Talk:Breitbart News/Archive 6

Birther Conspiracy
I propose changing "Breitbart News promoted the falsehood that President Obama was a Kenyan-born Muslim. Breitbart senior editor-at-large Joel B. Pollak nevertheless denied that Breitbart News was a 'Birther website' or that it had ever made a birther-conspiracy claim." to: "In May 2012, Breitbart.com published a copy of a promotional booklet that Obama's literary agency, Acton & Dystel, printed in 1991 (and later posted to their website, in a biography in place until April 2007) which misidentified Obama's birthplace and states that Obama was 'born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.' When this was posted by Breitbart, the booklet's editor said that this incorrect information had been her mistake, not based on anything provided to her agency by Obama. Breitbart senior editor-at-large Joel B. Pollak has denied that Breitbart News was a 'Birther website' or that it had ever made a birther-conspiracy claim."

to reflect a paragraph in the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article. Simply stating that Breitbart promoted the birther conspiracy and citing an article that also simply states the same without any evidence, examples or arguments seems inadequate to me. To be clear, I'm not calling the New York Times or the cited article "fake news", and I'm not trying dispute whether or not Breitbart actually supported the birther conspiracy (although I believe they did, but I was unable to find any evidence they did, and I don't really care enough to keep looking). I feel the suggested paragraph has more information with a source that is more on-topic. It shows that Breitbart may have been trying to use the mistake in the promotional booklet to spread doubt about Obama's citizenship.Saith89 (talk) 09:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Saith89 (talk) 09:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * A reasonable proposal, but I disagree. I think the current level of summarization is more encyclopedic. The proposed change might be read to imply that Breitbart was innocently relying on other sources' misinformation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for using a template, I don't have a lot of experience editing pages, and I have never edited protected pages (I would go ahead and remove the template, but I don't know if that might mess something up). The cited article for the "Breitbart News promoted the falsehood that President Obama was a Kenyan-born Muslim." statement is unreliable WP:RSCONTEXT, The Times article is not about the Birther Conspiracy, It mentions that the alt-right movement's views include the Conspiracy and casually states that Breitbart supported the conspiracy but does not discuss it any further. One article I found that discusses Breitbart involvement in the conspiracy is at mediamatters.org. I don't know how reliable they are, but at least the article is on-topic. (Also, I'm changing the "edit request" heading to "Birther Conspiracy", I hope that's ok.)Saith89 (talk) 05:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * -- edit-request templates are to be used when there is a consensus for the proposed change. This is evidently lacking.  (FWIW, I agree with Dr. Fleischman's comment.)  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The cited Times sourceis absolutely reliable in this context. It describes Breitbart as "an online news organization that has fed the lie that Mr. Obama is a Kenyan-born Muslim." The fact that the source isn't focused on birtherism is beside the point. There is no basis for arguing that the source isn't accurate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems as though the facts are being excluded out of fear that some people may think Breitbart is innocent. This to me seems less encyclopedic and incredibly biased. The NYT article is generally reliable, but because the article was not focused on the birther conspiracy and was only giving a short description of Breitbart News, it would not be necessary for them to include all the details about how Breitbart supported the conspiracy in that article. But this Wikipedia article is about Breitbart News, and the sub-section is "Conspiracy theories about President Obama" under the section "Notable Stories", and I don't think it is unreasonable to mention the Breitbart story that helped spread doubt about Obama's place of birth. I feel the statement needs more information, and/or cited articles with more information.Saith89 (talk) 05:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think your assessment is correct. Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia that enthusiastically publishes the facts that brief news articles do not. Often, as in this case, those additional facts pull extremist claims back toward reality. However, in the official narrative of this now anti-encyclopedia, right up there at the start of the Breitbart entry is the claim that it is 'far right'. The actual facts about Breitbart only support 'right-wing' not 'far right', so some of them must be excluded. Anyway, welcome to post-facts 'fit the mainstream narrative' Wikipedia.Haberstr (talk) 04:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not really seeing it. Can you point me to evidence that the details of Breitbart's birtherism received any sort of significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources? (And btw I don't think that Media Matters sources is reliable.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well there's the ABC News Article that the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories page cites, I would have assumed that to be reliable enough, and if it's not then I'm done, I can't think of anything else to add to my argument. I lack the experience and desire to hunt down articles and determine the reliability of the source (I thought I had an article from the Huffington Post, but then I saw that it was a blog and that just killed any will I had left to keep going with this) Saith89 (talk) 11:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what you mean when you say the lack of detail makes our article biased? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make the whole article biased, just the one section. You wrote "The proposed change might be read to imply that Breitbart was innocently relying on other sources' misinformation." This sounds like a biased reason to exclude the information from the article, as though it must be presented to read that Brietbart is guilty here. I honestly can't tell with absolute certainty that Breitbart News supported the conspiracy, and while my opinion is that they did, my opinion is biased. I think readers should see the facts and decide for themselves, rather than Wikipedia or the NY Times simply deciding for them. Saith89 (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Honestly, putting that claim in source voice is the best way to go. I'm going to do that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  01:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree - per WP:YESPOV, reliably sourced facts generally shouldn't be attributed in-text. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As a card carrying liberal, I have to admit: The counter-argument from Breitbart (the source used in the next sentence) is not something that is easily dismissed. And then there are actual breitbart articles like this one, which excoriate birthers and quote Andrew Breitbart as saying "[Birtherism is] self-indulgent, it’s narcissistic, it’s a losing issue". Then blames birtherism on "the left" because breitbart. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  03:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree more with and the original poster than with sentence #1's strong language above.  I looked at the May 2012 article in question.  Assuming that is an accurate copy of what was published, and if this is the only evidence for the NYT reporter's claim, that claim goes too far and we should not repeat it.  Snopes agrees with the Breitbart analysis of the subject.
 * However, Rolling Stone seems to agree more with the NYT :
 * This article starts off with a note from the senior editors stating that Andrew Breitbart, the site's late founder, along with the rest of the editorial staff, are not Birthers and accept that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. "It is evidence," the senior editors write, "not of the President's foreign origin, but that Barack Obama's public persona has perhaps been presented differently at different times." These intentions seem deeply disingenuous when you look at the rest of the story – or more importantly, the picture they used of a 1991 bio from Obama's publisher that erroneously states he was born in Kenya. Even after the publisher announced that this was simply a fact-checking error, this post was used as fuel for the extremists behind Birtherism – something that can't be easily disposed of with an editor's note.
 * I see more validity to that claim than the way NYT reporter phrased it. And of course we do have Breitbart printing rubbish like this "Scott Baio Suggests Obama Could Be a Muslim Who Wants to ‘Totally Eliminate the United States".  Perhaps some compromise language (like what was in Rolling Stone) considering other sources beside the NYT that tempers down sentence #1 and more actually reflects what was in the May 2012 article might work? I haven't checked for other sources on this. If you guys find any, please post.
 * I see there was a compromise to say that that is what the NYT said. That might work too.  Certainly better than what was there originally.
 * --David Tornheim (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Is "original poster" what is meant by "OP"?--in law it means opposing party Yes, "Original Poster", or the person who started the thread. But on political articles, it also often has the legalese meaning, as well.
 * I don't doubt that several birthers worked for Breitbart (and wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that some still do). But I remember being surprised almost a decade ago when Breitbart wasn't running birther stories left and right. I'm sure they're big fans of the CS, and I'm sure their article "questioning the idealogical background" of Obama was designed to fan birtherism while they publicly distanced themselves from it, but still. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  06:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that several birthers worked for Breitbart (and wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that some still do). But I remember being surprised almost a decade ago when Breitbart wasn't running birther stories left and right. I'm sure they're big fans of the CS, and I'm sure their article "questioning the idealogical background" of Obama was designed to fan birtherism while they publicly distanced themselves from it, but still. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  06:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2017
Could somebody add the Start date and age to "| launch date = 2007 (as Breitbart.tv)" so that it's "| launch date = {start date and age|2007} (as Breitbart.tv)"?

173.73.218.206 (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request June 6, 2017
The sentence "He said he made the sarcastic comment in an effort to find out what Hagel had done was considered to be anti-Israel" in the "Friends of Hamas" story section does not make sense. Please replace it with the following: 95.44.50.222 (talk) 09:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * He was investigating rumors that Hagel had been paid for speaking to "contoversial organizations", and asked sarcastically whether he had addressed "Friends of Hamas."
 * ✅ ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Balanced Sources Required
Breitbart should not be described as far right here on Wikipedia because Wikipedia should use balanced sources. Most of the sources seem to be left of center of U.S. politics: Washington Post, Newsweek, AP, (The Japan Times source is ambiguous and should not be a source.) Técnico (talk) 03:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * What policy requires "balanced sources"? -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Confusion about set membership
At least one editor seemed to have commented that because the adjectives far-right and conservative are not mutually exclusive, then Breitbart should be described as far-right. That editor seems to be mistaken. Suppose that far-right websites are a subset of conservative sites. That does not mean every conservative site is far-right. For example, even if everyone living in California lives west of the Mississippi river, it does not mean that every person living west of the Mississippi river lives in California. People in Nevada live west of the Mississippi. Therefore, if a source says that someone lives west of the Mississippi, it would be a mistake to put in a Wikipedia article that the person lives in California. Técnico (talk) 03:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This has already been discussed. We use the descriptions found in RS. See the archives. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Cheapening of the adjective far-right
If the adjective far-right is used on Wikipedia to describe non-racist Breitbart, what adjective remains to describe truly far-right sites? Técnico (talk) 03:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:DROPTHESTICK. I can't tell if you're genuinely confused about how "mutually exclusive" works or if you're just trolling, but it's been explained (now in the talk page's archive) by multiple editors. Good faith is a finite resource. We've already been over this so, so many times, bringing this up, yet again, without anything new to add at all is disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 04:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Examples of Wikipedia Articles Not Characterizing News Outlets' Political Orientations
Let's remove the characterization of Breitbart in the first line this Wikipedia article to be consistent with these Wikipedia articles:
 * 1. "The Cable News Network (CNN) is an American basic cable and satellite television news channel owned by the Turner Broadcasting System division of Time Warner."
 * 2. "MSNBC (formerly stylized as msnbc) is an American basic cable and satellite television network that provides news coverage and political commentary from NBC News on current events."
 * 3. "Politico is an American political-journalism company based in Arlington County, Virginia, that covers politics and policy in the United States and internationally."
 * 4. "Mediaite is a news and opinion blog covering politics and entertainment in the media industry."
 * 5. "The Young Turks (TYT) is an American news and commentary program on YouTube, which also serves as the flagship program of the TYT Network, a multi-channel network of associated web series focusing on news and cultural issues."
 * 6. "Slate is an online magazine that covers current affairs, politics and culture in the United States."
 * 7. "Salon is an American news and opinion website created by David Talbot in 1995." Técnico (talk) 07:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Why? Breitbart isn't like any of those. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

How Should this Article Be Updated in Light of Recent Changes?
"Breitbart has made moves that signal a desire to shift away from its renegade roots and mature into a more established news outlet." http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/07/media/far-right-abandons-breitbart/index.html Técnico (talk) 03:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/is-breitbart-news-veering-away-from-the-farthest-far-right/2017/06/06/35f91160-4ad1-11e7-a186-60c031eab644_story.html?utm_term=.75efcb0a1b59 Here's a similar article from the Washington Post. Marquis de Faux (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No need for updating on this basis -- we can wait until something actually happens. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The story is that Breitbart (which is and has been a mainstream outlet for some time) is moving to a slightly more center-right position, and that the far-right reacted with predictable melodrama. I'm not seeing anything in there that's going to add any value to the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think the source (or other related sources) even suggests that Breitbart is moving from far-right to center-right. It sounds like they're simply trying to move away from some of the more overtly race-related content that they started publishing after Bannon took over. (There's a recent PBS Frontline about this.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think the source (or other related sources) even suggests that Breitbart is moving from far-right to center-right. That's why I qualified it with "slightly more". As in, if I walk ten feet North, I'm slightly more "in Canada" (I live in Florida). Maybe I should have said "slightly closer to". That would have been clearer. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The article suggests that Breitbart is becoming or has already become right-leaning. The source says, "Its editors have talked about becoming the Trump era's paper of record .... And some new hires have come from more established right-leaning news outlets, such as The Wall Street Journal and Fox News."  One correspondent seems to say that Breitbart is moving to the left of the Gateway Pundit and Drudge: "'They are leaving the island occupied by the Gateway Pundit and Drudge Report and a few other news sources,' Wintrich told CNN." Técnico (talk) 02:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The article suggests that Breitbart is becoming or has already become right-leaning. If you are suggesting that Breitbart is not right-wing, then you need to stop editing political articles on WP, because you are not competent to do so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think someone who identifies himself as a "male feminist" should be calling out someone out on their ability to be neutral. Your bias is clearly visible.Thismightbezach (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am suggesting, in light of recent changes ongoing at Breitbart, that no adjective at all be used to characterize Breitbart until after those changes have stabilized. Técnico (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd oppose that. Breitbart is verifiably far-right and will remain so until reliable sources expressly indicate otherwise. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Verifiably far-right to all your left-wing sources. Don't bother wasting your time, Técnico. The far-left editors on this page will never be convinced otherwise. They'll continue to slander Breitbart with scary adjectives like "far-right" for the foreseeable future.Thismightbezach (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There's nothing scary about "far-right." Lots of organizations are happy to be described as far-right. (Please stay constructive and avoid personalizing content disputes.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This seems like a nonsense statement when you look at all the other organisations described as far right. --13:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)Quadrow (talk)


 * If you can't wrap your head around having a POV but not editing by it then you really have no business at this project. Also, making bad faith accusations of POV pushing is a violation of our policy. Given that you are coming off a series of escalating blocks for your editing in political areas, I strongly suggest you remain civil, focused on content and most importantly; helpful. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  23:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, you raised three issues above:

1) Whether Breitbart is still verifiably far-right [if it ever was]

A source seems to have reliably reported that Breitbart is changing. Thus, all previous characterizations of Breitbart might be wrong and thus this Wikipedia article might now be wrong. Please reconsider your opposition to the proposed improvement of this Wikipedia article.


 * Dr. Fleischman, the source quotes someone who says that Breitbart has changed: "'I suspect we are seeing the end of Breitbart,' far-right blogger Chuck Johnson, who wrote for the site years ago, declared in a Facebook video Tuesday. 'It's basically a shell of its former self. It's not that interesting anymore.'


 * "The angry critics descended on Breitbart after the website parted ways on Monday with writer Katie McHugh following incendiary remarks she made about Muslims in the aftermath of the London terror attack" . Técnico (talk) 07:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Chuck Johnson is not a reliable source; nor does he say that Breitbart is no longer far-right. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Dr. Fleischman, why are you saying that Chuck Johnson is not a reliable source? CNN characterizes him as a far-right blogger.  Thus, Chuck Johnson most likely is able to reliably report on whether a site's content is far-right.  Chuck Johnson calls Breitbart "basically a shell of its former self."  Can a shell be far-anything?
 * Is Chuch Johnson a reliable, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * There seems to be absolutely no consensus here on whether Breibart News is far-right or not. The only consensus here is that they are described as far right. I think everyone needs to respect that as the consensus because there certainly isn't any consensus that they are far-right - that description seems to be politically motivated.--Quadrow (talk) 13:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

2) Whether the term "far-right" is scary

The term certainly connotes Antisemitism, which is evil.


 * Dr. Fleischman, you posted, "you are confusing far-right with anti-semitic. The two are quite distinct." That is yet another reason to drop the adjective.  Let's drop the adjective because the readers of this Wikipedia article might also link the two concepts. Técnico (talk) 07:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * If I'm not mistaken you are suggesting that we drop verifiable, unambiguous content because you have personally misunderstood it. Not good. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * No, we drop it from the lead like it was dropped from the New York Times per WP:UNDUE. See --Chlorineer (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Dr. Fleischman, no, I am suggesting that the content is ambiguous. ZOA president Klein said last Sunday evening: "But I’ll tell you where this phony image comes from, when Steve Bannon said that 'Breitbart is a platform for the alt-right,' Steve Bannon meant a platform for those who are anti-establishment, anti-the mainstream people. Too many people thought wrongly [when he said that] that 'alt-right' meant Neo-Nazis and David Dukes."  Let's consider Klein's recently expressed observation; The content is ambiguous. Let's drop the ambiguous content. Técnico (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Let's not. Far right isn't the same thing as alt-right, just as it isn't same thing as anti-semitic; and Klein isn't a reliable source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Dr. Fleischman, why are you saying that Klein is not reliably reporting? Klein is the president of an organization that fights antisemitism.  He is probably an expert about what Bannon meant and about public opinion. Is not what Klein saying consistent with the following selections from the Wikipedia article about the alt-right: "The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loose group of people with far-right ideologies who reject mainstream conservatism in favor of white nationalism..... Alt-right beliefs have been described as isolationist, protectionist, antisemitic, and white supremacist, frequently overlapping with Neo-Nazism...."?(emphasis added) Are you saying that alt-right is a subset of the far-right?  Técnico (talk) 02:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Is Klein a reliable, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

3) Whether Breitbart is happy to be described as far-right

No, Breitbart is not happy about being called antisemitic. "Democrat ... Under Fire for Inaccurate Claim that Breitbart, Bannon, Gorka Anti-Semitic"

"[The Zionist Organization of America] denounced Brown for making the inaccurate insinuation that Breitbart News, Bannon and Trump are somehow anti-Semitic." 

Zionist Organization of America president Mort Klein said, "Steve Bannon, Breitbart has never had a neo-Nazi or racist or David Duke type article ever. I’ve never seen it. The articles I see are articles fighting anti-Semitism and articles telling the truth about the Arab-Islamic war against Israel and promoting Israel. But I’ll tell you where this phony image comes from, when Steve Bannon said that "Breitbart is a platform for the alt-right," Steve Bannon meant a platform for those who are anti-establishment, anti-the mainstream people. Too many people thought wrongly [when he said that] that "alt-right" meant Neo-Nazis and David Dukes. Frankly, I’ve urged him to make it clear that he never meant that and that’s where this distortion of meaning about Steve Bannon came.'" Técnico (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Re #1, perhaps Breitbart's political orientation will change as a result of these development. Or perhaps not. But there's nothing in these sources that says its orientation has changed. Re #2 and #3, you are confusing far-right with anti-semitic. The two are quite distinct. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Please see my responses above. Técnico (talk) 07:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * No, no, and no (or whatever response is necessary to decline any changes)— No substantive arguments anywhere in this tirade of nonsense. Just a reiteration of old closed-down discussions based on one new source – not enough to raise the question whether we should revoke a standing consensus. Carl Fredrik  talk 06:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose I refuse to read CNN; the WaPo article is mainly speculation. If sources demonstrate in the future that Breitbart has changed its policy, the lede can change. Right now it should be ignored, per WP:CRYSTAL. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Far right sourcing
I find it exceptionally sad that a gaggle of left-of-center news sources are used to support the "far right" assertion (whether true or not) within supposedly unbiased, encyclopedic content. The wording should be that the site "has been called far-right." Like MSNBC, e.g. has been called "far left." I am not a regular reader or supporter of Breitbart, but the amount of political bias from editors on both sides that is smothering WP generally of late is heartbreaking. Sickening, in fact. The real story is that there never has been, and never will be, unbiased "news." Period.Learner001 (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * All sources, including far-right ones and neutral/unbiased ones, generally agree with the description of Breitbart News as "far right". Do you have a source with a different opinion? Power~enwiki (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Power~enwiki, yes, The New York Times says, "The Breitbart News Network, usually just called Breitbart, is a conservative-leaning news website."(emphasis added) Let's update this article according to WP:BALANCE. Técnico (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Técnico, you appear to be a single-purpose editor on this talk page. I suggest you drop this point, there's a consensus against it at the present time and you're simply annoying the other editors. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Power~enwiki, are you saying there is a consensus to violate WP:BALANCE? Técnico (talk) 05:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that you're not currently contributing to the project of developing an encyclopedia in good faith. I politely request that you start doing so. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Talk:Breitbart_News/Archive_5 established a consensus this month. If you disagree with that thread, please state your case.  Otherwise, drop this topic now. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Power~enwiki, WP:BALANCE says, "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance." Reputable sources contradict; The NYT calls Breitbart conservative-leaning.   Conservative-leaning contradicts far-right.  Thus, according to WP:BALANCE, we need to describe both points of view. Técnico (talk) 05:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing more to say here. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The OP took this issue to NPOVN where there was clear, further consensus to retain the "far-right" descriptor. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Dr. Fleischman, why are you calling me an OP? What is an OP?  Defamation is not good.  Anyway, please focus on whether the following argument is sound:
 * 1. WP:BALANCE says, "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance."
 * 2. CNN is a reputable source.
 * I think that is now in dispute--Quadrow (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 3. CNN calls Breitbart far-right.
 * 4. The New York Times is a reputable source.
 * 5. The New York Times calls Breitbart conservative-leaning.
 * 6. Leaning contradicts far.
 * 7. Therefore, reputable sources contradict.
 * 8. The New York Times is relatively equal in prominence to CNN. (It can be argued that NYT is much more.)
 * 9. Hence, by WP:BALANCE, we need to  describe both points of view and work for balance.
 * Is the argument sound? If not, where not? Técnico (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OP = Original Poster. Rather than arguing ad nauseum with you, I suggest you go back through the talk page archives and see why your arguments have already been considered and rejected by the community. The main reason your line of argument will not succeed is because it is against the longstanding consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Dr. Fleischman Thank you for the clarification about OP. I apologize for thinking it was something bad.  Some other editors have been using some unkind words towards me.  I doubt that there is a consensus to violate WP:BALANCE.  Do you, at least, agree that the argument above is sound? Técnico (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This (you will have to expand the referral and read the uninvolved admin statements) is evidence that an uninvolved admin finds that the RFC, that this so called long standing consensus is based on, is flawed.--Quadrow (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Please take my advice. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Dr. Fleischman. I am confused. I thought Wikipedia is a place for reason.  Reason involves analyzing arguments.  Where is the argument above faulty?  Técnico (talk) 03:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You will find your answer in the talk page archives. And please stop pinging me every time. I am watching this page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Searching the archives revealed three instances of the word leaning, none of which seem to refer to the Time's coverage. Thus, it seems that the argument above has not been considered yet. Where do you disagree with it, if anywhere?  Técnico (talk) 03:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You didn't lift your finger quite far enough. This RfC was about the essentially identical argument that we must balance "far right" with "right-wing," which is supported by a number of reliable sources. It should settle the matter for all intents and purposes. I'll also note that the NY Times has repeatedly described Breitbart as far-right (e.g. here). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The argument that we balance "far right" with "right-wing" is very different from the argument of whether we balance leaning with far. For example, if someone is leaning over a line, then that person is not far over the line.  One is not a subset of the other.  Thus, the archives do not settle the question of whether this article's lede is violating WP:BALANCE.  With which point (if any) in the argument above do you disagree and why? Técnico (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * To me, the issue is not whether Breitbart is "far-right." It certainly seems to be. The issue is attempting to support that contention with (perhaps) far-left sources. Doesn't anyone on the left see the issue? Are there no neutral sources left? I throw my hands up. Use both! As to closing discussions, it's often the case that editors with a political axe to grind seem to want to close things earlier, but I have no dog in this hunt. Best wishes in making WP as good as it requires us to make it.Learner001 (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it your contention that Washington Post and Associated Press news articles are "far-left sources"? Neutralitytalk 00:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * WAPO definitely, in terms of the opinions of its editorial board and principal columnists, which tend to set the course for other coverage. In terms of straight news, less so, unless it's a strictly political topic, in which case almost always far left, especially in this sad age when virtually all "news" is actually analysis, and not straight news. AP seems fairly balanced, but their wire reports are typically embellished by local paper staff w/o specific attribution as to what is what within articles. The WSJ, Fox News, and Breitbart are clearly right-leaning to far-right. CNN is fairly balanced, save during election cycles, when they predictably ramp-up as a mouthpiece for the Democrat establishment. MSNBC was a breath of fresh air in the '90s, but is now so slanted it's a joke. LA Times, NYT, ChiTrib, all unapologetically left in terms of any political coverage. But my analysis is worthless beyond knowing that a slate of perceived left sources should make someone smell a rat. Again, the source under discussion (here, Breitbart) should be described as having been "characterized" one way another by an independent, non-biased source(s), and not simply labelled as such (same for any articles on sources). But to be honest with you, I'm not sure who those would/should be. Non-news sources would probably be best. Good luck, and Best WishesLearner001 (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * First, please read WP:BIASED. Second, why are you talking about sources we're not discussing? Our "far right" descriptor is sourced to Washington Post, Newsweek, Christian Science Monitor, Associated Press, The Japan Times, and the Sydney Morning Herald. Third, read WP:CONSENSUS and then read the many, many prior discussions in which this issue was discussed at length and there was clear consensus to describe Breitbart as far right. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's very difficult to take this seriously. The Washington Post is not "far-left." It's hard to have a productive conversation when we can't agree on basic facts. Neutralitytalk 19:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Really? Really? WAPO far left? Have you ever heard of the People's World or the Daily Worker or anything of the like? WAPO is centrist, and falls there in almost all studies of political affiliation of newspapers — if anything at all, it is slightly left of center (but that center is also defined according to American standards, and is right-wing in many other countries). There are other sources, such as Neiman reports, calling Breitbart "ultra-partisan", and sourcing can always be improved — but to base the debate on something completely inane (or dare I say insane), such as calling NYP & WAPO far-left is pointless. Carl Fredrik  talk 07:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Lede Changes
I've made several large changes to the lede. The content removed is in "Content and Coverage"; I'm planning to add to that section. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Whoa whoa whoa. No one was talking about moving stuff from the lead to the new section, just copying. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * As you can see, those large changes are not too popular. I'm actually shocked that you would remove the sources for "far-right", easily the single-most disputed item in the article obviating the need for strong sourcing.- MrX 23:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused about what was moved by whom, but if content is copied from the lead to the new section then I'm fine with the cites being moved and removed from the lead, per WP:LEADCITE. What I'm not comfortable with is text being removed from the lead. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I made several large changes in succession. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC) (amended Power~enwiki (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC))
 * I am not fine with removing any sources from "far-right". Are we actually trying to invite new trolls to the party? WP:LEADCITE specifically advises to cite controversial content in the lead, specifically: "controversial subjects may require many citations".- MrX 23:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Apart from the reference removals and overall shortening, removing "falsehoods" may be found controversial. It seems like puffery next to the other two terms. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I've moved my draft of "Contents and coverage" to my sandbox for improvements rather than doing the draft here. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we need discussion and prior consensus in order to make such changes. Suggesting edits here is a good idea. I have restored the lede changes. Carl Fredrik  talk 12:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Remove "Sleeping Giants" sentence
Clearly there's no support for mass changes. i do hope that some of the references in the lede that are expanded on in "Contents and coverage" will be removed over time, but there's no rush.

There is one smaller change I want to propose. Despite the 5 references, this seems purely promotional and not particularly notable; I propose removing it entirely. "After the election, more than 2,000 organizations removed Breitbart News from ad buys following Internet activism campaigns, mainly led by the Sleeping Giants group, denouncing the site's controversial positions.[22][23][24][25][26]" Power~enwiki (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Very notable, should remain. Carl Fredrik  talk 21:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the OP just means to remove the mention of Sleeping Giants from it? In which case I would agree. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador  ᐁT₳LKᐃ  23:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would prefer additional wording changes to mention "90% of advertisers", but simply removing "mainly led by the Sleeping Giants group" is enough. The Sleeping Giants reference is in the article and that should be sufficient. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, then I support the change. Carl Fredrik  talk 07:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that Sleeping Giants was largely responsible for the campaign is certainly worthy of inclusion in the article, but I think it's undue emphasis to include it in the lead section. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm actually OK with removing "Sleeping Giants" in favor of just the basic facts.- MrX 18:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Change applied; no other changes to the lede planned by me until "Content and coverage" is stable. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)}}

RFC: Should Breitbart be described as far-right in the lead?
I'm seeking to understand if there really is consensus for describing Breitbart as far-right in the lead. Please indicate your support or opposition (and reasoning) below.

It should be noted that the previous identical RFC that posed this question was closed on 2 December 2016. In closing it the admin stated that it was appropriate in certain circumstances to refer to Breitbart as far-right. This did not answer the question as to whether it should be presented in the leading paragraph as undisputed fact. Further, another uninvolved admin stated quite clearly that there were flaws with the previous RFC. The uninvolved admin stated that the last one does not prove consensus and it only stands because no one contested it being closed. I am therefore contesting the closure of the last RFC and re-asking the question on the grounds that the previous RFC does not prove consensus that 'far-right' should be in the leading paragraph without detailed and attributed explanations.

Should this RFC demonstrate that there is no consensus then I would support a new paragraph on the page that discusses the application of the term 'far-right' to Breitbart in detail - although I'm not asking that question as part of this RFC and there should be a separate topic to address that.--Quadrow (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:DROPTHESTICK is an opinion piece and is not authoritative and how can trying to get consensus be WP:DISRUPTIVE? To me it looks like I have made quite a solid case to re-establish consensus on this issue that you can't address so you took the easy way out by locking it down instead of engaging with the arguments. --Quadrow (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I also note that I have not been referred for being WP:DISRUPTIVE. If asking this RFC really is WP:DISRUPTIVE then you need to refer me.--Quadrow (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What is the point of this? We already have a section directly above this to discuss this issue. Yes, this is starting to appear disruptive. Multiple talk page discussions covering already-resolved issues is, at best, WP:CIVILPOV. Grayfell (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't raise the point above and this is a different question altogether. I also haven't been involved on any of the other pages - although I have read them and I think there are a lot of flawed arguments there. If it is disruptive then lock it down and refer me otherwise please can we just get on and establish that there really is consensus or not.--Quadrow (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Starting a third RfC about the exact same question, basing opposition on a technicality is both WP:DISRUPTIVE WP:POINTY, and a failure to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Carl Fredrik  talk 07:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe you are wrong. It is appropriate to re-ask this question because, as I have written above, the last RFC that asked this question was flawed and it was independently identified as flawed and I was told by another admin that I could open another RFC to try and get consensus. I also don't see how my behaviour is WP:POINTY because I fail to see what policy or guideline I am showing frustration with. I am simply trying to either disprove that there is consensus and if I fail to do that then it strengthens the claim to consensus. If this really does have consensus then I don't know why you wouldn't let it play out and then make sure it closes in a way that can't be disputed. As it is, this appears to me that you are just trying to obstruct me because you are worried consensus won't be demonstrated and you are trying to hang on to a weak RFC as way of silencing those that object. I repeat myself again - If I am really being disruptive then I invite you to seek arbitration to correct me. I think that you aren't trying to do that because you know that what I am saying is correct. I think you also know I have made a very solid case for holding this RFC. However, I think you are being disruptive by blocking this RFC and if you would do me a favour and post on my talk page on how to get arbitration, I would be happy to seek it myself. Otherwise, just remove the archive template and let this play out. If it demonstrates consensus for 'far right' to be in the leading paragraph and it gets closed in an unambiguous way then I'll accept it and move on.


 * I think if anyone has any opposes or supports on the above RFC, then I can't see the harm in posting it below. If I am monumentally wrong about the grounds for asking this RFC then it can ultimately all be ignored.--Quadrow (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * User:CFCF please just remove the archive template and lets just have this RFC. It's as plain as day I have given valid reasons for it. You are being totally disruptive by not letting me establish whether there is consensus on this. You could remove the archive on that and place an archive on this whole conversation and we could just get on and give supports/opposes immediately under it. What are you afraid of? --Quadrow (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Why is the removal of the politically-charged "far-right" even a question?
Per WP:UNDUE the lead of the article is clearly not the place to place to highlight this. Otherwise all articles on all other publications (e.g. The New York Times, HuffPost, et al) will have them. It has been discussed in the past as well. (See: Talk:The_New_York_Times#Accusations_of_bias_in_lead_section) --Chlorineer (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Very weak argument. WP:UNDUE obviously doesn't apply since we have more than 38 sources that support far-right. Also see WP:OSE.- MrX 13:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Those 38 news and opinion sources need to be balanced WP:BALANCE. The New York Times says, "The Breitbart News Network, usually just called Breitbart, is a conservative-leaning news website."   Or let's drop the adjective altogether. Let's make the lead "Breitbart ... is an American news, opinion...." Técnico (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You make no actual argument. Ipse dixit doesn't work. Neutralitytalk 14:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I mean, not even Pravda has such statements on the lead, but I guess if it's an evil right-wing publication it's alright. Got it! --Chlorineer (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And you are an administrator? Oh my! Never mind, keep it as is. No wonder Wikipedia is rubbish. --Chlorineer (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * False equivalence. Our neutrality policy is based primarily on what the reliable sources say. If the RS say without attribution or contradiction that a publication is X or Y, then we say it's X or Y. Reliable sources say without attribution or contradiction that Breitbart is far-right. Reliable sources do not say without attribution or contradiction that the NYT or HuffPost are (fill in the blank). And if they did, you are free to suggest appropriate changes on those articles' talk pages. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Concur with User:DrFleischman. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:DrFleischman, because The New York Times says, "The Breitbart News Network, usually just called Breitbart, is a conservative-leaning news website,"(emphasis added)which contradicts the far-right characterization, what do you mean by "Reliable sources say without attribution or contradiction that Breitbart is far-right"? Técnico (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Different doesn't mean conflicting/contradictory. An organization can be both far-right and conservative-leaning at the same time. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It's arguable that "Breitbart News has published a number of falsehoods and conspiracy theories" is biased for the lede paragraph, but "far-right" is indisputably correct and appropriate. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it really is a central tennet of the outlet: to make up or fabricate stories. This is undisputed in reliable sources. Carl Fredrik  talk 20:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Show me. There are plenty of sources for their mis-behavior in the Firing of Shirley Sherrod affair, are there sources for more recent events?  I do find the lack of distinction on their site between news and editorials troublesome, but not relevant in quite the way it is presented. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You can look at the sources and the RfC. Carl Fredrik  talk 20:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier, there are multiple RfCs and none that I've read provide clarity. Please provide a link. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Closing discussions
I'd like to request that we all try to adhere to closing guidelines, which say that discussions should only be closed by uninvolved editors. I'd also like to request that discussions not be immediately archived. This way participants can feel like their concerns are being heard rather than squelched. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am uninvolved so far as I've closed three times the exact same discussion without participating personally. If one is considered involved as soon as having engaged at all, even for an uninvolved close — then we quickly run out of uninvolved editors, allowing disruptive editors to go on unabated. Carl Fredrik  talk 09:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Our social policies are not a suicide pact, and if one and the same editor continuously reopens discussions that have been resolved satisfactorily — then they should be closed immediately . I will persist in closing them, because in certain cases: what is needed is squelching and strong encouragement to drop the stick.  Carl Fredrik  talk 09:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no need to close every discussion. Most can and do ultimately get archived as a result of inactivity without being closed. There's nothing wrong with that.
 * I agree that there are occasional times when contributors are clearly acting in bad faith, or are disruptive, and squelching is sometimes appropriate in those circumstances. But those are few and far between, and should be handled with hatting rather than closing or archiving. Moreover there have actually been more instances lately in which you or other editors have been shutting down good-faith discussion, than there have been instances of disruption. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 10:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I strongly contest the notion that any discussions on this page that have been in good faith were shut down. There is a discussion (not posted here yet as it should have been: NPOV notice board) where there seems to be consensus that there has occured both disruption and bad faith editing on this page, from editors who are attempting to circumvent consensus by trying to tire out everyone else. Carl Fredrik  talk 10:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing me to the discussion, I wasn't aware of it. But the consensus was that we should retain the term "far-right," not that Técnico was disruptive or acted in bad faith. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

"Ideology" section
Clearly, several editors feel that simply describing Breitbart as "far-right" in the lede isn't sufficient.

I propose creating a new top-level section in the document called "Ideology", immediately after history. The details of whether sources describe Breitbart as "leaning conservative" or "far-right" or "alt-right" can be discussed at whatever length is necessary there.

Power~enwiki (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * We'd need to have enough content to justify a section like that. I'm not in favor of having a tiny section that just list which sources have used which labels. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Having six links in the footnote on far-right is not a desirable long-term solution, IMO. We'll see if there is enough content. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This might work. You might even be able to get direct attribution by/from people involved at Breibart. The key thing is for WP editors, whatever their personal leanings, to dissuade themselves from doing anything other than conveying conclusions drawn from RS. And while many key newspapers and other outlets are imminently "reliable" in terms of general content, they probably cannot be considered reliable in terms of the characterization of the content of their political rivals. It's critical to understand that you can read an article about an earthquake or a fire in the New York Times, e.g., and consume the very finest reporting on Earth, but that when you open the opinion page you will be getting the collective personal opinions of the people who run paper. So, "ideology" can probably be best determined by quotes and candid admissions from the primary sources themselves (publishers, managing editors, editorial chairpeople), balanced with expert sources entirely outside of journalism; sources with no horse in the race.Learner001 (talk)
 * Please do not spam every section with your arguments for why we should remove or tone down "far right." This discussion is about whether to have a separate ideology section, not about the reliability of sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If you were directing your comment at me, here's more "spam" for you: I not only did not suggest that "far-right" be toned down, nor have I ever, but I did speak directly to the ideology discussion and suggestions for how to best source it (not using left-leaning news sources).Learner001 (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Re-starting this discussion. There are at least 5 references in the lede for "far-right" and "conspiracy theory". This should be enough for an ideology section. I envision writing one comparable to the coverage on Salon or Drudge Report. Does this seem like the right model? Power~enwiki (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If you can come up with enough content, say at least 2 full-fledged paragraphs, then I'd support it. And if you're going to include stuff about conspiracy theories in there then I'd support that too, but then it shouldn't be called "Ideology" anymore. Perhaps "Content and coverage," a la Salon. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And it should be enlightening somehow. Perhaps something that provides substance as to what "far-right" means in connection with Breitbart.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I like "Content and coverage". Power~enwiki (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I've created the section, and removed some of the duplicate content from the lede. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Much of the stuff you put in there doesn't belong, but I'm guessing you're treating it as a work in progress. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't want to make removals until any lede discussion is done. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposing a subpage for those who wish to continue discussing Breitbart's far-right stance
This page has been overrun by sock puppets and single purpose accounts insistent on rehashing discussions about Breitbart's far-right stance. I am proposing that a subpage Talk:Breitbart News/far-right be used for any future discussions about Breitbart's far-right stance and that such discussion only occur there, with the exception of notifying the main page of RfCs.. We successfully implemented a similar solution at Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity because that article's talk page was overrun by Croatian and Serbian nationalists (WP:SPAs and socks) bent on endless, non-policy based debate.

Please indicate support or opposition for directing discussions about Breitbart's far-right stance to the subpage Talk:Breitbart News/far-right


 * Support
 * Yes, this will free up the main talk page for discussion about how to improve the article.- MrX 02:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Oppose, this issue will be resolved relatively quickly if we focus on the argument presented in the Sourcing section of this talk page. Let's focus on the argument instead of being distracted about how many different types of webpages an editor is simultaneously editing.  Técnico (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Once Tecnico drops their stick I suspect this issue will die down somewhat. And I see little benefit to using a subpage. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Follow up - How's that working out for us, .- MrX 16:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per DrFleischman Power~enwiki (talk) 03:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose — I would support this if more than one user actually continued to debate it. To WP:TOPICBAN User:Técnico seems like a far better solution, and I think we have come far enough that a WP:AN/I report will result in just that. Then we just monitor the article for WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. I'm not opposed to the idea as a solution for endless bickering, we're just not there yet — and opening this would for now just be opening up the flood gates to a stream of nonsense and frivolous RfCs that consume everyone's time. Carl Fredrik  talk 14:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Are we there yet ?- MrX 16:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems like WP:OVERSIGHTing is due here, if that doesn't result in bans then I can support this. Carl Fredrik  talk 16:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Discussion (about this proposal, not a continuation of the far-right discussions above)
 * I took the liberty of boldly pinching off the discussions about whether Breitbart should be described as "far right" and moving them into a "Far right" subsection. I hope this helps solve the problem a little bit. I'd further like to propose putting some sort of a prominent banner at the top of the new "Far right" section explaining that this issue has been discussed ad nauseum, providing links to the various discussions in the archives, and briefly touching on WP:CONSENSUS. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I just want to point out that by doing so — you ensure none of those are ever archived, because an update in any of them will ensure the entire blob stick around as an "active discussion".  Carl Fredrik  talk 08:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Good thought, I hadn't considered that. It doesn't mean they will never be archived, but it makes it less likely. Two responses. First, arguably, we want these discussions to remain un-archived so that people will see that the issue has already been addressed. Second, if a particular sub-thread has become inactive, we can move it back to the top level and then archive it manually. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Would a FAQ be a better solution? If something actually changes, a new discussion could always be opened, but otherwise this is a settled point. Grayfell (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I like that idea. Maybe not an FAQ per se, since it's only one item, but some sort of article-level banner. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I've started a case on WP:AN on Tecnico's behavior. Administrators%27_noticeboard Power~enwiki (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * and others, I've boldly drafted an FAQ, see above and feel free to edit at Talk:Breitbart News/FAQ. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Why is everyone now 'far-right'?
Who knew that Wikipedia would end up so politically charged that the left now insist on citing politically left opinions from biased sources as objective fact and disregard all other sources as unreliable. Can someone please explain to me how we can equate Breibart as anything like true 'far-right' organisations. Or is it now that the meaning of 'far-right' has been so devalued that it now means the opinion of whole swathes of the normal population (including the president) and normal political discourse or anyone the left doesn't agree with? It's a sad reflection of how polarised society has become that what is supposed to be an unbiased wiki has degenerated into name calling because you don't agree with a publications politics. All you on the left are devaluing these terms that should be reserved for true evil.--Quadrow (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * These concerns have already been addressed numerous times. Please read Talk:Breitbart News/FAQ. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * and yet the concerns have all been ignored. This wiki article has lost objective balance by using such a politically charged language in its leading paragraph with no qualification and a handful of political biased sources (all from the left and far left) some of which don't actually cite Brietbart as far-right. You wonder why the talk page is constantly filled with just the same topic. It's because this article is politically biased and lost objectivity. The news outlet don't even meet Wikipedia's own definition on far right--Quadrow (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the concerns have been addressed. Read. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If the concerns were addressed then this talk page would be empty. I have read a lot of the previous posts where you claim concerns have been addressed and I find nothing of the kind. It is clear as day that this is left wing bias and when anyone tries to make the article neutral - i.e. me by adding the words "is described as" before the words "far right" and a qualifier that stated "however, they don't describe themselves as 'far-right'" and then add a series of references where Breitbart objects to being called far right, the change is undone and the reason given is that Breibart is an unreliable source and the consensus is that they are 'far right'. They are far right only because a bunch left wing wikipedia activists have found this slur in left wing publications and used their knowledge of how wikipedia works to make sure it sticks in the article. I have even read the references that purportedly cite Breibart as 'far right' and some of them don't even directly cite Breitbart as 'far right'! It is nonsense and it is clear to everyone that has a shred of objectivity that it is nonsense. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and not vehicle to parrot far left propaganda. And further, this is an horrendous insult to Jews that suffered and died by the millions at the hands of a far right government and blacks that have been discriminated against and murdered by far right organisations. By calling organisations far right and fascist and all the other typical slurs that left wing activists use it diminishes the evil of real far right organisations by now bringing them into the same category of organisations that simply lean in a particular political direction. It is horrendous to find these sorts of slurs in Wikipedia being masqueraded as undisputed fact.--Quadrow (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: this highly non-neutral edit: Do you people in control of Wikipedia even know that Breitbart is a Jewish, pro-Israel site and all the accusations against it are lies? The left-wing media keep claiming over and over and over again that Breitbart is "far-right," "misogynist," "racist," "anti-Semitic," "white supremacist," blada blada blada, but have never produced any evidence. Isn't that telling? Don't you find that suspicious? If they never provide any evidence for their dubious claims, can they really be considered "reliable sources"? It certainly says something when the vast majority of people no longer trust the left-wing media and even the president says that they are liars. The left-wing media is not the same as it was ten years ago. It is no longer a reliable source of information about anything involving politics, so you should remove the biased wording that it is far-right and all the idiotic leftist slurs about racism, misogyny, etc. Leftists nowadays accuse anyone they don't agree with as racists and white supremacists, so those accusations are now meaningless in this day and age. I also note that Wikipedia itself has a far-left bias, so surveys and "consensus" among the Wikipedia elite are really null and void, and an administrator ought to enforce WP:NPOV on this article instead of going along with this agenda-driven "consensus." Case in point: the far-left and anti-Semitic CounterPunch is widely acknowledged as being far-left by reliable sources, but the wiki article merely says, "It has been described as left-wing by both supporters and detractors." Same type of wording at Nation of Islam article, ("Critics have described the organization as being black supremacist[4] and antisemitic"). Even more shocking, the articles on the rabidly anti-Semitic The Electronic Intifada and Mondoweiss hate groups only give those organizations' descriptions of themselves in the lead! Now let's check out the article about the Jewish conservative organization Stop Islamization of America. Surprise, surprise: "Stop Islamization of America (SIOA)…is an anti-Muslim, pro-Israel American organization known primarily for its controversial, Islamophobic advertising campaigns." "The English Defence League (EDL) is a far-right street protest movement…" Do you guys notice a trend? Come on, even you Wikipedia people have to notice a glaring trend here. In case you don't, I'll spell it out for you: Wikipedia is biased against pro-Israel Jewish organizations, but gives anti-Israel and even just plain anti-Jewish Muslim and "Jewish" organizations a free pass. Are you going to do something about it, or are you going to keep the status quo and obliterate this constructive criticism as "trolling," even though I sincerely want you to stop being so biased and actually enforce WP:NPOV for once? At least give me a logical excuse for ignoring neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.111.45.163 (talk) 04:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:OVERSIGHT needed, not new user. Carl Fredrik  talk 17:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * , now that you understand how the consensus-building process works, let me tell you that, as a matter of friendly advice, that you're not going to build consensus by suggesting that your fellow editors are "left wing activists," part of a vast left-wing conspiracy, anti-Semitic, racist, etc. Just don't go down that route, it's not productive as it will only alienate the people you need to agree with you. Much more effective is to carefully read and understand our policies on verifiability and neutrality, then review all past conversations in which editors have argued for using "far right" to describe Breitbart (not just a couple of them referring to prior consensus), then make arguments specifically grounded in our policies. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * , I am calling it out as what it is. It is politically motivated to call conservative publications 'far-right' and I have just spelt out why I think it is harmful to present this as an 'objective' label without providing any qualifications or balance. At the end of the day, that is all I am seeking - that the article has balance and the term 'far-right' needs certain qualifications and balancing statements. If you read this referral carefully you will even see that some admins find flaws in the previous consensus and that it was established that my edit itself was not judged to be disruptive.
 * Many of the 'far-right' citations are political opinion pieces that have been quoted as fact. Many of the same sources have been directly cited by the government of the United States of America (one would hope everyone accepts as reliable source of information) to be unreliable and politically biased, and evidence is emerging supporting that. Add to that that the government of the United States of America have directly employed people from Breitbart.
 * To shut out any edit that simply seeks to add balance is political activism to fulfil a political agenda to marginalise publications that your political bias prevents you from agreeing with by labelling them as politically extreme.
 * To delete any reference to how Breitbart refers to itself on the grounds that they are an unreliable source is nonsense. If we were banned from quoting anything from Breitbart then the whole article would have massive holes in it because to comment on the publication it is necessary to refer to what they say. It is perfectly balanced to add a sentence to state what Breitbart says about itself or its own defence to the allegation that it is 'far-right' and in that context it is nonsense to disallow it on the grounds that Breitbart is an unreliable source. Conversely, it is also nonsense to quote everything that a reliable news source states as undisputed fact because some of it is opinion pieces and not fact. Add on to that the danger that by simply stating something as a fact instead of putting any qualifying text in, Wikipedia is in danger of repeating libellous statements.
 * I simply don't know how to get it changed. Given that those supporting the statement are far more experienced editors and know how to work the system and I don't, it may be an impossible task for me. I hope that others will read this and form a consensus that there is no consensus about whether Breitbart is far-right or not and therefore there needs to be some qualifying words and a balancing sentence in the leading paragraph to demonstrate that this is opinion and not matter-of-fact.--Quadrow (talk) 11:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You clearly didn't take my advice and read everything I suggested you read. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok then. I will take that at face value. Please help me out. What do think I have overlooked? Please give me some direct references.--Quadrow (talk) 14:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * For starters: (1) Read the past discussions--all of them. You will see that people have argued for calling Breitbart far right without expressing any "political motivations." (2) Read the cited sources. You will see none of them are "political opinion pieces," and I believe only 1 of the 6 has been "cited by the government" as unreliable. (3) Read our verifiability policy. You will see that many of your arguments are completely contrary to it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you replying, but you are not giving me specific references. I've read the whole policy, but you need to point out the specific bits you think I have overlooked and how it relates to the above so that I can either be persuaded or rebut it. I can make guesses at what bits you are specifically referring to but I'd rather you just say it so I don't have to guess. I am persuadable.--Quadrow (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We had a similar discussion a few years ago about right-wing parties in England, of which there are several. See List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_Kingdom. There's ongoing argument over who's "right", and who's "far right", although it appears that there's general agreement on the order of the English political spectrum. With parties, at least you have a platform, speeches, and press coverage of them. It's harder for news outlets. John Nagle (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)