Talk:Breitbart News/Archive 5

Pro Israel
Wasn't Breitbart News established to promote Israel? If so, should it not be described as pro-Israeli rather than far right?Royalcourtier (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Can an organization not be pro-Israel and far right at the same time? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There's conflict with calling them "alt-right" and their fairly-well-known stance on Israel, as the alt-right shows plenty of signs of anti-semitism. But the far-right in America is traditionally supportive of Israel, so there's no conflict. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "the far-right in America is traditionally supportive of Israel" Yeah, right. Where did you get that nonsense? I've seen plenty of comments, videos and blogs about them. The alt-right hates Israel and the Jews, vigorously. They basically attribute all problems of the world to them, since they constantly resort to anti-Semitic/anti-Zionist conspiracy theories. I'll tell you who they support: Assad, for example.--186.138.92.160 (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * (Ten bucks says another IP is going to come along to this page in the next two days to claim that the alt-right has nothing to do with the far right. Since we now have one claiming the terms are synonymous and all.) Tell me, IP... Did you read my comment where I implicitly called the alt-right anti-semitic before contrasting them with the (more general) far-right? No? You just read the part you quoted, assumed that "far-right" and "alt-right" are exactly the same thing and responded to that completely out of context? Okay, now I understand your confusion. Carry on. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  04:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The point of contention appears to be the distinction between a website like Breitbart and other contemporary far-right outlets that are referred to as "alt right". One might argue that the term "far-right" too vague. Are they civic nationalists, as opposed to ethno-nationalists? Constitutionalists? Pro-zionist? All of the above could be described as facettes of the "far-right". Seems like a relevant distinction to be made. 134.147.247.12 (talk) 10:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Far-right politics is pretty well defined in that link. Basically, if a group or individual is more right-wing than moderate or centrist right-wing groups or individuals, then that group or individual is far-right. I admit it's a description with extremely vague boundaries, even if it is quite clear about those who aren't edge cases. It is a subset of right-wing politics and in the United States, is generally held to be a form of conservatism. It encompasses a number of subsets, many of which are, indeed antisemitic. In the United States however, the influence of the neoconservative movement has left the most visible varieties of far right politics with a tendency to support Israel (thanks to the influence religion has on politics here). The reactionary nature of far-right politics also contributed to this, with pro-Israel views being the natural result of backlash against Muslims after 9/11. So yes; the alt-right is covertly (and quite often, overtly) antisemitic. As are other far-right political subsets, such as national socialism and white nationalism. But groups and individuals in the United States who do not fall into any of antisemitic categories contained within the far-right tend to express quite the opposite view. In addition, many elements of the alt-right are pro-Israel (look at Breitbart's association with the alt-right for an example that's right here in our faces), despite the overall antisemitic nature of that movement. The issue there is that the alt-right itself is a loose collection of disparate beliefs with a few common threads running through them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories
I have restored&mdash;with some minor changes to wording&mdash;text that was deleted by another user on Breitbart's promotion of conspiracy theories. I've gone through each ref cited, and except for one source, they directly and clearly support the statements made in the text. (The remaining source is also usable, with wording changes, which I've made). I've added a quote in the "quote" field of the ref template to give the exact spot in the source that supports the statement made. The article now reads:

One sentence in lead:

"Breitbart News periodically publishes falsehoods and conspiracy theories,   as well as misleading stories."

'''Under "Conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton":

"During the 2016 presidential election, Breitbart News promoted conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton and her staff, including the "Pizzagate" conspiracy theory (that Clinton or her aide John Podesta were involved a child sex ring) and the conspiracy theory that Clinton was suffering from health issues stemming from a brain injury. A June 2016 Breitbart article also presented Roger Stone's conspiracy theory that Clinton aide Huma Abedin was involved with terrorism."

Under "Conspiracy theories about President Obama

"Breitbart News promoted the falsehood that President Obama was a Kenyan-born Muslim. In June 2016, Breitbart News falsely claimed President Obama supported terrorists."

I find this (1) meticulously cited to reliable sources that clearly support the statement; (2) phrased plainly and neutrally (i.e., reflecting how the reliable sources say it); and (3) given due weight in the context of the whole article and the history of the subject (the text above is about 7-8% of the size of the article, which I think is proportionate). The recent removal of this content (with the edit summary "removed blatantly biased material") seems not at all impressive to me. Neutralitytalk 04:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * *Isn't it interesting that half of these biased articles claim Breitbart peddles conspiracies, yet they give no examples?

Discussing Clinton's health problems is now a conspiracy theory? Here are several other publications discussing her health problems:
 * http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/16/hillary-clintons-health-problems/
 * http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/hillary-clinton-s-health-scare-9-unanswered-questions-n646551
 * http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439798/hillary-clintons-health-legitimate-campaign-issue

Thismightbezach (talk) 06:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

, please stop removing content with comments such as, "when and where did Breitbart push the Pizzagate conspiracy? No evidence is given" when the content is easily verifiable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Where is it verifiable? Show me, please. Thismightbezach (talk) 06:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Neutrality already did, and I agree with them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * He said nothing about it. Can you show evidence of Breitbart pushing that conspiracy? Thanks. Thismightbezach (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Easily done. From the cited source:
 * ''Conspiracists began seizing on pizza-related emails in the leaks, suggesting that it was evidence of something nefarious and arguing that “pizza” was actually a code for illegal sex trafficking. An email Podesta received about pizza at Comet Ping Pong was about pedophilia, they reasoned.
 * ''At one time John Podesta owned a handkerchief with a "pizza-related" map on it https://...
 * ''— Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) October 20, 2016
 * --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * They were reporting on something from Wikileaks... You are just making assumptions.
 * Breitbart called it an "outlandish conspiracy theory."
 * http://www.breitbart.com/news/man-fires-gun-in-d-c-restaurant-while-investigating-pizzagate-conspiracy/ Thismightbezach (talk) 07:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Wrong, they were reporting on conspiracists who picked up on the Wikileaks e-mails, and cited Breitbart as an example. Read. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thismightbezach: Why did you remove all the text and cites that refer to Breitbart's promotion of birther conspiracy theories? You must immediately stop reverting without explanation, or on clearly spurious grounds. Stop. Neutralitytalk 06:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe because they've never once posted an article pushing the birther conspiracy? Can you find one?
 * http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/11/21/fake-news-new-york-times-joseph-goldstein-falsely-claims-breitbart-birther/ Thismightbezach (talk) 07:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We have a reliable source (the New York Times) saying that Breitbart fed the birther conspiracy theory. Breitbart can deny it all they want, but it's still verifiable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Did they give any examples of articles where Breitbart fed the birther conspiracy? Thismightbezach (talk) 07:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. A reliable source said it, so it's verifiable. That's how WP:V works. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh really? So they can make wild accusations and provide zero evidence? That's your source? Thismightbezach (talk) 07:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Like Fleischman said, the NYT made the statement directly and affirmatively. Whether they offered examples is irrelevant. Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a media criticism outlet. But since you insist, Breitbart has repeatedly fed into birther nonsense. I.e., Example 1 (expressing "a lot of people care about the birth certificate and Obama’s passport and what nationality he claimed to be on his college application" and condemning liberals' lack of "concern over Obama's refusal to offer up any of those documents"); Example 2 (more nonsense about how the president hadn't released his birth certificate, + suggestion that he was born in Kenya),  Example 3 (piece entitled "In Defense of the Birthers"); Example 4 ("the man who couldn’t even produce a normal birth certificate to prove he belonged in the White House"); Example 5 (complaining that Congress, the courts, and journalists "did not address the fact that the president was refusing to resolve an issue about his constitutional eligibility"). Neutralitytalk 07:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes Zach, that is correct, because the Times has a stellar reputation for fact checking and accuracy. The reporter must back up all claims with evidence, which is reviewed and checked by the editorial staff. That's how reputable journalism works. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Stellar reputation for fact checking and accuracy? I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. New York Times controversies.
 * * NY Times public editor under fire for criticizing the paper’s liberal bias - http://hotair.com/archives/2016/12/06/ny-times-public-editor-under-fire-for-criticizing-the-papers-liberal-bias/
 * * NY Times Admits Biased Coverage on Trump - http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Gray-Lady-Blew-it-Donald-Trump-New-York-Times/2016/11/12/id/758530/
 * Thismightbezach (talk) 07:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Example 1: A lot of people did have concerns. Breitbart isn't allowed to mention that?
 * Example 2: His grandmother made that claim. They can't report on that?
 * Example 3: The first line of the article: "I am not a birther."
 * Example 4: It is true that Obama didn't release the full birth certificate until years later. That's a fact. Pointing that out doesn't make you a birther.
 * Your examples are pitiful to say the least. Thismightbezach (talk) 07:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, it's clear that you don't have an appreciation for the way the encyclopedia works. When reputable news outlets report, we don't undertake our own wildcat-style "investigation" into whether "they got it right." This ain't Scooby Doo. If you think the NYT "got it wrong" (hint: they didn't), then another reliable secondary source will question it. Guess what: they haven't. Therefore, we are not going to disregard the NYT on your whim.
 * So, my advice to you: immediately self-revert your recent edit, then take two hours and read through policies and guidelines. Neutralitytalk 07:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * They did get it wrong. That's why they gave no examples. It was a smear, and they were called out on it. Thismightbezach (talk) 07:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's why they retracted the story. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

NBC source
removed this NBC source with the comment: "ANALYSIS is not NPOV." I don't know quite what is meant by this, but NBC News is generally a reliable source, and even if the source is non-neutral, we have a basic rule here that sources aren't required to be neutral. This source should be restored. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Would anyone care to weigh in so we can obtain a consensus to restore this source? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I of course think that it is a perfectly fine source, especially in conjunction with the others., who I think added it, no doubt agrees. Neutralitytalk 07:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If the sources didn't analyze, they'd not be much use to a prosaic description of the article subject. So yeah, add it back in. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  23:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Fake News being passed off as sources
I'm guessing no one is going to do anything about this? Here's one example of a source smearing Breitbart:

"New York Times Falsely Claims Breitbart ‘Birther’ Site"


 * http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/11/21/fake-news-new-york-times-joseph-goldstein-falsely-claims-breitbart-birther/

The New York Times article is actually being used as a source accusing Breitbart of "pushing conspiracies". Thismightbezach (talk) 06:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what your point is. The New York Times is a reliable source. Breitbart isn't. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The liberal New York Times gave no examples of where Breitbart pushed the conspiracy. Thismightbezach (talk) 07:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * so your position is that we should ignore the New York Times because you think it's inaccurate? That is against every policy we have. Neutralitytalk 07:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Is your complaint that the Times gave no examples, or that the Times is liberal? Neither really matters here. Sources don't have to be neutral, and if a reliable source says something, so can we. Wikipedia 101. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The relevance of this comment is unclear, since the article does not even mention the birther issue, but we should never pass up an opportunity to point out that disagreeing with a published analysis does not make it "fake news". Trump has learned the phrase and parrots it like a kid in a schoolyard shouting "No! You are!", but in as much as it has an objective meaning, it refers to stories that are written and published to serve an ideological agenda without regard to their actual truth. The Times has a reputation to lose if it publishes outright falsehoods, whereas Breitbart readers don't care, and if anything seem to enjoy it.
 * If you claim that the NYT falsely accused Breitbart of promoting the Birther conspiracy theory, all you need to do is provide some reliable independent sources that say so. NYT can be wrong.
 * Breitbart, of course, is neither reliable nor, in this case, independent. The hallmark of good journalism is what they do when the inevitable mistakes happen. NYT has a corrections page: . Breitbart covers other people's corrections where they serve its agenda, but does not appear to publish any of its own. Guy (Help!) 20:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Breitbart is unreliable, but the NY Times is independent? Completely ridiculous. I already gave you evidence that Breitbart never promoted the birther conspiracy. Thismightbezach (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * " Breitbart is unreliable, but the NY Times is independent? ". Yes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If you don't understand why the NYT is considered generally reliable and Breitbart is not, then your competence to even comment here is open to serious question. Breitbart exists only because Fox News is too liberal for some people. Guy (Help!) 10:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Even members of the NY Times admit that the paper has a left-wing slant. Thismightbezach (talk) 03:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm with Guy on this one, . And in case you haven't noticed: everyone else here is, as well. Either you're being deceptive in an attempt to push a political POV that doesn't belong here, or you're really not demonstrating the level of judgement necessary to participate here.
 * I already gave you evidence that Breitbart never promoted the birther conspiracy. No, you have not. Furthermore, you have been presented directly with articles published by Breitbart which push the birther conspiracy. You have been proven wrong on this point completely, and if you cannot drop the stick and walk away, then very soon you will be facing sanctions for disrupting this talk page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You gave me bullshit opinion pieces that you interpreted as proof of Breitbart pushing the birther conspiracy. Thismightbezach (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Breitbart decided to publish those pieces. It makes no difference whether they're opinion or "news." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to get topic banned? That's not a threat, but a legitimate question. Because I really don't get how you could possibly dismiss stories published by Breitbart which push the birther conspiracy as not being stories by Breitbart which push the birther conspiracy. You've had the evidence right in front of your face and instead of discussing rationally, you're squeezing your eyes shut, covering your ears and singing loudly. Here's another question, do you honestly think Breitbart is a reliable source? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should Breitbart News also be described as "right-wing" in the lead?
Previous consensus determined that Breitbart News should be described as "far-right" in the lead. Should it also be described as "right-wing" in the lead?- MrX 01:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * No "Far-right" is a subset of "right-wing" and it says so quite clearly in the link on the phrase. The addition serves no purpose other than to "soften the blow" of accurately describing the site. I would suggest that anyone who both finds "far-right" to be a distasteful term, and finds breitbart to be a good source of information has larger problems than the phrasing in a wikipedia article and could stand to benefit from reading our articles about the far-right. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes the term is just as well sourced as the term "far right", as per the above section which contains around 30 verifiable and reliable sources. To argue that it's sufficient to say something is "far-right" as an umbrella term, suggests perhaps a misunderstanding of the political spectrum. We cannot group together "right-wing" and "far-right" any more than we can group together an apple and a banana. By the way, I wouldn't have any issue with the previously long standing use of the word 'conservative' here as an alternative;- though would prefer 'right-wing' as it's a broader term. My other issue with the usage of 'far-right' (in the context of this article only) is that it stinks of selective relativism, i.e. recent political events and appointments have lead certain Wikipedians to attempt to re-brand or reclassify something in their own terms that they don't agree with or find distasteful (see comment above this one). I could not find any discussion on these two terms on the Breitbart News Talk page until very recently, for example. 81.157.83.173 (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No. As a matter of good writing and editorial discretion, we should not add a broader description to the already precise description found in at least 40 sources. Our article on far-right politics says "Far-right politics are right-wing politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right." Category:Far-right politics is a child category of Category:Right-wing politics for good reason.- MrX 15:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This seems a solid argument for not using both terms; but not an argument for preferring "far right" over "right wing". - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 19:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * No for obvious reasons. Far-right is right. End of. Guy (Help!) 16:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Redundant and undue. Pretty easy case, really doesn't merit serious discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No per all previous discussion on the matter of political leaning by contributors to this page establishing the prevailing consensus to describe organization as "far right" in lead and the fact that the term already describes a type of "right wing", anyway. It is indeed snowing — Iadmc  ♫ talk  19:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes and probably only as "right wing". Per WP:WEIGHT Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. and per MOS:IDENTITY, When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by reliable sources; if it isn't clear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses. While "far right" is commonly used, it is clearly not the term which is most used. Previous discussions produced roughly equal numbers of sources using the "right wing" descriptor as those using "far right" (about 40 of each; mostly opinion sources for both); neither descriptor is overwhelmingly predominant. Google searches produce a 3-4:1 ratio of Breitbart "right wing" (715k) to Breitbart "far right" (213k) (both with -Andrew -site:breitbart.com); not all of these will be use of the term as a descriptor. As "far right" is a subcategory of "right wing", it can be subsumed into the more general & comprehensive term. (That is, all of the sources using the term "far right" are also describing Breitbart as "right wing"). - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 19:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC) updated to include WP:WEIGHT - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Right wing" appears in 1.4 times the websites; roughly equal News sites; 9.4 times the Books; and 1.55 times the Scholarly articles of the "alt/far-right" conflation. "Right wing" appears in 2.56 times the websites; 2.1 times the News sites; 10 times the Books; and 1.8 times the Scholarly articles of "far right" alone. Arguments for inclusion of only "far right" appear to be essentially WP:TRUTH based. The assertion that sources are required to describe the subject as "not far/alt-right" is riddled with logical fallacies (equivocation, false dichotomy), and (more importantly) is not based in policy. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Extended discussion refactored to a section below. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * No. Totally redundant, and far-right is the stronger descriptor. ~ Rob 13 Talk 03:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No. In addition to all the other points above, it's not even clear that all sources that use "right-wing" intend to indicate something gentler or more general than "far-right." The phrase "right-wing" itself can have pejorative connotations in US politics that a more readily accepted alternative like "conservative" does not, so often if "right-wing" is used by a source it may refer to something further right than merely conservative and could essentially be a synonym for far-right. —BLZ · talk 17:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No As others have pointed out, it's redundant. But if editors want to include a discussion wherein Breitbart claims to not be far right or alt right, that would be acceptable to provide context. But for the introduction, this description is very well supported by reliable sources and is sufficient. FuriouslySerene (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. There are a number of sources that describe it as right wing, far right and alt-right. They seem to disagree on what is best to call it (and no, it is blatantly not alt-right, anyone claiming is it either hasn't done research or is being disingenuous). "Right wing" is an umbrella term that encompasses all of the above, plus many more philosophies on the right side of the spectrum. Where the sources disagree, the broad term should be preferred over the more specific one. The Wordsmith Talk to me 16:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Which sources disagree? As in: which sources discuss both right and far-right, and place Breitbart in right, rather than far-right? Guy (Help!) 17:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not what I intended to imply. What I meant was that some sources call Breitbart right-wing, and some call them far-right, and some very wrongly call them alt-right. All far-right and alt-right topics are part of the right-wing, but not all right-wing topics are far-right. Therefore, the term that is certain to cover them is the one that should be used. The Wordsmith Talk to me 19:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that there's a huge overlap between alt-right and far-right, at least as far as Breitbart is concerned. Also, this RfC is about adding "right-wing", not replacing "far-right" with "right wing". That ship has already sailed over the horizon.- MrX 20:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see where any reliable sources dispute the label of 'alt-right'. I've done quite a bit of research (contrary to the claim above) about this, and I'm completely convinced that breitbart is alt-right enough to label it an alt-right publication (though I'm not opposed to calling it 'far-right', instead). MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you take a look at actual alt-right media outlets, things like The Right Stuff (blog), The Daily Stormer, American Renaissance (magazine) etc, and then take a look at Breitbart, it becomes plainly obvious that one of these things is not like the other. Breitbart isn't even in the same neighborhood, and rejects core alt-right principles such as antisemitism and white nationalism in favor of generic "American values" and civic nationalism that's basically in line with the President's views. The Wordsmith Talk to me 14:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I see four problems with that response:
 * I asked for RSes that refute the claim that breitbart is alt-right, and you haven't provided any.
 * That's original research based on your own analysis. I'm open to logical reasons to state as fact things which aren't explicit in the sources, but the logic I'm looking for is logic showing that what the source says couldn't be true unless the proposed statement was, as well. Analyzing the differences between multiple sources to arrive at a conclusion that isn't stated or made implicitly clear in any of those sources doesn't meet that criteria.
 * The Alt-right isn't a well-defined group with a firm definition. Rather, it is a nebulous collection of various far-right groups that also tend to embrace some values not traditionally associated with the far-right. Indeed, one could argue that an individual or organization that embraces all of those values associated with the alt-right isn't alt-right at all, but simply far-right (I wouldn't buy it without some good arguments, but I can see how such arguments could be made).
 * Breitbart has claimed to reject anti-semitism, but it has nonetheless published anti-semitic content on numerous occasions.
 * There's also a bit of Begging the question and No true scotsman in the way you phrased your response ("if you look at actual alt-right sources"), but since that phrasing could be changed without changing the logic of your response, I don't consider those fallacies to necessarily apply. I did want to point them out, because I'm a tireless pedant with a giant stick up my butt. Ask anyone else I've disagreed with, they'll probably agree;) MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , MrX is right--this RfC isn't about whether we should replace "far-right" with "right-wing," but rather whether we should use both terms. That might sound ridiculous, but if you read the RfC closely and the discussion immediately preceding, you'll see that there really is a dispute about this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * No "Far-right" is a subset of "right-wing" . As regards the far/alt question, 'far' is the more established and understood term ('alt' is little known outside US perhaps) and proper place to discuss 'flavour' of far-right is within the body. Pincrete (talk) 06:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that is completely unnecessary because far-right is a subset of right-wing, as noted by others. Right-wing in itself is so broad that it doesn't add anything to this article. --Tataral (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No - "Far right" is pretty obviously the more accurate and better referenced term here. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably not - I don't see any obvious need to state the more inclusive category as well as the less inclusive category of which it is an obvious part, at least not for it's own sake. If it flows naturally as part of the prose, then it probably doesn't make a difference. But I have a feeling that if this was something which flowed naturally as part of the prose, we wouldn't need to have an RfC on it. Timothy Joseph Wood  14:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No opinion Fine with either option. Summoned here by the bot. LavaBaron (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably yes the WP:LEAD section is meant to summarize the article content. Outside the lead section, the article never mentions that Breitbart is a far-right website, although neither does it mention that Breitbart is "right-wing". It does mention that the website is conservative, which may imply "right-wing", but absolutely not "far-right". Yes, sources describe Breitbart as far-right and limited usage of the term "far-right" is appropriate, as concluded in the RfC. However, the current placement of "far-right" in the first sentence of the article (with no other mention elsewhere in the article) may fall foul of WP:WEIGHT and give a false impression to readers. (Compare this with e.g. Slate (magazine), which mentions Slate is an online liberal[2][3][4][5] magazine in the lead section and In the context of a 2014 reader discussion, it was stated that the magazine is perceived to have "left-liberal leanings".[18] after the lead. The mention of "liberal" in the lead is followed up in the article content. Salon (website) is similar: Salon is a progressive/liberal website in the lead and Salon offers "provocative (if predictably liberal) political commentary and lots of sex".[8] after the lead.) Something like "Sources have described Breitbart as right-wing, far-right, and alt-right", or something similar to The Economist, may work better for the reader. f  eminist  09:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You're assuming that the description given in the body doesn't match the label of "far-right". Except it does. Hell, there's a whole section on Identification with alt-right and allegations of racism. And that's not even getting into the meat of the varies sections and controversies listed in the TOC... MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  16:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. I actually like your proposal a bit. I don't think it's as good as clearly identifying the outlet in wikivoice in the lead (that's the purpose of the lead, not only to summarize but also to define), but I would like to see some coverage of how they've been described by the rest of the media. That would likely start with a statement very similar to your proposal. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  16:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've never been a fan of this sort of technical argument. It's often used as an excuse to delete content from the lead, when it should be used as a reason to add content to the body. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Neither The previous close referenced in the RFC was a reversal of the initial close which concluded there was "no consensus for use of the term far right." The reversing admin didn't address the substance of the oppose votes dismissing them as "only a few accounts, most of which were IP-based or SPAs." A review of the votes show that's incorrect (inasmuch as the supporting accounts were not SPAs.)
 * As I show in my analysis in the discussion Far Right is a deteriorate description of Breitbart below, the sources significantly favor "conservative" over "far-right" to describe Breitbart at a ratio of 2:1. That suggests "conservative" should replace "far-right" in the lede. Either the previous RfC close needs review or a new RfC opened. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean "claim" not show. This argument has already been addressed and shot down in the closed discussion below this thread. Unless you can show that the sources which describe them as "conservative" are doing so with the purpose of contrasting that with "far-right", you have no argument. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  18:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * All that must be shown is one term is preferred over the other. That has been shown and – to this point – not countered. (I believe I invited you specifically to provide counter evidence.) It's a misunderstanding of policy to believe some new and different requirement must be met, i.e. that the sources must dispute "far right." I could just as easily demand sources disputing "conservative" which would be similarly pointless. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * MjolnirPants: Having re-read the closed discussion below (which I suggest all !voting editors do) as well as archived discussions I see a number of editors provided evidence suggesting "far right" is not the term most frequently used by RS to describe Breitbart. That evidence is based on google news searches and analysis of RS. As well: a minority appear in every discussion to argue that despite this, the term "far right" must remain based on a misinterpretation of WP:WEIGHT which Ryk72 identifies succinctly:
 * James J. Lambden (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you not reading my comments? You're claiming there's a meaningful difference between a source which says "breitbart is far right" and "breitbart is conservative". I'm telling you straight up: You can read every single reliable source in existence and never find that distinction made. It's WP:SYNTH to suggest that we can't use a more accurate terms because a variety of sources don't prefer to. See Guy's analogy about sky color below.
 * And you're still missing any sort of argument that the current label is innacurate.
 * And you're still not addressing the actual question in this RfC. As at least three editors have told you so far: This is getting disruptive. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  00:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming there's a meaningful difference. I'm claiming as editors it's not our place to judge whether there is a meaningful difference. That would be WP:OR. We use the term most used by reliable sources precisely to avoid debating valid hierarchies of political philosophy.
 * It's strange you find it necessary to debate my !vote, then accuse me of disruption. No one debated your vote, it was allowed to stand on its merits. I would appreciate if you returned the courtesy. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as OR, but regardless, WP:OR does not prohibit the use of OR on article talk pages. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * My objection is to the attempt to use it to influence article content. WP:OR:
 * "... includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources"
 * MjolnirPants violates that when he argues sources which refer to Breitbart "conservative" also by implication endorse the label "far-right"; hence his insistence I find sources using conservative which explicitly reject the label "far-right"; again when he says "alt-right" wouldn't be necessary because "far right" subsumes it.
 * I hate to repeat myself but: we use the term most used by reliable sources - it really is that simple. Efforts to steer discussion elsewhere are distractions from our purpose. James J. Lambden (talk) 07:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm claiming as editors it's not our place to judge whether there is a meaningful difference. What's the point of editors who don't use any judgement? Consensus is nothing but a shared judgement. A judgement which has been (and remains, despite your efforts) that this proposal would be detrimental to the article.
 * It's strange you find it necessary to debate my !vote, then accuse me of disruption. Because you're repeating the same tired arguments that have been shot down numerous times before here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and overwhelmingly so far in this very discussion. Go back and read through those links in order. What you will see is an initially large number of editors who believed that we should call breitbart "conservative" being slowly won over by another group which continued to grow. You will see arguments for calling breitbart "conservative" get countered one by one, with no response forthcoming. You will see a growing number of arguments for ignoring the pure count of sources and going with "far-right" as the better term. Near the end, you will see the same thing repeated: a single editor will being to argue for calling them conservative with a growing number of editors who oppose this until that editor stops responding, unable or unwilling to rebut the arguments against them. And this is not a process that takes weeks, either. Each editor stops within a few days, with every objection they raise being answered, and objections to their arguments going ignored.
 * No one debated your vote, it was allowed to stand on its merits. I would appreciate if you returned the courtesy. Are you seriously suggesting that I shouldn't disagree with you because it's discourteous? I don't believe for one second that you don't know better than to think you have the right to voice your opinions and brook no argument.
 * I hate to repeat myself but: we use the term most used by reliable sources - it really is that simple. Could you link to the policy page which says this? Because I can't seem to find it on my own. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  07:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The first line of WP:WEIGHT says:
 * Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.
 * If the most prominent view is that Breitbart is conservative that is the view we must give the most weight. The most prominent view is empirically not that Breitbart is "far right" yet that is the view currently given the most weight.
 * What I see in many of those links is the same few editors overwhelming myriad detractors, a pattern which continues here. I'm asking you to stop. James J. Lambden (talk) 07:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "If the most prominent view is that Breitbart is conservative" - it's not. "The most prominent view is empirically not that Breitbart is "far right"" - nope. "What I see in many of those links is the same few editors overwhelming myriad detractors, a pattern which continues here" - this sentence doesn't even make sense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What I see in many of those links is the same few editors overwhelming myriad detractors, a pattern which continues here. That right there is a disconnect from reality. I've pointed out at least four problems with your proposal directly to you, problems which you've not addressed or even responded to. There are several more problems with the proposal outlined below and in previous discussions, none of which have been addressed, either. I'm sorry, but this discussion is pointless.
 * I'm asking you to stop. You know what? I'm going to do exactly that, because there's really nothing more to say. The consensus is clear (and overwhelming). Your position has almost no support. There's really nothing left to say. You can take my disagreement as a insult or indication of disrespect (which is ridiculous and juvenile, but whatever), but the truth is that I'm simply the only one of the dozen or so editors who oppose this who is willing to re-phrase the same objections and re-pose the same problems for the umpteenth time. My arguing is an attempt to help you understand why these arguments aren't getting any traction, but it's clear that you're either unable or unwilling to understand that. So I think we're done here. You're going to just have to accept that consensus is against you, no matter how wrong you think that consensus is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm asking you to stop. You know what? I'm going to do exactly that, because there's really nothing more to say. The consensus is clear (and overwhelming). Your position has almost no support. There's really nothing left to say. You can take my disagreement as a insult or indication of disrespect (which is ridiculous and juvenile, but whatever), but the truth is that I'm simply the only one of the dozen or so editors who oppose this who is willing to re-phrase the same objections and re-pose the same problems for the umpteenth time. My arguing is an attempt to help you understand why these arguments aren't getting any traction, but it's clear that you're either unable or unwilling to understand that. So I think we're done here. You're going to just have to accept that consensus is against you, no matter how wrong you think that consensus is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * No "Far-right" is a subset of "right-wing", and a more accurate description of Breitbart. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Closed Discussion
Are you comfortable to move the extended discussion below my !vote to a section here? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 05:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 10:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. Guy (Help!) 10:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure.- MrX 11:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  18:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Extended discussion refactored from section above. START - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You've left out all the sources that refer to Breitbart as "alt-right", a term almost synonymous with "far-right" in many ways, and which is often held to be a subset of "far-right". MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  19:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Grand. Assuming that "alt right" is indeed sufficiently synonymous with "far right" (not necessarily a safe assumption): Breitbart "alt right" (392k). Combined Breitbart "alt right" & Breitbart "far right" (605k) (452k; amended; union is not sum ) < Breitbart "right wing" (715k). None are overwhelmingly predominant, with "far right" being by far the least common. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 19:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not the least bit surprised that the RSes might often use a more general term more often, though I'm not fully convinced this is the case. What about among sources with a focus on describing breitbart as a whole, or focusing on their political leanings? We should certainly be weighing sources by what they address in this, not just counting Ctrl+F hits. For example, a source criticizing a breitbart story which includes the phrase "...published in Breitbart, a right-wing website..." should certainly be given less weight than a source about what Breitbart's political positions are, which includes the phrase "...A far-right website that..." Also, you may disagree with the categorization of the alt-right as part of the far-right, but I assure you that the RSes are pretty unanimous on this. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't know how you're structuring your searches, but when I do a google search for pages which include both the word "breitbart" and the phrase "right-wing" in proximity to each other I get 96 results, whereas when I do the same exact search, but substitute "alt-right" I get 517,000 results. To be fair, "far-right" gives 74 results. (these results include pages where the hyphen is missing). That is not to say these proportions exactly match up to how the terms are used in RSes, but even if alt-right is only used 1/10th as often in the RSes as it is used on the web at large, that's still an overwhelming majority. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am using searches of the form: breitbart AND ("right wing") -andrew -site:breitbart.com; replacing the text "right wing" with "alt right", "far right" & now "alt right" OR "far right". Result counts of "96" & "74" seem more likely indicative of an error; but, if the figures are accurate, are supportive of "alt-right", not "far-right". Looking at "News" searches only, I have: breitbart AND ("right wing") -andrew -site:breitbart.com: 38.0k; "alt right": 24.9k; "far right" 20.0k; "alt right" OR "far right": 38.4k - again, none is overwhelmingly predominant; "far right" is the least common. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The difference between our searches is that I didn't exclude "Andrew" (because he died before the "alt-right" was much of a thing and there's no reason to exclude all results that mention the founder by name) nor did I exclude breitbart.com because them writing a lot about the alt-right only puts more weight on it (though one could argue less weight than independent sources calling them "alt-right"). To be perfectly honest, I think "alt-right" is the best term, but I'm okay with "far-right". However, as I mentioned above, I don't see a bunch of sources referring to breitbart in passing as "right wing" as something we need to give equal weight to independent sources calling them "alt right" in describing them. Also, I've yet to see a single source arguing that breitbart is not far right or alt right, but I've seen numerous sources arguing that they're not moderate right or center-right. With that in mind, the more specific labels seems more appropriate by far. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  22:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The standard by which we measure is prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources; I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine why we should exclude site:breitbart.com. Not excluding andrew, I have:
 * Search, All, News, Books, Scholar
 * breitbart "right wing" -site:breitbart.com, 781k, 45.6k, 348, 486
 * breitbart ("alt right" OR "far right") -site:breitbart.com, 568k, 46.2k, 37, 312
 * breitbart "alt right" -site:breitbart.com, 436k, 29.8k, 0, 39
 * breitbart "far right" -site:breitbart.com, 304k, 21.5k, 35, 269

Even assuming that the equivocation of "alt right" with "far right" is appropriate; "right wing" appears in 1.4 times the websites; roughly equal News sites; 9.4 times the Books; and 1.55 times the Scholarly articles of the "alt/far-right" conflation. "Right wing" appears in 2.56 times the websites; 2.1 times the News sites; 10 times the Books; and 1.8 times the Scholarly articles of "far right" alone. Even assuming that WP:WEIGHT allows for us to apply additional weighting to reliable sources beyond prominence of each viewpoint (describing sources weighted more than in passing sources); it is by no means demonstrable that sources which support the "right wing" description are more in passing than sources which support the "alt/far right" descriptions. A brief review of the two sets of 38 sources presented previously shows a fair amount of in passing across both sets. We would need a solid demonstration to overcome the imbalance in the proportion in which each view appears in reliable sources before "far right" in isolation is supportable. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Assuming for the moment that you're absolutely right, that the preponderance of the sources assert clearly that breitbart is 'right wing' and only a minority assert that it is either 'alt right' or 'far right', then it still doesn't necessarily follow that we should call them 'right wing'. As I pointed out above (and Guy pointed out below); there is nobody arguing that breitbart isn't alt right or far right, while there are sources arguing that breitbart isn't moderate right or center right. Are we supposed to ignore that? Are we supposed to use the least specific (and therefore, least accurate) term over the more specific, more accurate term? That doesn't sound very encyclopedic, especially when there is a vast difference between a moderate right wing position and an alt right position. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  02:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The standard is in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources not "in inverse proportion to the prominence of the contrary viewpoint in published, reliable sources". As below, by what policy do we prefer a greater, but less prominent, specificity? And I believe that where "accurate" was stated, "precise" was intended; if we're being specific. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't interpret MOS:IDENTITY to encompass organizations. I interpret "group" to mean "group of people", in other words, nationality, ethnicity, etc.- MrX 19:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Grand. Substitute WP:WEIGHT. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 19:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We're getting rather side-tracked here. The RfC is about whether we should use the term "right-wing" in addition to, not instead of, the term "far-right." I think Ryk72 has a legitimate argument here about MOS:IDENTITY/WP:WEIGHT but it belongs in a separate discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And my !vote, based in policy and examination of the reliable sources, is that it would be WP:UNDUE to only include a description of "far right". I'm not sure how that's side-tracked. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue is that those sources describing Breitbart as right-wing do not repudiate the far-right description. It's like saying my car is not pearlescent flamenco red because most websites describe it as red. It's a matter of specificity. Guy (Help!) 00:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is indeed a matter of specificity. Those sources describing Breitbart as right-wing do not repudiate the far-right description, but neither do they affirm it. For "reasons" of their own, the majority of reliable sources did not choose to make a description of Breitbart as "alt right" or as "far right". By what policy do we preference a more specific description than those reliable sources? To do so seems undue; WEIGHT says "in proportion to the prominence ... in reliable sources"; the specificity is not prominent in those sources. It's not like saying your car is not pearlescent flamenco red because most websites describe it as red. It's like saying your car is red because most websites describe it as red. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And the DVLA don't affirm the specific colour of my car, either. But neither do they repudiate it. You'd need to show politically neutral sources that discuss degrees and explicitly place other websites in far right, but not Breitbart. Sources looking explicitly at degrees of political bias, clearly put Breitbart out on the fringe. Guardian is left, WSJ is right, Breitbart is far-right. This is all pretty obvious. Equally obviously, Faux News won't call Breitbart far-right, in the main, because they want to portray themselves as neutral, so calling Breitbart right-wing allows them to assert the fallacy of the false middle. Guy (Help!) 18:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thinking it through, I'm a little bewildered. If the description of "right wing" does not repudiate "alt/far right" in the sources, it also does not repudiate it in our article. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 05:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Extended discussion refactored from section above. END - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You'd need to show politically neutral sources that discuss degrees and explicitly place other websites in far right, but not Breitbart. No. No, I don't need to do that; nor does any other editor. Our standard, enshrined in core policy, is in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. We don't need to jump through any other hoops than examine the prominence of each viewpoint in published, reliable sources. And we certainly don't need to satisfy any made up non-policies indistinguishable from those which might be designed to arrive at a pre-determined outcome. When reliable sources describe the article subject, they do not predominantly use "alt right" or "far right". Does it matter that far-left, left, centre-left, centre, centre-right, right, far-right and Genghis Khan sources might choose to refer to the subject differently across the political spectrum? No. No, it doesn't, because it's the prominence in all reliable sources that matters. And across all reliable sources, the predominant description is not "alt right" or "far right". Do differences in the specificity of the descriptions matter? No. No, it doesn't, because across all reliable sources, the predominant specificity is not at the level of "alt right" or "far right". Across all reliable sources, the specificity of and the description of "far right" is a minority viewpoint. It would be WP:UNDUE for us to use it as the only description in the lead. (NOTE: I also consider that it would be UNDUE for us not to include it as a significant viewpoint; in the body.) - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, actually you do, because far-right is a subset of right, so an article that talks only about right without mention far or not-far cannot be used to position Breitbart as right, because its term encompasses far-right. So the only way you could assert that sources support Breitbart being far-right or not-far right is by showing sources that discuss both far and not-far, and place Breitbart in the latter category. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * An article that talks only about right ... cannot be used to position Breitbart as right - Oh. Wow. Sources can't be used to support things that they actually do say, but can be used to support things that they actually don't say, because they actually don't say not the things that they actually don't say. That didn't just fall out of the illogic tree, it hit every branch on the way down. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You'll find it much easier to persuade people and avoid a topic ban for tendentious editing if you don't wilfully misrepresent other editors' replies to you.
 * A source that discusses only right/left and does not go into the question of far-right vs. right cannot be used to assert that Breitbart is only right, rather than far-right, because the category right encompasses the category far-right. What you need is independent neutral sources that discuss far right vs. right and place Breitbart in the latter category. Otherwise you are arguing for the sky being sky blue or blue. Guy (Help!) 12:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am arguing that, if our article describes the colour of the sky, in the lead section, by using one term only, that it should describe the sky as "blue" (without further qualification), because the prominent viewpoint in published, reliable sources is that the sky is "blue" (without further qualification); and because our policy says that we should represent viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in published, reliable sources. That if we use only one term, we should not only use the term "sky blue", because "sky blue" appears in an underwhelming minority of published, reliable sources. This does not preclude the sky actually being sky blue, or it even being "sky blue on some days, a deep azure on others, and partly overcast with occasional blue patches on others"; and it doesn't preclude our article mentioning the viewpoint that the sky is "sky blue" where we cover the topic with more nuance that in a single term; along with any other significant viewpoints. It does seem, without wishing to misrepresent any editors, that "blue" is taken to be firmly inclusive of "sky blue" when used in sources, but firmly exclusive of "sky blue" if used in the article; this seems inconsistent and illogical. The term "blue" cannot both include and exclude "sky blue". If the prominent viewpoint & description in sources is "blue" (which includes "sky blue"), and if we have to use one and only one term, then we should say "blue" (which includes "sky blue"). And I'm quite interestingly informed that the sky is really "bronze" - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 14:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You seem to be in the wrong RfC . Using the term 'far-right' to describe Breitbart has already been decided by consensus in a previous RfC. The options here are "yes, include "right-wing' because..." or "no, don't include "right-wing' because...". Continuing to argue about about the previous RfC in this RfC is tendentious.- MrX 18:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As MrX points out, that horse bolted long ago. The only question on the table is whether to include "or right-wing". Guy (Help!) 22:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * &, Thank you, I do appreciate that point, but believe that it misunderstands the points I have made. I do not make an argument that we should not use "far-right"; but that we should not use only "far right" - which is the one of the options explicit in this RfC. It is not my intention to re-argue the previous RfC, but to make an argument that one of the two options in this RfC is not supported by policy & sources. It may require more careful reading, but I believe I have done so in a way that acknowledges & respects the previous RfC closure at no less than its limits, but also no more. I realise that this may seem like splitting hairs; and that other editors, of course, will disagree, as is their right & wont. I do not intend to repeat or further clarify my argument here unless explicitly requested. I also do not see value to the project in any of us further repeating arguments or counterarguments that we have each found less than compelling. I would hope that on that, at least, we could agree. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So, MrX has pointed out why it can't be only right, and I have pointed out what you need in order to add right to the existing far-right, which is: sources that discuss both right and far-right and which place Breitbart in right. The reason for this is the what-shade-of-blue point made above. If you don't have sources that do this, I suggest you drop the stick. Guy (Help!) 11:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * but neither do they affirm it. No, this isn't a valid point. The sources you refer to are using a less specific term that encompasses 'far right'. I could just as well insist that they all affirm it.
 * For "reasons" of their own, the majority of reliable sources did not choose to make a description of Breitbart as "alt right" or as "far right". And you are operating under the assumption that those reasons are because they disagree with "far right".
 * Here's a question: do you believe that breitbart is moderate right or center right? Seriously, answer the question.
 * And a final reminder: you have not established that sources which seek to define breitbart's political position (rather than mention it in passing) prefer the more general term. From what I've seen, the exact opposite is true. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  18:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I could just as well insist that they all affirm it. And I could insist that all quadrupeds are cats. We would both, rightly, be considered buffoons. And you are operating under the assumption that those reasons are because they disagree with "far right". With the power to discern the contents of another's head and heart, a living might perhaps be made on the stage (or on late night tv, should that better float the boat). I have, unfortunately, made no such assumption. Our standard is in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources, not in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the hearts and minds of the producers of published, reliable sources, but which they chose to not include in the actual published, reliable sources. We don't care what they believed. We care what they published. And predominantly what they published was not "alt right" or "far right". You have not established that sources which seek to define breitbart's political position (rather than mention it in passing) prefer the more general term As above, a) our standard is in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint ..., which countenances no weighting other than prominence of each view point in the published, reliable sources; b) even if this were not true, the burden to demonstrate an imbalance in the use of each term in the reliable sources is not mine; c) the prominence of "right wing" and "far right" is so markedly different - it would require significant and strong evidence of imbalance to overcome this. Here's a question: Would Wikipedia be improved by topic banning the second person personal pronoun from Talk page discussions? I say "yes"; what say ? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And I could insist that all quadrupeds are cats. We would both, rightly, be considered buffoons. This is the second time you've resorted to personal attacks in place of an actual argument with me. Unless you can demonstrate logically that all the sources use 'right-wing' in a manner which specifically excludes 'far-right' (good luck with evincing that ludicrous assumption), and then further demonstrate that anyone who might not see things that way is a buffoon, I suggest you get the fuck over whatever motivated you lash out so childishly and stay focused on the content, kay? ;)
 * The rest of your response to that point is you just repeating yourself, which isn't worth responding to.
 * Hell, the rest of your response to the next point is just you repeating yourself. Not only that, but repeating points which have already been addressed by multiple other editors.
 * Alright, fine. I'm a sucker for debate, so I'll bite and respond yet again to these same old arguments by pointing out more problems with them which you haven't seem to have caught on to:
 * The WP:MOS is not a policy. You keep referring to it as policy, but it's not.
 * The MOS pages all start with a disclaimer that they are not policy and editors should use common sense when applying them.
 * WP:WEIGHT, which is a policy states that articles "...fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources," not that articles only represent that viewpoint which represents a majority (or a plurality!) within the body of sources.
 * WP:IAR is also a policy, and it states quite clearly "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Seems to me that if our 'policy' were to only use the most common description and to ignore all other views, then when one of those other views is more accurate, that's exactly what IAR is intended to correct.
 * Thanks for refusing to answer my question, by the way. It really shows how strong your position is that you don't dare permit me to make a point which requires any admission of any sort from you. So the way I see it, there are two possibilities, here. Either you actually believe Breitbart is a moderate outlet, in which case I think the disconnect from reality that evinces is sufficient grounds to ignore anything you have to say, or you believe breitbart is far right, in which case you are arguing that WP should not reflect reality, and thus anything you have to say is safely ignored as a gross violation of policy.
 * Either way, your arguments have been addressed numerous times. You have not been able to undermine any of the logic refuting your arguments (except by insisting that you think I'm a buffoon for not agreeing with you), and indeed, have simply resorted to repeating yourself in an argument in which the the clear majority of editors are against your suggestion with only one disruptive IP editor supporting it. I think it's about time that the rest of us stop wasting time repeating ourselves, and for you to find something to do which doesn't involve the corporal punishment of equine modes of transportation. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If that is a genuine offer, then please, shun away. I could conceive of no greater relief. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Given your emotive, uncivil reactions every time I point out how wrong you are, I don't doubt it. ;) Anyways, this issue has been discussed enough. You don't have the arguments necessary to form a new consensus, so absent a sudden influx of editors buying into the same flawed arguments you used here, this issue is pretty well settled. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The whole point of discourse is to arrive at a conclusion
At this point, it's pretty clear that the discussion above is not going to get anywhere. Given that it represents the apparent last stand of an argument that has failed to gain traction numerous times in the past, I think it's time to stop and hat this debate and just let the above thread sit out the rest of the RfC collapsed, giving any other editors the chance to voice their opinion without having to wade through a swamp of arguments to grasp the situation. Does anyone have a problem with this? MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  13:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I suggest that there is a different approach possible. To describe any organization as far left or far right should require consensus of independent and respected sources. A majority of editors should never be sufficient.Royalcourtier (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Milo controversy in the lead?
The following sentence is currently in the lead: Milo Yiannopoulos, who had served as the senior editor and Tech Director of Breitbart News since 2014, resigned from the company on February 21, 2017 after a video of him supporting pedophilia surfaced. I do not believe that this belongs in the lead section; according to WP:LEAD, the lead section should give an overview of the article's content, not highlight the most recent news about the topic. Moreover, WP:BALASP cautions against giving undue weight to certain aspects of a subject, including recent events. Seeing as the controversy surrounding Milo's comments has started all of two days ago, it does not have enough weight to be receive such attention. Nonetheless, my attempt to move this sentence out of the lead section and into the "After 2016 election" section was reverted, so I would like to open up discussion about it here. Does this topic belong in the lead? I've already expressed my own views, and believe that Wikipedia policy is fairly clear on this point. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that it doesn't belong in the lead. It's certainly noteworthy, but not that noteworthy since Yiannopoulos was one Breitbart contributor of many. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree. It's not significant enough to merit inclusion in the lead.- MrX 12:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at this issue closely, but it certainly looks lede-worthy to me because of how high-profile he was. However we ought to be very careful in claiming "support" of something like that — and it may be better to to describe "alleged support", or "questionable comments surrounding", etc. in order not to violate WP:BLP. From the sources I've seen this is the way they portray it. Other thoughts? Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 16:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Remove - We should not be spending 30 words of the lead on a subject that is covered in 17 words in the body. Milo Yadszfopojsd is furthermore not the subject of this article, and WP:RECENTISM does not overcome WP:LEAD and WP:DUE. Put the coats on the right rack and take it to the main article. Timothy Joseph Wood  16:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Remove from the lead. An editor once said that the lead of an article should be the answer you'd give to someone unfamiliar with the subject who asked you what it was. I find that to be an absolutely wonderful heuristic. If someone asked me what Breitbart was, I certainly wouldn't mention that they fired Milo in response. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Given the consensus, I have moved the sentence out of the lead. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Why is Anthony Weiner a controversial story?
The story was accurate and pretty widely reported. Marquis de Faux (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, any controversy about the story itself isn't included in our article. I think this is included because Breitbart broke the story, and it made big news. I've broadened the section title from "Controversial stories" to "Notable stories" to include the Weiner story, which should certainly be included somewhere in our article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * by ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * by Timothy Joseph Wood  21:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * by ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the overall sentiment, but the word "notable" is given as an example of an editorialized word in Wikipedia's Manual of Style. I'm having difficulty coming up with a neutral alternative though, so perhaps perhaps "notable" is the best we can hope for here--unless someone else can come up with some other term(s) that roughly cover translate as "breaking stories" and "stories that were covered by other media outlets for being controversial." –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I can see where you're coming from, but facing my own inability to offer any good alternatives at the moment I of "notable". Yeah, yeah, I know. It stopped being funny. I'm done now.  ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  04:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We use "notable" all the time in this context. The MOS is talking about something different, when "notable" is used to editorialize, e.g. "It is notable that..." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What's the difference, exactly? "Notable" is a value-laden word, and I don't see how it can be used in a context that doesn't involve editorializing. The MOS doesn't mention any qualifications. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 09:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you think of "significant"? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Proto, there are several differences. First, the MOS advises against the use of the word "notably," not "notable." Second, all of the examples are adverbs (or adverb clauses), not adjectives. Third, the use of the word "notable" for this purpose (as opposed to the editorializing "Notably, ...") is common in WP, reflects WP principles, and fulfills a practical need to keep list sizes manageable. It's often the only reasonable way to conform to WP:OR and keep articles from being overwhelmed by content supported only by primary sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment re "neutrality"
Allowing a self-proclaimed left-leaning news organization (the new york times) as a source for comments which discredit the right-leaning news organization that is the subject of this article seems problematic if one of the goals of wikipedia is neutrality. i'm not a breitbart supporter, but i donate to wikipedia because i value its objectivity and neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmeljay (talk • contribs) 02:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * see NPOV - Bias in sources, IRS - Biased or opinionated sources and WP:POVS. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Should Breitbart be described as far right?
"Far right" is a subjective term an should be avoided. Its open to interpretation. For many people "far right" describes "neo-nazism" and conjures up notions of violence. Breitbart certainly doesn't fall into this category. The terms used should be conservative or, arguably ultra conservative. Emotive terms like far right should be avoided in wikipedia and stick to actual words with certain meanings. The8Corn (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes. This issue was discussed at length, and upon a Request for Comment not that long ago there was a clear consensus that we should describe Breitbart as far right. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Well then that consensus was incorrect?

It is objectively as far to the right as the Huffington Post is to the left, which is described as "politically liberal". Vox is described as "left-leaning".

Is anything that disagrees with the "National Review" considered far-right? Breitbart is the center of conservative and libertarian journalism. This adjective is slanderous, though interestingly reveals the blatant biases of whatever editors manage this page.

I don't even align with the site politically, but Breitbart (and Breitbart Jerusalem...) do not endorse neo-nazi views, and should not be grouped in with them.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.170.197.194 (talk) 05:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Saying it's "objectively" yadda yadda doesn't make it objective, and we've heard all that before anyway. If you have reliable sources discussing Huffington Post's political alignment, discuss them at Talk:The Huffington Post. Or don't. Wikipedia goes by sources. Do you have any sources about Breitbart that haven't been discussed yet? Grayfell (talk) 05:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not yadda yadda. It's obvious: The far-right sites endorse neo-nazism, Breitbart has a Jerusalem section. Every leftist outlet (Daily Kos, HuffPo, Vox) is described as "liberal" or "progressive" and none are described as "far-left" or "Marxist". That's bias. It's clearly right-wing, but there are much better adjectives. Even mainstream US media hardly uses "far-right". The adjective is pejorative and simply inaccurate.

If anyone questions the political orientation of Wikipedia volunteers, this page provides a clear answer.

"the crusading populist-right website" - Bloomberg https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-10/breitbart-hires-wall-street-journal-vet-to-expand-its-audience

"the right-wing news and opinion website" - NYTimes https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/business/media/breitbart-news-john-carney.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.170.197.194 (talk) 06:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Again, we've seen all this before. Saying this must be exactly the same as left-wing sites is a false comparison. Plenty of sources use far-right, and "crusading populist-right" seems pretty damn close to Far-right politics to me, anyway. Please take a look at past discussions, and make sure you have something new to offer. This isn't a platform for discussing the site, this is for improving the article. Repeatedly rehashing old discussions isn't productive. Grayfell (talk) 06:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * If you can convince a consensus of editors that Breitbart isn't actually far right, then by all means do so. However it seems unlikely given that essentially the same arguments you raise here were already discussed and rejected. You'd be best to go back and read those discussions carefully. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

At the top of this page it says: Be polite, and welcoming to new users; Assume good faith; Avoid personal attacks; For disputes, seek dispute resolution.

And yet this particular group of editors decides to impose its "consensus" that Breitbart is far right. The term is as defamatory as it is unjust to describe Breitbart. It is at last crystal clear that Wikipedia editors don't even pretend to be neutral, welcoming or respectful anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hirenny (talk • contribs) 01:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So, to be welcoming and neutral we should to ignore the consensus, ignore dozens of reliable sources, ignore pages of debate, and instead accede to the wishes of the occasional drive-by editor who makes no effort research the subject, improve the article, or sign their talk page posts? - MrX 12:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Bottom line on "far right": Either supply a fully-referenced definition of what "far right" precisely means, or it must be removed as subjective opinion. If it can't be defined, then it can't be objectively determined as to whether it applies as a description, and thus the consensus opinion is objectively wrong. Can anyone define precisely what it means? Nairebis (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not how Wikipedia works. See WP:CONSENSUS. If you think content decisions should be based on precision, you're welcome to propose a new policy at the Village Pump.- MrX 11:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ETA -- I should say, I realize that it links to a Wikipedia page on the subject, but if you actually read that page, it couldn't be more broad and useless about definition exactly what makes something "far right". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nairebis (talk • contribs) 23:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The description of Breitbart is based on a multitude of reliable sources, not the quality of the Far-right politics Wikipedia article. Don't forget to sign your talk page posts by typing four tildes ~ at the end.- MrX 11:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not subjective. Breitbart is further to the political right than Fox News, which is clearly center-right. One can, mathematically go through political ideologies and produce a sum which represents the extremity to the right (or left) of any outlet with well-documented positions. Breitbart os objectively further to the right than a source which is objectively in the center of the right. Just because it's a judgement doesn't make it a subjective judgement. This isn't rocket science, folks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * At the very least, the term "far right" should be replaced with "right wing". At another place in the article, people whose opinion of Breitbart as far right can be quoted, alongside those who place Breitbart in the varying other degrees of right wing.  It makes just as much sense to tar Breitbart with the far right brush than it would to characterize left wing news sources as far left, or even Stalinist.  That game could just as easily be played on the other side of the spectrum.Hirenny (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Breitbart advocates for positions which are more closely associated with the far right than with moderate or center right. Also, Breitbart is usually defined as far right when reliable sources make an effort to actually describe it, whereas it's generally only referred to as right wing when the sources mention its political positions in passing. Even the small handful of sources who have defined Breitbart and used "right wing" are taken into account because the far right is a subset of the right wing. This has been extensively discussed on this page and in the archives. The consensus is rather clear to refer to them as far right. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not "tarring" or otherwise derogatory to describe a website as far right. There is nothing wrong with far right. Some people like to read Breitbart precisely because it is far right. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

If anyone with half a brain were to actually go to the Breitbart Web site and read it for themselves they would see that it is not far right but ordinary right. All the citations in this article calling it far right are from far-left extremist propaganda sites. The so-called "journalists" who work for the liberal media are absolutely insane. Just go to the Twitter profile of any journalist that works for the left-wing media, and you will see that they are deranged far-left lunatics that cannot be trusted. The liberal media does not hire ordinary professional journalists anymore but rather far-left communist and anarchist activists posing as journalists whose only purpose in writing "news" is to push an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hartspope1 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That is a wonderfully cogent and well-evinced argument, sir. I'm sure we should all agree wholeheartedly and immediately change the article. While we're at it, we should get to work adding "insane, far-left communist and anarchist" to the articles about all the sources used here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  00:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that someone who thinks that all professional journalists who work for the libtard media are "far-left communist and anarchist activists" would describe Breitbart even as right-wing. I applaud you, Hartspope1, for maintaining some perspective. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It is difficult to take this article seriously when the adjective "far-right" appears in the article's first line and the sources are cherry-picked. AppNexus admits the following: "Our decision several months ago to bar the political domain Breitbart.com from our marketplace for violation of our hate speech policy was controversial. It did not draw uniform praise within the industry or among general interest news outlets".


 * Why is Wikipedia siding with AppNexus instead of with the other general interest news outlets?
 * Técnico (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Baring Breitbart for hate-speech is what they are describing as controversial. Although it's obviously related, it's not the same issue as them being far-right. Being far-right has much broader support among news outlets, as indicated by sources. Grayfell (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Grayfell, then, do you think that one or more editors should not have used the AppNexus source ["AppNexus bans Breitbart from ad exchange, citing hate speech". The Japan Times. November 24, 2016. Retrieved December 3, 2016.] as an example of a source calling Breitbart far-right? Técnico (talk) 03:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Grayfell, but I think you're misunderstanding the source. It was The Japan Times, not Appnexus, that said Breitbart promotes far-right views. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup. The AppNexus press release says that Breitbart violated their hate speech policy, which is only indirectly related to the term "far-right". The Japan Times article said that Breitbart "has drawn criticism for promoting far-right, sometimes racist views." As one of many sources making this point, this is appropriate. It would be inadequate for this point on its own, but it is not on its own, it's supported by many other sources. Grayfell (talk) 06:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The Japan Times article is not saying Breitbart is far-right. It is saying Breitbart has drawn criticism....  The source is saying that Breitbart has critics.  The source is not necessarily agreeing with those critics.  Thus, why should we not drop this source? Técnico (talk) 06:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't read it that way. I read it as saying Breitbart promoted far-right, sometimes racist views and that it has drawn criticism for that. But, I can see how one might interpret it the way you did. I'd be fine with removing the source on WP:CITEKILL grounds. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Would you mind if an editor removes the source because the source can be interpreted two ways? Your interpretation is compatible with WP:CITEKILL.  My interpretation is that the source is not directly relevant. Técnico (talk) 04:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. I'ts definitely relevant, as it specifically mentions Breitbart being connected to the far-right, but it's slightly ambiguous and not necessary to make the underlying point. Grayfell (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Grayfell, thank you! Técnico (talk) 04:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I have some difficulty accepting that a news agency that was set up to support Israel can be described as far right. Breitbart is right wing, but its focus is on supporting Israel, not Nazism/Fascism, accordingly it should be described as "pro-Israeli" or "pro-Israeli, right-wing", not as "far right".Royalcourtier (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This is really not of our concern. If you think the many cited sources all made the same mistake, then write a letter to their editors. It might also be work considering that the website's ideology has changed over time, especially with the shift from Andrew Breitbart to Bannon, so AB's original goal might not be so relevant anymore. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. This is correct and sufficient, but as a point of reference, there is a far-right in Israel, also. Category:Far-right political parties in Israel is a starting point for more information. Grayfell (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Assuming Breitbart was far-right under Bannon, if the website's ideology changed after Bannon had left, then are not the sources calling Breitbart far-right out-of-date? The most recent sources are dated mid-November 2016. The Newsweek source says "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" and is dated 11/16/16.  Hasn't it been approximately six months since Bannon left Breitbart?  Until more recent (and balanced) sources are found, should the article be edited to say something like this: "Breitbart News Network (known commonly as Breitbart News, Breitbart or Breitbart.com) is a Los Angeles-based news, opinion and commentary[7][8] website founded in 2007 by Andrew Breitbart, a conservative [2].  The website was called far-right in 2016 by some [6]"? Técnico (talk) 04:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No. There is nothing to suggest that the ideology of the website has changed and that any sources are out of date. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

You say "reputable" sources (I guess mainstream media like Washpo, NYT and the likes) describe the website as "far-right", but you forget to mention that the same sources are often criticized by many people for having a liberal-bias. So obviously, for a liberal "source" anything to the right of Wall Street Journal is "Far-right". Breibart is objectively as far to the right as HuffPo to the left,...but you don't describe the latter as "Far-Left". These are subjective terms, how far to one side or another of the political spectrum depends considerably on your own political viewpoint. For a Marxist-Leninist Fox News is Far-right,...while Washington Post may be viewed by a deeply conservative southern evangelical as "Far-Left". So for the sake of neutrality, you should change this subjective and politically charged term (Far-Right) to something more serious and academic-sounding as Right-Wing, Conservative, or Nationalist. After all. this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Vincent Shooter 20:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not the standard used by Wikipedia or any reliable encyclopedia. Saying something is "objectively" left or right doesn't make it an objective fact by our standards. Comparing Breitbart to Huffington Post or other supposedly left-wing outlets is false equivalence which has already been rehashed more times than I can remember. It also smacks of being an argument to moderation. Saying that some people view a source as "far-left" doesn't invalidate it, and being placed by hypothetical opponents on an ideological spectrum doesn't determine a source's reliability. Reliable sources, as Wikipedia defines them, say that Breitbart is far-right. If you have reliable sources for any other media outlets, discuss them elsewhere. Grayfell (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * but you forget to mention that the same sources are often criticized by many people for having a liberal-bias. Yeah, and the US Government is often criticized by many people for covering up evidence of extraterrestrial visitation.
 * So obviously, for a liberal "source" anything to the right of Wall Street Journal is "Far-right".Given that WSJ espouses a center-right POV, that's perfectly reasonable. It's also blatantly untrue, but whatever.
 * Breibart is objectively as far to the right as HuffPo to the left No, it's not. Maybe The Young Turks would be the left-wing counterpart of Breitbart, except that they don't lie as often. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  00:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Greyfall

Here is how the New York Times, probably the most respected newspaper in America defines Breibart:

The Breitbart News Network, usually just called Breitbart, is a conservative-leaning news website. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/18/business/media/what-is-breitbart-news.html

Not far-right, but conservative-leaning. Now either New York Times is wrong and some college kids with internet and plenty of time know better,...or either Wikipedia only reflects the opinion and sensibilities of its anonymous editors and moderators. I think the latter is right. No wonder reputable schools do not accept Wikipedia as a reliable source for assignments/papers. And no, it's not an "appeal to authority" argument (it's cute to know about logical fallacies,...but one has to learn how spot them and use them to not sound silly),...the whole concept of Wikipedia lies on the repute and prestige of the sources, well, here is what reputable sources say about breibart:

The rightwing site accused the Guardian…. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/15/breitbart-fake-news-right-trump

The same may be true of Breitbart News, a conservative website whose fortunes……. http://www.economist.com/news/business-and-finance/21711265-readership-surging-stephen-bannons-alt-right-news-outfit-about-launch-french-and

Breitbart is the most read conservative website in the US http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37109970

I rest my case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincent shooter (talk • contribs) 17:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you're resting your case, because you haven't presented anything that has not already been argued ad nauseum. Congratulations, you have found a few sources that describe Breitbart as conservative. That does not diminish the fact that we have already documented more 38 reliable sources that also describe Breitbart as far-right, including the New York Times, BBC, and The Guardian. The terms are not mutually exclusive. Since there are no new arguments here, I suggest that this discussion be closed.- MrX 18:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ETA: Thank you for closing this.- MrX 18:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * MrX, what terms are not mutually exclusive: right-wing and far-right? Are you saying that everything that is right-wing is also far-right?  That is like saying every number greater that 1 is also greater than 100. Técnico (talk) 03:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The discussion is closed and my comment does not need deciphering anyway.- MrX 03:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * MrX, it seems like you are saying everyone who lives west of the Mississippi river lives in California. Please clarify. Técnico (talk) 04:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * MrX is correct, far-right is a subset of right wing. It is possible to be both far-right and right wing. One does not exclude the other = not mutually exclusive. If you still sincerely don't know what mutually exclusive means, read mutually exclusive and try to figure it out from context. Grayfell (talk) 05:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

While strictly true, that only works in one direction. While everyone who is far-right is right-wing, not everyone who is right-wing is far-right. That only applies to a small subset of right-wingers.

So the question here is "How big a portion of right-wingers make up Breitbart's audience, and where are they located on the left/right, liberal/conservative spectrum?" (Two things: number and location). That question has been answered by an extremely reliable and totally nonpartisan scholarly source, Pew Research Center:


 * "[In 2014], [j]ust 3% of respondents get news from Breitbart in a typical week, and its audience is decidedly conservative: 79% have political values that are right-of-center (by comparison, 26% of all panelists are right-of-center)." (Note that Pew Research does not use "left" and "right", but only "conservative" and "liberal".)

From this we can quite certainly deduce, without any OR, that Breitbart appeals to an extremely conservative base making up a VERY small portion of right wingers, ergo a "far-right" base. I suspect that Trump's influence has given Breitbart wind in their sails and that base has grown in numbers, but it's still a far-right base, just more of them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)