs some cleaning up. Marquis de Faux (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinion. Can you point specifically to what is suppose to be wrong with the section, like unreliable sources or something? Your statement so far is really just a long winded way of saying WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree wholeheartedly with . This section is horribly written, with way too much content explaining exactly how the Breitbart story was wrong. There is an excessive amount of quotation and scare quotes. The fake news sentence fails verification. It's also just one big difficult-to-read paragraph. Please do not remove the POV tag without consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not horribly written. I'm a stickler for grammar and style and I don't see any glaring problems. And even if there were some prose problems, that does not justify a POV tag, which is a separate issue entirely. This assertion that it's "horribly written" boils down more to "I don't like what the section contain", which pretty much shows that this is just spurious WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT tagging.
 * And yes, the section does explain what Breitbart "got wrong". If it didn't I'm sure someone would complain that Breitbart is being smeared. And all of this explanation is based on sources. There are two quotations used to illustrate what the story, and the problem with it was. Perfectly appropriate. Likewise, there are a couple instances of scare quotes - for words like "mob" and "alight" which are ALSO perfectly appropriate.
 * Sorry, it's a spurious tag and none of these objections make an iota of sense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion, not the opinion of the consensus; and your repeated removal of the tag is editing against consensus and in violation of the discretionary sanctions. Please self-revert, and try a little harder to understand the arguments of those who disagree with you before denigrating them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh please, you gonna start claiming "consensus" already??? Seriously, if it's a "it's badly written" issue then the POV tag is not appropriate. It's just a means of "shaming" the text you WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT because you can't question the nature of the sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please tone down your righteous indignation, which is not constructive. I did more than say it's badly written, and Marquis de Faux did too. The specific policies and guidelines this content is in violation of are WP:V, WP:UNDUE, and WP:SCAREQUOTES. You are entitled to your views on how these rules should apply; but please do not disparage the views of editors who disagree with you. Let's start with the easy stuff. Where in the Guardian source does it say that Breitbart is widely considered in Germany to be a fake news website? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no "righteous indignation" there, just pointing out that you're playing games by putting in a NPOV tag but only being able to muster a complaint about "horrible writing" (sic). I addressed your qualms about "excessive quotations". I am not disparaging anyone's views, just saying that the tag is being inserted on spurious IDONTLIKEIT grounds. Which it is.
 * Ok, so you claim "the specific policies and guidelines this content is in violation of are"...
 * WP:V - how the hell is this non-verified?
 * WP:UNDUE - why exactly? Lots of sources cover this.
 * WP:SCAREQUOTES - already addressed. The page says "quotation marks, when not marking an actual quote, may indicate that the writer is distancing herself or himself from the otherwise common interpretation of the quoted expression". But that is EXACTLY what we should do in this case - distance ourselves, Wikipedia, from common interpretation of the quoted expressions - because we are reporting on a FAKE NEWS story. It wasn't a "mob". It didn't set "alight" anything. Etc. This is just common sense. By complaining about the use of quotes on these words you are essentially arguing that the original Breitbart story was correct. Is that what you are arguing? No? Then this is an instance where scarequotes are perfectly appropriate.
 * You're just throwing out random acronyms out at this point which obviously don't apply, in place of a coherent criticism of the section. Because you don't have one, because it's really just WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The section does need to be copy edited for clarity and concision, but it doesn't seem particularly non-neutral to me. "In Germany—where Breitbart News is broadly considered to be a fake news website..." is original research, apparently gleaned from a handful of sources that have described it as such. It should be removed, or reworded and attributed to those sources.- MrX 22:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That sentence cites a single source, which doesn't support the content. As for NPV, there's an excessive amount of quoting and detail here which lends undue emphasis to the debunking; or put more simply, it's piling on. There's no need to include in excruciating detail each and every factoid that Breitbart got wrong and why. It should be enough to say that Breitbart got it completely wrong in several respects and that the story was thoroughly debunked by reliable sources X, Y, and Z. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There's emphasis on the debunking because the story was widely debunked. What do you want us to do? Pretend that the story was true? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I actually want you to listen for once. Re-read my previous suggestion and respond instead of lashing out with the usual partisan fury. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Except for the scare quotes and the phrase "the story is factually wrong" the section reads fine to me. I started re-reading it with the expectation of agreeing that it was undue (I'm very sensitive to claims of a left-wing bias in our articles), but after reviewing it, nothing jumps out at me except the scare quotes. We shouldn't use them.
 * The problem is that scare quotes don't just imply distance; they also imply mockery. As if it's 'beneath us' to treat the claims as if they were seriously made. That's not encyclopedic. We should be clear that there was no mob, that there was no burning alight, and we should make this clear prosaically. The use of scare quotes is a rhetorical tactic that is inappropriate to an encyclopedia.
 * As the the "the story is factually wrong" phrase, it's just ugly. "Subsequent information showed the story to be inaccurate" or "The story was demonstrated to be factually inaccurate" would be much better.
 * I'm going to take a turn at the section, removing the scare quotes and changing some wording. I'm also removing the tag, as I believe this edit addresses it sufficiently. Feedback is, of course, welcome. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  02:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I request that the tag be restored, as there isn't consensus to remove it and Mjolnir's changes didn't address all of the concerns raised. Most importantly, the "fake news" sentence seems to fail verification pretty clearly. But in addition to that, it seems there is a good-faith disagreement about how much detail should be included about how Breitbart got the story wrong. Until a consensus forms to resolve that disagreement, the tag should remain. That is the main purpose of the tag--to recruit editors to weigh in and help achieve consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The language is terrible - Not anywhere close to that required in the WP:TONE & WP:YESPOV sections of WP:NPOV; far too much WP:OPED, far too much not attributed, and a few parts that will need to be checked against the sources to ensure WP:V. where Breitbart News is broadly considered to be a fake news website; almost every newspaper reported about; stands by its proven-false claims, refuses to admit any exaggeration; not adhering to journalism ethics and standards by not verifying their claims; and (all of the parentheticals) stand out like the proverbial. The sentence that begins They also reiterated ... is just hideous prose; even for someone as rambling as I. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * One more time, problems with TONE are not a legitimate reason for a POV tag. Furthermore simply asserting "YESPOV" and throwing out some generalities, is not enough - you need explain specifically why that applies. When I look at it I see everything attributed - which part exactly is not? And saying "a few parts ... will need to be checked against the sources to ensure WP:V" is specious. Then go ahead and check it! You're trying to create presumption that there is something wrong here and then eschewing the responsibility of actually proving it.
 * Aside from some minor style problems, the text actually reads fine too.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Gosh that's a lot of assertions; and not many of them supported or accurate. I did include examples of where the issues are, quoted, in green, and in a funny font too. While 1000 people gathered (which is not unusual on New Years eve on a public place), video footage from the Place of Leeds does not show a mob,[134] no policemen were attacked:[135] the official police report notes a "average to quiet new year's eve" with "no spectacular facts to report",[136] while the firefighters note an "almost normal weekend night" and mention that a "safety net at the Reinoldi church caught fire by a fireworks rocket, but was quickly extinguished"[137] (because of consumer fireworks, small fires like this frequently happen at New Years). and They also reiterated the accusation against Breitbart of exaggerating minor facts to give the false "impression that a 'mob' of 1000 migrants had shot at Christian churches in Dortmund and set them on fire"[145] and not adhering to journalism ethics and standards by not verifying their claims. are objectively bad prose. And put the aspersions back in the bottle, I'm more than happy to fix it; but we seem to be still at the point of accepting that there's a problem. There may be another 11 more steps to go. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 09:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

To the extent there were some prose problems, which appear to be a result of translation from German, I've taken a stab at correcting them. But again, that's not a POV issue and does not justify a POV tag. And again, if you're going to claim that "statements need to be verified", you need to go and do it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I did. Each of the statements quoted in my initial comment in this section is not supported by the sources which are used as references for it. That is why they were quoted. Additionally, one statement is pure original research; another is unsourced entirely. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 10:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, they are. For example, quickly, "the official police report notes a "average to quiet new year's eve"". --> Nach Einschätzung des eingesetzten Polizeieinsatzleiters war dies für eine Silvesternacht in Dortmund ein eher durchschnittlicher bis ruhiger Verlauf. That's why it seems like you're just *assuming* that these haven't been verified. Because it's so easy to verify them. Look at the sources again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Was that one of the statements quoted in my initial comment in this section? No. It wasn't. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Why is it that the editors who have a problem with the section are not editing it at all? When I see only one side of an issue attempting to address the concerns of the other side without the other side attempting to address them themselves or seek a compromise, I begin to question the legitimacy of those concerns. I would prefer not to sit here questioning the integrity of other editors, so please: try to work towards something we can all hate (read: agree to) equally. Also, the addition of the tag was challenged by reversion. Per the DS sanctions, re-inserting it is a violation. Please leave it out for at least two days. If, at the end of that time, we have not arrived at a consensus, I will support the re-inclusion of the tag. Unless several new editors arrive to contest the insertion of the tag, that would make for a pretty clear consensus. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Because some people believe in discussing contentious content issues. Others (and I'm specifically NOT including you in this list) simply plug on with their POV and plug their ears to whatever is said on the talk page while shouting "WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT! WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT! You have failed to make your case!" This is known as POV pushing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, what's "plugging with POV" is making vague assertions about style and grammar and using that as an excuse to add a neutrality tag to the section. You HAVE failed to make your case. What am I suppose to say in that situation? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A draft proposal might be a good place to start, then. Write up a draft of the section which you believe satisfies the issues you have with it and I will let you know if I approve, and if not, what would garner my approval. Presumably, will do the same. You might be surprised at what I'm willing to endorse for the sake of seeking a stable version. I'd be happy enough with a significant reduction in the section size, provided it covered all the main points (I can see how some of the language used currently could be considered redundant).  MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  19:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have never been a big fan of the draft-out-on-talk approach; rather, I'm more a fan of the incremental wiki-style approach. I was about the fix the "fake news" sentence but I see VM beat me to the punch, and I do appreciate that. I will start trimming what I see as excessive detail and quotation. If folks disagree with my edits, you are welcome to revert without disparagement.--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That works for me. If you foresee yourself making a large number of small edits, would you be so kind as to include in your first edit, and remove it in your last? I have a feeling more than one of us will be editing this in the near future, and things will tend to work out better if we 'take turns' so to speak.  MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  19:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. I have off-wiki matters to attend to so I won't get to my edits until later today. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The current version is much better. I still have a problem with this one specific sentence: "In Germany, several newspapers reported on Breitbart News publishing the hoax and distorting facts for the purpose of spreading Islamophobic propaganda." The sentence is POV because it *assigns motive* that can be disputed in an objective way. Would you agree if I changed it to: "In Germany, several newspapers reported on Breitbart News publishing the hoax and accused the website of distorting facts for the purpose of spreading Islamophobic propaganda"? Marquis de Faux (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources which are referenced are, for the most part, not newspapers, but radio & tv - this is a minor issue, whih could be resolved by saysing "media outlets" or similar. The larger issue is that the sources referenced do not say "hoax", and do not make the accusation as stated. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Biased source
and : Before anyone violates this page's 1RR requirement (edit: too late, never mind, please stop reverting each other before you get blocked), let's see if we can work this out. Here is the source currently disputed:. It, along with other sources, is cited to support calling Brietbart News "far-right." This source is an opinion piece, and thus biased. See WP:RSOPINION. However, there is no rule prohibiting a biased source from being used to support a statement of fact. See WP:BIASED and WP:NPOV. Biased sources may also support statements of opinion so long as in-text attribution is given. A consensus has already been established on this talk page that Brietbart News should be described, factually, as "far-right." Thus, there is technically nothing wrong with using this biased source to support that fact, even without in-text attribution to the article's author. However, using biased sources to support statements of fact is still not ideal. Given that there are 5 other sources that also support the claim that Brietbart is "far-right", is there anything wrong with removing this particular biased source? Doing so won't change anything substantive in the article, and it will hopefully settle this debate down before an admin comes in and brings the hammer down on you for edit-warring on a page subject to discretionary sanctions and 1RR. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 07:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I had forgotten that this was 1RR, my apologies. I have no strong feelings on including or excluding the source on its own merits, but there's a larger context. Since this specific point has been aggressively edit-warred and blanked and fudged in the recent past, removing an otherwise usable source sets a troubling precedent. If we're going to remove it for being an opinion, we need to be clear on why that's a problem. Being a non-neutral source isn't persuasive. Chipping away at sources subtly alters the neutrality of the article, even if the wording being supported temporarily remains the same. Grayfell (talk) 07:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Going through sources claiming Breitbart is "far-right":
Thismightbezach (talk) 07:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * http://www.newsweek.com/barack-obama-donald-trump-white-nationalism-stephen-bannon-521680 - An opinion piece.
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/is-trumps-new-chief-strategist-a-racist-critics-say-so/2016/11/14/b72e2ab0-aa9d-11e6-a31b-4b6397e625d0_story.html - Another opinion piece
 * http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2015/0620/Beyond-Rhodesia-Dylann-Roof-s-manifesto-and-the-website-that-radicalized-him - Opinion piece
 * http://bigstory.ap.org/article/6a4338387e6847eeb6f59db3b8d1fb0a/donald-trumps-cabinet-picks-so-far - The only source that's actually usable.
 * http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/11/24/world/politics-diplomacy-world/appnexus-bans-breitbart-ad-exchange-citing-hate-speech/#.WJA-exiZPVr - Flimsy foreign source. "called far-right by critics." keyword: critics.
 * Japantimes is hardly a flimsy foreign source... If nowhere else you invalidated your entire point there. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 20:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * All three of the sources that you have labelled "opinion pieces" are blatantly obviously NOT opinion pieces, nor is there anything about them to indicate such. Each covers a newsworthy event, is hosted outside the opinions subsection of the outlet, and is written by a writer referred to as a "Reporter," not a "Columnist" or "Opinion writer".
 * As to the "flimsy foreign source" all I have to say is: get over it. We use foreign sources all the time, and the "flimsy" designation you used is just so much bullshit. There's nothing flimsy about it.
 * Given that you were caught trying to make pointy edits to other pages (a gross policy violation) already, all you've accomplished is immediately ruining any good faith I would otherwise have extended you. And I can pretty much guarantee you that I'm not the only editor here that applies to. Showing up at an article and immediately undermining whatever credibility you might have had with other editors is pretty much the end of this, so I'm going to give you fair warning right now: keep this up and you're going to get hit with sanctions. It's not even a question of if, but when, if you don't back off and take a more honest, collaborative approach than this. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You've all but confirmed what i've been saying all along: Wikipedia is biased against conservatives. Breitbart is smeared and labeled far-right by a few left-wing critics and that's your justification for lumping the website in with neo-Nazi's and white supremacists. That is both dishonest and objectionable. Why are Media Matters for America. The Huffington Post, and ThinkProgress simply labeled "progressive" or "liberal" and not "left-wing" or "far-left"? The left-wing websites get the warm and friendly "progressive" label, but the conservative Breitbart gets the scary and unpleasant far-right tag. Nothing partisan about that, right? Thismightbezach (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. And you have NO standing on which to call me dishonest. You've already blatantly misrepresented the nature of several sources and violated policy. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  00:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Blatantly misrepresented sources? Really? This coming from a guy who uses biased left-wing columnists as his sources. You clearly have an agenda to push. I'll ask you for the second time: Why are Media Matters for America. The Huffington Post, and ThinkProgress simply labeled "progressive" or "liberal" and not "left-wing" or "far-left"? The left-wing websites get the warm and friendly "progressive" label, but the conservative Breitbart gets the scary and unpleasant far-right tag." Thismightbezach (talk) 04:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * , I'm not so sure that the SMH source is opinion. It's marked as "analysis" and does not appear in the opinion section of the newspaper (which is under the "Comment" tab). As far as I can tell, SMH's "analysis" is akin to the New York Times' "analysis" pieces, which are widely viewed as reliable here on Wikipedia. Whether SMH has the same reputation for accuracy, I can't say. I looked for SMH's explanation of its editorial standards for "analysis" but could find nothing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Re-reasding comment after seeing this response, I came across this: This source is an opinion piece, and thus biased.
 * I cannot express just how fundamentally wrong that is. There is no rule, heuristic, journalistic trend nor quirk of human psychology which requires that opinions pieces must be biased. Furthermore, the policy link provided immediately after it only describes how "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact..." It does not, in any way assert that opinion pieces (or biased pieces) are unreliable for claims of fact. Continuing on to acknowledge that just causes confusion as to why the link was provided in the first place. It only seems to detract from the previous claim. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "I cannot express just how fundamentally" you need to reread what I said. I acknowledged twice that there is nothing wrong under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines with biased sources being used to support statements of fact. As for your claim that there is no "rule, heuristic, journalistic trend nor quirk of human psychology which requires that opinions pieces must be biased", how exactly do you define bias? If you are aware of any "rule, heuristic", etc. that differentiates "impartial" opinions from "biased" opinions, I'm all ears. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 22:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Your overall point is beside the point (pun intended, thank you). That statement, regardless of context was fundamentally wrong. Regarding your question; an impartial opinion is an opinion from someone with no ulterior motives. For example: In my opinion, Lady Gaga is a better performer than Brittany Spears. I have no particular interest in their types of pop music, and no ulterior motives for believing so. Another example would be far-right-wing criticism of Breitbart: because the critic shares the same motivations and underlying beliefs as breitbart, their criticism would necessarily be based on an impartial belief that Breitbart did something worth criticizing. I might point out that the mere fact that one can conceive of an impartial opinion is evidence that such things exists. We all have thousands of impartial opinion. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  22:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We may just be entering the realm of semantics at this point. I cannot conceive such a thing as an "impartial" opinion; by definition, an opinion means your "partial" toward a certain perspective. I also do not understood the word "bias" to refer only to an opinion that is based on "an ulterior motive". But I will concede that the term is ambiguous enough that your interpretation of the word can be supported. Dictionary.com defines "bias" as "A particular tendency, trend, inclination, feeling, or opinion, especially one that is preconceived or unreasoned." The term "especially" indicates that the term does not refer to only "preconceived or unreasoned" opinions, but that it is nonetheless often used in that way. Since Wikipedia policy doesn't clearly define the term "bias" one way or another, I revise my initial point and concede that reasonable minds can differ on whether every opinion piece is inherently "biased." –Prototime (talk · contribs) 22:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's really more philosophical than semantic and I don't want to argue with you about this, but consider the following: If one considers bias to be synonymous with "preference", then every act of criticism, every bit of praise and indeed, every judgement ever made -regardless of expertise would- by definition be biased. It makes the word "bias" meaningless. On the other hand, using the more limited definition allows one to admit to the possibility of being unbiased, and allows that the definition of that word actually conveys some meaning. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  23:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem with opinion pieces isn't that they might be biased, but that they're usually subject to lower standards of editorial review. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably the biggest impediment to inclusion of the SMH source is that is doesn't actually verify the content for which it's being used as a reference. That is, it doesn't call Breitbart News "far right". - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 17:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right: It claims Bannon called Breitbart "alt-right", and then goes on to define "alt-right" as "a loose group of far-right ideologies fixed on the notion that white identity is under attack." It would be better used to support a statement claiming that Bannon views Breitbart as alt-right. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed this. I'm inclined to agree with Ryk72 and MjolnirPants. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The Japan Times publication of the Reuters story also doesn't call Breitbart News "far right". - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hm, that's a tougher one. It's a bit ambiguous whether Reuters is adopting "far-right" in its own voice. My inclination is to say yes it is. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Which text from that source do we consider supportive? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The phrase "alt-right" appears three times, referring to Bannon and then referring to the alt-right movement itself twice. Those mentions don't make much sense if they're not drawing a connection. It reads more like it assumes the reader already considers Breitbart to be alt-right. This is one of those cases I've mentioned before: the claim in question isn't explicitly supported by the source, but the source's claims don't make sense unless the claim in question is true. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  00:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Are we seriously going to sit here and argue whether or not that SMH article is an opinion piece? If that's not an opinion piece, then what is? The writer is clearly against Trump. There's nothing neutral or unbiased about it. Good Lord, this is insane. Thismightbezach (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * An opinion piece in an established print newspaper is almost always expressly marked as opinion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Opinion pieces also almost always focus on, you know, expressing, justifying and defending an opinion. This one covers a series of events which have been well-documented as an extant phenomenon. It may be written with an excessively opinionated style (which is actually quite notable IMHO, as my coworker who lived in Sydney for several years informs me that the SMH is a "right-wing rag"), but it's not at all clear that this is an opinion piece. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  18:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Make America hate again: how Donald Trump's victory has emboldened bigotry" - that's an opinion, not a fact. the source should be removed. It does not meet the NPOV standards:
 * "An NPOV (neutral, unbiased) article is an article that complies with the Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by presenting fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias all significant views" - Thismightbezach (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't bite your allies. MjolnirPants and I both agree with you that the source should be removed, just for a different reason. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You have yet to propose a single source which argues that breitbart is not far right, or -indeed- is anything but far right. You haven't even brought up the "sources call them right-wing" argument that's been brought up and shot down so many times before. So I don't know what the hell you're quoting that policy for; this article is obviously in compliance with it. Combined with the blatant misrepresentation of sources you've engaged in above, and your violating policy by making pointy edits to other articles, you have quite a bit of work to do to convince anyone here to take you seriously. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Here are three sources calling Breitbart a "conservative" website, not far-right or even right-wing. The far-right label is being thrown around way too loosely. The term far-right should be reserved for fascists and/or white supremacists/neo-Nazi's. It's negative connotation that's used by leftists to denigrate anyone to the right of center.


 * https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/18/business/media/what-is-breitbart-news.html
 * http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37109970
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/30/kellogg-citing-values-joins-growing-list-of-companies-that-pledged-to-stop-advertising-in-breitbart-news/

Thismightbezach (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If it is used for its negative connotation, then what is the term leftist used for? Neither is there any reason why Breitbart cannot be both right-wing and conservative… Your entire argument is without substance. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 20:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be called right-wing and/or conservative... "Far-right" is too extreme. Thismightbezach (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The third source says that it is "...described by many as portraying alt-right ideals..." and then goes on to define "alt-right" as "a set of far-right ideologies..."
 * The second source also refers to it as right-wing, and states that it has been accused of being a "hate site".
 * The first source is the only one that actually, exclusively defines it as "conservative", and so that makes it one RS among close to a hundred we have reviewed with an eye towards accurately describing it. Yet the consensus remains: we refer to it as "far-right". MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  21:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * the third source says "...described by many" - and who are these "many" that they speak of? Are they Left-wing groups?
 * the second source says "has been accused of being a "hate site"." - accused by who? Left-wing groups, again?
 * So now we allow critics to define what your political affiliation is? Stormfront is an example of a far-right website. Calling Breitbart conservative or right-leaning would be more appropriate. Why does The Huffington Post get to be called "left-leaning" and Media Matters for America "progressive", and not left-wing or far-left? There's a double standard here. Thismightbezach (talk) 04:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The term far-right should be reserved for fascists and/or white supremacists/neo-Nazi's. I've seen it convincingly argued that it is, without impunging the slightest upon its use here. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

POV
Wikipedia really needs to clean up it's POV nonsense, especially from the header. If you wouldn't put "far left" and accusations of "racism" in comparable outlets such as huffington post then it shouldn't be here. Put it in it's own section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.5.117 (talk) 07:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * From the lead of Huffington Post, "The Huffington Post was launched on May 9, 2005 as an overtly liberal/left commentary outlet and alternative to news aggregators such as the Drudge Report..." (emphasis mine). Sadly, we don't call them racist, mostly because they haven't done or said things that are racist, unlike Breitbart. ~ Rob 13 Talk 16:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Right wing, Far right or both?
I note the term "right wing" has been removed again, as one user believes that the term is grouped under the "far right" family, which in my mind is patently false and lazy. I am reposting from another user from the archive who presented a list of various reliable sources that describe Breitbart as 'right wing'. Perhaps the user who reverted this change can explain the reasoning. 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 81.157.83.173 (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's already been explained. There is no benefit to adding this tautology to the lead, nor is there consensus as can be seen in the above discussions. If you disagree, you are welcome to create an RfC.- MrX 15:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to where it was explained please? I've read the archive and you agreed that these sources were mostly fine, and should stand presumably. The term 'right wing' was (re)added in November 2016 and was only removed yesterday after you requested it to be, as far as I can tell. If you can point me to where that was discussed I'd be happy to stand corrected. 81.157.83.173 (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Previous section. Can you point me to a consensus for including that material? Start an RfC is you think there is an unarticulated consensus for including redundant adjectives in the lead.- MrX 15:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You just argued that it's "patently false and lazy" to say that "far-right" is a subset of "right-wing". The sheer ignorance and dearth of logic in that claim is mind boggling. No. It's neither false nor lazy. It's blatantly obvious and logically certain that if an individual or organization is "far-right" that they are not left-wing or centrist. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A completely different point entirely, and I'm sure you know that. 81.157.83.173 (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I will not speculate about your cognitive abilities, but I will say this: a failure to grasp the fundamentally simplistic and unassailable logic of "a specific subset of a group is still a part of that group" is the sort of failure that would raise serious questions about one's suitability for editing WP. I'm not convinced that you don't understand this, however, so I will also say this: refusing to drop an argument that has been clearly and thoroughly defeated multiple times is the sort of behavior that raises serious questions about one's suitability for editing WP. Seriously, I mean this to be helpful: If you want to participate here you have to do so within the context of our policies and standards. Right now, your argument is well outside of those. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Blah blah. Can you please point me to where there has been a discussion on whether the term "right wing" is suitable for the lede, and if not, then why not? As I said above, it has been sourced just as well as the term "far right", which MrX conceded in November 2016. Of course, simply because they are distantly related, does not mean they cannot both be used. I will file an RfC, if an IP user is permitted, as per MrX's suggestion, any further discussion or trading of insults is moot. 81.157.83.173 (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've already linked to the discussions. Also, stop trying to cloud the issue with whining about "insults". I never insulted you, I pointed out how poor your argument is and gave you two policy based reasons and one pragmatic reason to drop it. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Impartial (and non-passionate) opinion of an observer with no connection to the article
 * Perhaps "ignorance and dearth of logic" was a poor choice of words, though your argument is correct (apart from the fact the IP correctly states that "Right Wing" is not a subset of "Far Right" in his opening sentence—which you reversed in your assessment of their comments).
 * The matter re "Far Right" has been settled. "Right Wing" is simply the super-set containing it (to continue the set theory analogy) so using that term would be over-kill. Also, the lead goes on to say "Breitbart later aligned with the European populist right and American alt-right ..." and then explains how the group denies any connection with racism etc that these terms suggest. This seems disinterested enough for WP standards and satisfies the decision (made at the discussion I just alluded to in the talk archives) to temper the usage of the term "Far Right" (and by implication any near-synonyms like "Alt-Right" etc), again–further obviating the need to explicitly use the term "Right Wing" in the lede. The fact that sources mix up their usage of the various terms doesn't alter the fact that the organisation is indeed far to the right (as demonstrated by the sources cited) and the term "Right Wing" as used by many newspapers does not exclude "Far Right" but rather encompasses (and perhaps intentionally avoids) it.
 * Conclusion: We need to be careful how we handle editorialized sources... and this is a prime example of the bear traps that await any editor on WP dealing with the more controversial subjects. I suggest the lede as it stands has the balance correct — Iadmc  ♫ talk 17:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My counterargument (as well as that of MrX) is that, by saying "far-right" it then necessarily (and obviously) follows that breitbart would be included under the banner of "right-wing". The crux of the IP's argument is that we need to include "right-wing", a position which is at odds with the opening statement. You certainly seem to understand this, but I wanted to open by reiterating it. In fact, it was the IP who was mischaracterizing MrX's point in their opening sentence. MrX had earlier stated "Obviously, right-wing is subsumed under far-right, as is "conservative"." in the above section, which led the IP to post this section. The fact is that the IP's statement in the leading sentence stands at odds with their (explicitly) expressed position throughout this discussion. In context, they appear to be something of a "cheap shot" in that, in misunderstanding MrX's meaning, the IP seemed to have found something MrX said that was obviously wrong, and could be used as 'ammunition' in the argument. Hence my comments about the qualities of the IPs argument: this discussion is the result of the IP not grasping the (parent-child) relationship between "right-wing" and "far-right", and furthermore not grasping the explanations and arguments offered in response to their comments. The sad fact is; any reasonable person who stopped to consider for a moment what has been said by both MrX and myself would conclude rapidly that our conclusion is inescapable. The fact that the IP continued to argue indicated that -at least until their last response- the IP was either unwilling or unable to consider the logic involved here in even the most superficial way. This becomes a sticky issue because the presumption on my part of either of those is an assumption of bad faith likely to degenerate the argument further. So I try to address both possibilities without favoring one, as this gives the IP the chance to say "No, you're not understanding me, what I really meant was [insert rational argument here]." instead of immediately leaping to an "I'm not stupid" or an "I'm not biased" defensive stance. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  18:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * !Thanks for pointing me upward on the page... It did clarify the contradictory nature of the IP's statements, however. I don't feel inclined to be drawn further into this discussion which I see as having been settled months ago, if I'm reading the archives correctly. I only came here because I noticed (as a TPS) that the IP directly requested an admin waste his time and "arbitrate"... I suggest you don't humour the IP any further, also, and instead move on to higher other things — Iadmc  ♫ talk 19:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we're at that point. I try to make an effort to explain why certain edits which might seem like common sense to some editors are not realistic, but eventually, there's no functional difference between not getting it and trolling. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  19:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Quite. And good luck with the immediately following... — Iadmc  ♫ talk  13:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Far Right as a description of Breitbart
In the lead of the article it's claimed that Breitbart is a "Breitbart News Network […] is a far-right[4][5][6][7][8][9] American news, opinion and commentary[10][11] website founded in 2007". What do the sourcing says about Far Right, described in the Wikipedia article Far Right as "The term is commonly used to describe right-wing populist ideologies known for extreme nationalism, Nazism,[1] neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism and other ideologies or organizations". Can we establish that Breitbart News actually can be covered by this Far Right definition as the article now do? Let's look at the sources used to support this claim


 * FAIL [4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/is-trumps-new-chief-strategist-a-racist-critics-say-so/2016/11/14/b72e2ab0-aa9d-11e6-a31b-4b6397e625d0_story.html WaPo says "giving Bannon, the former head of the far-right website Breitbart News, … Under Bannon’s leadership, Breitbart became an anti-“globalist” news site clearly aligned with the European far right. It attracts self-described white supremacists with such headlines as “Bill Kristol: Republican spoiler, renegade Jew.” ". There is no citation that actually connect Breitbart as an Right wing news outlet. It's an article that use guilt by association fallacy to say that Far right forces enjoy Breitbart articles.
 * FAIL [5] http://europe.newsweek.com/barack-obama-donald-trump-white-nationalism-stephen-bannon-521680?rm=eu "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. … Under Bannon’s leadership Breitbart has routinely published racist, sexist and anti-Semitic stories and was described by civil rights group the Southern Poverty Law Center as a “white ethno-nationalist propaganda mill,” The New York Times reported.". Newsweek just name calling the far right and reference it to another article in another publication (racist, sexist, anti-semitic). No factual sourcing for the claim at all. The article qz.com that Neewsweek use as a ground to call them -far right is thsi article. http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/07/05/fat-shaming-is-good-science/ It's fucking ridicoulous and the journalist shold be ashamed by publishing this! They actually accuse people of being far right (nazis) on a ridiculous level.
 * FAIL [6] http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2015/0620/Beyond-Rhodesia-Dylann-Roof-s-manifesto-and-the-website-that-radicalized-him " If you click view you find YouTube video of Brandon Darby from far-right website Breitbart baiting a black man and a black women at a protest outside Emanuel Church in Charleston on June 19, starting with Mr. Darby suggesting the killer is mentally ill. They disagree and call him a terrorist.". Just a naming of the web site. No argument describing why Breitbart should be Far Right (as described in the Wikipedia article).
 * FAIL [7] http://bigstory.ap.org/article/6a4338387e6847eeb6f59db3b8d1fb0a/donald-trumps-cabinet-picks-so-far "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.". No foundation to connect Breitbart to Far Right as described by Wikipedia.
 * FAIL [8] http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/11/24/world/politics-diplomacy-world/appnexus-bans-breitbart-ad-exchange-citing-hate-speech/#.WJYgh7YrLuP "Breitbart was previously headed by Steve Bannon, Trump’s campaign chairman and chief strategist. The news organization has drawn criticism for promoting far-right, sometimes racist views.". *That someone (who) claims that they promote " promoting far-right, sometimes racist views.", do not hold to describe Breitbart News as Far Right as described by the linked Wikipedia article.
 * FAIL [9] http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-election/hate-crimes-surge-in-donald-trumps-america-20161117-gsrjpx "During the July Republican convention, Bannon boasted that the website was a "platform for the alt-right", a loose group of far-right ideologies fixed on the notion that white identity is under attack. Its followers are mostly young and male, white supremacist, anti-immigration, anti-feminism, and anti-multiculturalism.". No reference to actual statements connecting the site to Far Right as described in the Wikipedia article.

Due to this it's not correct to label Breitbart news as a Far Right news outlet. It will be like describing NYT as an extreme left wing organisation. Nsaa (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Your arguments above make little sense. More than 40 sources refer to Breitbart as a far-right website. This has been discussed at length in a previous RfC on this page. If you want to see "far-right" removed from the article, you need to present new information to show that Breitbart's stance has changed and you need to wait for a new consensus to form.- MrX 19:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources DO NOT support the claim. Please address this before making noise. Nsaa (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "The sources DO NOT support the claim." Oh, really? The very fist source which you helpfully quote in your above post says: "giving Bannon, the former head of the far-right website Breitbart News, " - MrX 20:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No the source DO NOT support the claim given in our Wikipedia article that Breitbart News is a "The term is commonly used to describe right-wing populist ideologies known for extreme nationalism, Nazism,[1] neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism and other ideologies or organizations". Can You show me that? Nsaa (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources do support the claim. You are interpreting and critiquing sources according to your own idiosyncratic criteria which constitutes original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Having read through the archives and examined related articles (Milo Yiannopoulos, Steve Bannon, etc.) there's evident overlap in those pushing to describe Breitbart (and in some cases those associated with Breitbart) as far-right, despite evidence in reliable sources to the contrary. I also see periodic, consistent objections from unrelated editors (such as yourself) who question the description but are overwhelmed by the larger, persistent group.
 * I believe an RFC among previously uninvolved editors is the best path foward. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree! Nsaa (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: I'd forgotten there was a previous RFC buried in the revision history, excluded from the archives, which closed with "no consensus" to describe Breitbart as "far right.". That close appears to have been quickly reversed by another administrator[1] on the grounds that the majority of "opposes" came from IPs and SPAs, an apparently demonstrably incorrect claim. Very odd. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "an RFC among previously uninvolved editors" - no idea where you pulled this piece of obvious WP:GAME. "Previous users didn't gimme the answer I want so I will insist on a new RfC with all new users who might agree with me". Lol. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And in regard to despite evidence in reliable sources to the contrary - as has been demonstrated over and over again, you got it backwards.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there was a good reason that "closure" of no consensus was over turned. The person who closed it had no authority to do so, and either had no idea what they were doing or they were trying to sneak through their own preferred conclusion. Likewise this "an apparently demonstrably incorrect claim" stuff is not true either.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Not this crap again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please keep superfluous comments (e.g. comments about editors, "not this crap again", "this stuff is not true"!!!!, etc.) to a minimum. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I agree with Volunteer Marek's sentiments. Having to re-argue this every time some sockpuppet or poorly-informed user challenges this widely-publicized, verifiable fact is tiresome. In this case, the OP's assertion that "The sources DO NOT support the claim." is so glaringly contradicted by the quote from the Washington Post that he posted that it beggars belief. The OP then proudly repeats it in a subsequent post! I'm trying really hard to assume good faith here, but this is so fundamentally illogical that I can't help but conclude that it's trolling or a serious lack of competence.- MrX 23:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Another comment critiquing the editor... whose argument incidentally you misrepresent. Note: you don't "have to" reargue this ever if you find it tiresome. I note that you lead this page in number of edits, for what that's worth. Whether it was your intention, your comment gives the impression that you feel allowing others to participate places some undue burden on yourself - if so, that burden is imagined; with thousands of active editors, 133 of whom watch this page (and more who'd participate in an RfC), the system will function just fine without any one of us. I'd be happy to bow out of this discussion myself if others (whose views have already been argued in detail) would follow suit. Barring that, comments lamenting the demands placed on any editor by the actions of others are misguided. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * " you don't "have to" reargue this ever if you find it tiresome." - you're right, we should just hat the text every time some sockpuppet or poorly informed user tries to stir this shit up again, ignore it, revert as necessary and not waste our time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Marek: If the subject disturbs you enough that you can't to participate civilly better you don't participate. I hope that is not the case. The "poorly informed users" do appear to have the weight of RS behind them. James J. Lambden (talk)


 * You're kidding me, right? I've asked the same thing dozens of times here and on other talk pages: Show me one reliable source that argues that breitbart is NOT far right. Just one! I have yet to be presented with even one source that argues that breitbart is not far-right. The best I've seen is sources that call it "right-wing" or "conservative", and no-one has yet to make anything near a convincing case that "far-right" is not a subset of "right-wing" or "conservative".
 * Hell, I have yet to see a single editor even try to make the case that breitbart is moderate or center-right. Go on, try. You'll be the first. I've got a metric crap-ton of sources arguing that breitbart isn't center-right or moderate right. Hell, the OP quoted some of them just above.
 * P.s. I agree with MrX above: the disconnect between what the OP said and what the OP quoted is so severe that no reasonable person can assume that the OP is not either trolling or incompetent. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  01:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Do we have sources arguing Obama is not a closeted serial killer, maybe the progeny of Jack the Ripper? That question is inconsistent with logic and policy. If the majority of sources refer to Breitbart as X (rather than as Y) we do not need an equal number of sources referring to Breitbard as not Y for X to be the preferred description, especially when Y has overwhelmingly negative connotations.


 * A google search of "breitbart conservative -ultra-conservative -ultraconservative -site:breitbart.com" (the last terms excluding "ultra-conservative" and hits on Breitbart) 1 shows: 798K hits
 * A similar search for "breitbart "far right" or "far-right" -site:breitbart.com" 1 returns 445K hits – about half.


 * If we restrict it to news, the numbers are:
 * Conservative: 153K 1
 * Far right or far-right: 62K 2


 * A similar, approximately 2:1 ratio of "conservative" over "far right"


 * Here, are quotes from a search of only NY Times articles referring to Breitbart as conservative. I trust you won't accuse the editors there of similar confusion:


 * "He's bringing in aides from the conservative Breitbart media empire where he ruled before Trump tapped him to direct his campaign." 1
 * "The Breitbart site reports and aggregates politics and entertainment news, often injecting a conservative viewpoint" 1
 * "The Breitbart News Network, usually just called Breitbart, is a conservative-leaning news website." 1
 * "The conservative website Breitbart News tied the piece to The Times in a prominent headline." 1
 * "The internal sway of Mr. Bannon, a former chairman of the conservative news and opinion website Breitbart" 1
 * "Conservative news outlets — most notably Breitbart News Network" 1
 * "As a proudly renegade voice of the populist right ... emerging in recent years as one of the nation’s leading conservative media outlets." 1
 * "The ban against Mr. Yiannopoulos, a technology editor at the conservative news site Breitbart" 1
 * "Then this summer, Breitbart, the conservative news website whose former executive chairman, Stephen K. Bannon" 1


 * It appears, however you concluded that the majority of sources characterize Breitbart as "far right", that conclusion was incorrect from what evidene I can find. If there is evidence to the contrary, please provide it. For example, if the NY Times or other respected sources refer to Breitbart as "far right" more often than "conservative" that would be helpful in furthering discussion. The refrain "we have already decided" is decidedly unhelpful. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Do we have sources arguing Obama is not a closeted serial killer, maybe the progeny of Jack the Ripper? Do we have even one reliable source asserting that he is? Do we have several reliable sources asserting that he's a murderer (a category that includes serial killers), or that he's related to a serial killer (a category that would include the progeny of Jack the Ripper)? No. Your analogy isn't just flawed: It's amazingly blind to the incredibly obvious difference between it and this situation. Because we have dozens of reliable sources asserting that Breitbart is far-right. We have dozens more asserting that it is alt-right, a more specific category which is a subset of far-right. And we have dozens more asserting that it is conservative or right-wing, without even a single source asserting that it's any subcategory of conservative or right-wing other than far-right or alt-right.
 * And without any kind of argument that Breitbart is not far right, you keep arguing that Breitbart is not far right. All you've done with your count above is proven that news reporters tend to use less specific words that encyclopedias do. So it seems you think our encyclopedia article should be written more like something from the news media? Okay, then how many times will we call breitbart racist? How about anti semitic? What about disgusting? How about white supremacist? Because that's how the news media is different than encyclopedia article, too. For those of you who defend Breitbart, who read it and who think it represents a fair view of the news, you're actually damned lucky we don't write like the news media. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  05:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The analogy was meant to show that it's difficult (if not impossible) to prove a negative.
 * Your argument is premised upon a heirarchy of political philosophies not supported by sources. For good reason we don't engage in that kind of speculation – what we do is reflect the consensus of reliable sources.
 * If the consensus describe Breitbart as far-right, we describe it as far-right; if the consensus describe it as conservative, we use "conservative." My research (posted above) suggests the consensus is for "conservative" at a ratio of 2:1. If you have evidence to the contrary please post it - evidence is the only relevant argument here.
 * Note: for example, It could be that the higher-quality sources use "far right" more often than they use "conservative." That would be relevant evidence. James J. Lambden (talk) 08:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree with MrX, MjolnirPants, and others. We have longstanding consensus that Breitbart is verifiably far right, and the arguments proffered here by Nsaa are not policy-based. They are edit warring against consensus and are likely to be blocked if they continue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * With genuine respect,, I would suggest that the one thing that we do not have is a longstanding consensus. The RfC which supports this claim closed on Dec 2, with the result Yes, it is appropriate, in certain circumstances, to refer to Breitbart as far-right. However this should never be equated (unless with absolutely reliable sourcing) with anything relating to racism or fascism. Editors have noted both that the RfC was previously closed with a different result, and then re-closed with this result; and that portions of the close explanation appear dubious at best. That close left the article with both "right wing" and "far right" in the lead sentence; an unlovely result which displeased everyone about equally. "Right wing" was subsequently removed, on Jan 17, leaving only "far-right"; a change that has been heavily disputed since; an RfC discussing that removal is as yet unclosed, above. Multiple editors, not only neophytes, but also those with significant experience & understanding of policy, in multiple threads, have opined that it is not appropriate for this article to describe the subject as only "far-right". If that is a consensus, I'll be an ape's aunty. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's consensus. If there was a problem with the December 2 close of that RfC it could have been challenged. It wasn't. Then we have the more recent RfC in which there is consensus is that we shouldn't use both "right-wing" and "far-right." Yes, multiple editors have disagreed with these conclusions - but the overwhelming number of them have agreed with it. Denying this reality is nothing short of disruption. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Editors may wish to note the RfC above at Talk:Breitbart News and opine there. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That RfC is not about replacing the term "far-right" but adding "right-wing" to it. I'm just pointing this out. Also, the two editors arguing here who haven't !voted aren't going to change the fact that the only reason that RfC didn't pick up a WP:SNOW close already is because of the steady trickle of "no" votes that just kept coming in. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  06:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Worth adding that posted above was a list of 40 (?) verifiable sources that use the term "right wing". This point has either been repeatedly ignored by the same users who patrol this Talk page religiously, or written off simply as being a synonym of the term "far right" without clarification. 86.167.215.166 (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * A quick look up the page shows at least 12 comments from at least four different editors directly addressing that point and effectively refuting it. I can't find a single case of anyone attempting to rebut those refutations with anything but repetition of the refuted point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I really want to see a source which says that "far right is a deteriorate description of Breitbart".Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I suspect meant "derogatory?" If so, there's nothing derogatory about the label. There are many media organization that are proud to label themselves as far-right, and many people who support such organizations precisely because they're far right. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There seems to be quite the double standard at the far end of the political right spectrum: adherents accept the tenets of their political ideology, yet simultaneously feel offended that others refer to them as accepting those tenets. I haven't seen a similar phenomenon on the political left: there are no left-wing editors claiming, for example, that it's non neutral to call the Huffington Post "left-wing" or "liberal". There are some debates about those terms, but I haven't seen where the argument was put forth that it was non-neutral, just inaccurate.
 * I know this looks off-topic, but it's really not: Editors with apparent far-right ideologies (and editors without any apparent ideologies) regularly claim that calling Breitbart "far-right" or even "right-wing" is pejorative. Honestly, the only response (other than pointing out what said above; that it's simply factual and not pejorative) I can think of is to suggest that if you believe that "right-wing" or "far-right" is a pejorative label, perhaps it's time to examine your own political beliefs and assumptions about Breitbart's reliability and bias. Perhaps it's time to ask yourself if those beliefs conform to your core values, because apparently they do not. The KKK proudly admits to being racist because they believe that being racist is moral. Eco-terrorists proudly admit to valuing animal (and sometimes plant) life higher than human life because they believe that is moral. Indeed, the very fact that it's controversial to refer to Breitbart this way lends weight to those sources which do.
 * When it comes down to it, the more pejorative this factual claim is seen as by the public at large, the more important it becomes for us to describe them as such. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen arguments based on hurt feelings. The argument I have seen is simple and straightforward: The term most used by reliable sources is conservative. The term used by wikipedia is far-right. That discrepancy must be reconciled, by policy. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is all just speculation because we don't know what Nsaa meant by "deteriorate." But numerous comments in other discussions have described "far-right" as a smear. Mjolnir is reacting to a broader pattern here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * My last comment before the one you responded to is directed at that, specifically. The discrepancy is reconciled by the fact that far right is the more specific, more accurate term. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That may be your view but it's not relevant to the policy discussion here. Again from WP:OR:
 * ... includes any analysis or synthesis ... that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources
 * You assume that sources using "conservative" or "right" choose a less-specific term meant to imply the more-specific "far right." You cannot assume that.
 * Re: Dr. Fleischman – Calling Obama a communist is a "smear" because he's not communist. Calling Trotsky a communist is not a smear. If calling Breitbart far-right is a smear it's because it's inaccurate, the majority of sources do not. That is the root of the objection. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, WP:OR does not apply to talk pages. It's right there in the first paragraph. Can we move on please? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * WP: OR is allowed on talk pages to evaluate the quality of sources - not to assume a conclusion not explicitly stated in those sources, then insert that conclusion in the lede. Please re-familiarize yourself with the policy before moving on. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You assume that... Bullshit. I conclude that sources chose a less specific term that encompasses the more accurate, more specific term based on a solid understanding of the meaning of the various terms involved. If we rate political bias on a scale of 1 to 100 with left being 50 or less and right being 51 or more, then a source which says "Breitbart is higher than 50" is not in any way contradicting a source which says "Breitbart is 87." The only way your argument adheres to policy is if you assume that by "conservative" they meant moderate or center right, or in the case of my analogy; "Breitbart is more than 50, but less than 87." That's a nonsensical assertion that has been rejected numerous times by the community here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Your classification of political philosophies is not relevant and cannot be used to imply conclusions not explicitly stated by sources. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No one is convincing anyone of anything here. Can we move on please? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I see no point in continuing unless new editors are involved, which I'll find the best way to accomplish. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Normally I'd be all in favor of that, but since we've had multiple RfCs on this very subject in the last few months, I don't know how you're going to accomplish that without forum shopping. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)