Talk:Breitbart News/Archive 9

Miscellaneous concerns of bias
NOTE: It is not constructive to simply declare "this article is biased!" without offering any details on what part of the article's content, specifically, you think is biased and how it could be improved. Additionally, this talk page is not a soapbox, a forum, or a place to critique Wikipedia's policies, and it is not a place to make personal attacks against other editors you disagree with. This talk page is to be used solely to discuss how to improve this article's content. See Talk page guidelines. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

NOTE: It is clearly biased. Hiding under the 'constructive' 'requirement' to require details, without admitting that it is plainly and clearly biased, signals to everyone that any attempt to correct this biased article is futile. Release the lock. Gain consensus through the normal process of voluntary edits. Abbot Luigi (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The article will not be unprotected so you can stop repeatedly asking for that to happen as it's becoming disruptive. This is not a suggestion. --Neil N  talk to me 20:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that the fact that the article is not unprotected, and erroneous, has already caused it to become disruptive.  Why are you doing this?  You're going to ruin the reputation of Wikipedia for a huge amount of the population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbot Luigi (talk • contribs)
 * let's assume you become able to edit the article. What edits will you make? It's to your advantage to propose those edits on this talk page first and try to obtain consensus for them, because if other editors disagree with your edits, other editors can revert them. And then you'll have to come back to this talk page and try to obtain consensus anyway. So why not save yourself the hassle, and simply state now what edits you would like to make? –Prototime (talk · contribs)
 * I see that Abbot Luigi has just been topic banned from making edits related to Breitbart News for three months (and blocked for a week) due to his disruptive edits and personal attacks. I hope other new editors take heed of what has been discussed here and propose specific edits to improve this article rather than making vague complaints about bias, insulting fellow editors, and offering disruptive soapbox rants. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2018
Briebart produces facts that left wing people hate and therefore deem it fake. Democrats and liberals hate facts and will do anything to suppress them. Wikipedia it's self is the fake site. Dkoller1769 (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * -- especially since there's nothing the editor asks to be done... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Because the political bias and the substitution of myth for facts is carefully guarded by the small group of gatekeepers preventing a consensus being reached on the article. It is a violation of wikipedia standards. Abbot Luigi (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You might benefit from reading those standards before commenting on them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

What a smear job you have done
I have never read such a biased article in my life. As usual it has been made by the same group of people who usually makes smear articles about the people who don't want immigration or opposes the identitarian left. I belive these people are organized and perhaps paid (suspects are Soros, Saudi Arabia, China etc.). They should be banned from wikipedia. One of the worst ones are mrx.

89.10.163.97 (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not to be too pedantic, but either you red Breibart or not. In the first case, yes, you have read much more biased articles than this one. In the second, how would you know if this one is biased? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * How do we know that this article is biased? Because there is a lock on it to prevent any changes toward consensus.  This article is the result of a very small politically biased set of authors who have decided to prevent consensus on this article.  Abbot Luigi (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You evidently haven't read through the talk page archives. There are links near the top of this page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It's crazy seeing blatant political attacks on Wikipedia. I won't bother trying to edit, I don't contribute enough to feel like it's my place to do so, but I also will have a hard time trusting Wikipedia in the future. Mods, you're bias is clear as day here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:702:8002:64CF:750F:D783:1FA1:7048 (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * You might benefit by reading some of our community standards, such as our policies on verifiability, neutrality, and civility. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

This page offers a very biased view of Breitbart News. x
Compare it to what you see about buzzfeed or Huffpost on this wikiBold text

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HuffPost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BuzzFeed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccampbell15 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Here are the permalinks of this article vs. HuffPost and BuzzFeed, for future reference. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Ccampbell15, what's the problem specifically? We reflect the available reliable sources and do not engage in false equivalence. If the coverage by reliable sources is different for Breitbart than for BussFeed or Huffpost, then our articles will necessarily be different. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Or heck. Even compare it to Trump's wiki page.WeeSquirrel (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * They keep talking about reliable sources, but the problem is that the news corps they think are ok, are in direct opposition both economically and ideologically with Breitbart News. It is like if the courts were to believe one person over another, just because they like them better. The policy that should be in place in such circumstances is to give critics a place in a bulk in the article and keep the rest neutral. And I think it is strange how it is only Breitbart that gets called out for inaccurate reporting, when all news organizations does it at some times. 89.10.163.97 (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you believe you're the first person to come up with this idea? Sorry, you are not, and there are many good reasons it's not policy. Lumping all critical comments into one section has been rejected many times by many editors from a wide range of ideological positions. We're not interested in false-balance, and we're not interested in making it easier for people to ignore the parts they don't like. An article which tucks all the bad stuff into a single section isn't neutral. We summarize what reliable sources have to say. Reliable sources are those with a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. Plenty of conservative outlets are reliable, but Breitbart is not one of them. Grayfell (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Grayfell, this is troublesome rhetoric you use. By writing "We're not interested in false-balance, and we're not interested in making it easier for people to ignore the parts they don't like." you suggest your opponents to be outsiders, and hold yourself up a One True Wikipedian, even implicitely as a representitative, if not of Wikipedia, then at least of its spirit. You "other" your opponent, rhetorically exclude him from the the community of editors. Please don't do that.
 * And you are also wrong on the facts.We actually do care about balance, WP:UNDUE is a policy that deals with barely anything but balance, and it is one of the policies violated most in this article. Also WP:NPOV requires you, the author, to approach the topic unbiased, and that means you should neither fall in a left- nor in a rightwing frame of reference when writing statements. It is my impression that this has, by and large, not been done here.
 * An third, I find it troublesome that you and others seem to hide behind a one-sidedly applied requirement for absolute consensus. There is no possible way that this article could have reached the state it is in now under the same requirement of unanimous consensus that is applied when conservatives seek changes. It is my impression, again, that "liberal" changes generally fly through under WP:BOLD, while conservative changes are blocked with an appeal to an unachievable unanimous consensus, all that under the constant threat of seemingly perpetual draconian "arbitration" sanctions that are assumedly enforced by generally sympathetic anti-conservative admins.
 * This toxic brew seems to have disabled most of Wikipedia's functioning edit dynamic here, and that is, IMO, the reason we ended up, at this and as bunch of other articles, with texts that are a mockery of Wikipedia's ethos and a mystery in terms of how they could have happened under the way WP is supposed to work. Wefa (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If you cannot tell the difference between balance and false balance, there's not much more to be said. Reliable sources are what matters, not my opinion, not your opinion, and not Breitbart's pearl-clutching outrage-culture shtick. We're not obligated to humor false balance approaches, such as your proposed pseudo-centrism. We do not assume that there are only two sides, nor do we assume that each side is equally deserving of our attention without regard to due weight, nor do we trust Breitbart to define where these divisions fall. WP:NPOV means evaluating perspectives in proportion to their coverage, which means that reliable sources get to decide what belongs and what doesn't. If you personally want to blow-off reliable sources which are unflattering to Breitbart because you identify them as left-wing, go for it, but don't expect Wikipedia to play along, and don't think this gives you some sort of moral high ground. Grayfell (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you please identify something specific that needs improvement and how it doesn't comply with WP:UNDUE/WP:NPOV? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm going to echo Dr. Fleischman. This line of conversation is not constructive. Let's either talk about specific ways to improve this article, or let's end this discussion. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 00:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with your perspective regarding the overall 'feel' of the article, but Grayfell's, Fleischman's, and Prototime's material points should not be overlooked. I've been trying to figure out what exactly is the concrete solution, and will be putting together some objections/suggestions for edits over the next couple days, but it will take a bit to get together the sources for it, in order to be as thorough as possible.WeeSquirrel (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to seeing what you come up with, WeeSquirrel! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

How is it "false equivalence" when both Huffington Post and Buzzfeed are far-left unreliable sources, yet Wikipedia describes them in glowing terms in their articles and barely mentions any of the major false reporting they have made? And any source that lies about Breitbart being far-right is obviously unreliable yellow-journalism. Most media are left-wing propaganda companies working on behalf of the Democratic Party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.177.228.117 (talk) 09:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested edit
This article doesn't sit well with me. Someone please completely rewrite it to comply with my vague opinion based on sources which may or may not exist. I can't be bothered with the details, but I will be happy to talk to your supervisor. G M G talk  21:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Die Nazi scum! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

General Note: How Wikipedia Works
Indeed, this topic is one that is quite political. The purpose of Wikipedia is to keep as neutral a point of view as possible, and when it is applied to politics, of course things get a bit odd.

But, for everyone's sake, please stop accusing editors of "left-wing bias". Remember:


 * Wikipedia runs on consensus. Not just of the Wikipedia community, but of the sources seen front and center everywhere. Wikipedia will have a mainstream bias as long as the bias is mainstream.
 * The article is locked for a reason. It may seem that it is for gatekeeping against you, but remember that with the subject of the article being so contested, if it weren't, the far-left would be constantly calling Breitbart a terrorist group and the far-right would be calling it the word of God.

If you want to contest the consensus, my best recommendation would be to do some digging. Find as many articles about bias and lack of credibility in mainstream news as you can, but especially look for ones printed by the mainstream news. If you don't believe the currently used sources are reliable, then, please, prove it. The currently used reliable sources will not change unless they can be proven to be unreliable. --TZLNCTV (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Guys, this is absurd. The intro is one massive derogatory editorial. It is a mockery of our standards and it is hugely destructive. If criticism is needed in the article to reflect all sides of an ongoing debate, it can not be such a prominent part of the opening.
 * And, thanks guys, you have dragged us into the war between Facebook and its conservative critics. Facebook, of all things! Facebook is using us as Character Witness A to assert that Breitbart can not be trusted. According to a current Breitbart article, "Facebook is displaying a link to Wikipedia’s (...)description of Breitbart News next to all Breitbart articles shared on the site." I deeply resent that position. I don not want to be the ministry of truth, that Facebook uses to judge its customer's content. I do not want to provide the edict that makes a Facebook user loose his account or have his posts deleted. I do not want for us to be that site! Frankly, we are not good enough for that, we are not true enough, we are not balanced enough. We are not even remotely wise enough! We make far too many mistakes, we are far too biased, far too inconsistent.
 * So I beg you - keep us out of this. Please, lets remain humble. Lets stick to our principles that have served us so well in the past, follow NPOV and UNDUE and OR and all those other policies that are designed to keep our site on the very careful side of truth! Please, clean up that intro, comb the criticisms further back in the article with a very fine comb and only keep in what can be reliably and fairly said on the subject. And, yes, that means it is ultimately the article itself that demands and needs a good degree of consensus, not just the changes to it! Right now, this consensus is nowhere to be seen! Wefa (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The lead should summarize the body, and the body should summarize reliable sources. These are the "principles that have served us so well in the past". If those sources are critical, the article will reflect that, which is appropriate. Facebook's half-assed attempt at damage control is what it is. We should not downplay our principles for this particular article just because of heightened attention. It doesn't matter whether you want this or not. Grayfell (talk) 03:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The lead section actually contains no criticism. It's all verifiable facts. Breitbart has published a number of falsehoods and conspiracy theories? Verifiable fact. It aligned with the alt-right? Verifiable fact. Solicited ideas from neo-Nazis and white supremacists? Verifiable fact. These facts may not reflect well on Breitbart, but they are all verifiable and highly significant. NPOV, UNDUE, and OR concerns have been raised and addressed. If you have your own specific concerns, by all means raise them. But saying that the lead is "one massive derogatory editorial" without any specific detail isn't helpful. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Bias is plainly obvious, as the intro consists almost entirely of negative viewpoints of the organization. Whether justified or not, it's hardly a summary and more a front-loaded attack, much of which should be detailed in sections below. It'd be like dumping all the Clinton sex scandals and impeachment proceedings at the very top of the Bill Clinton page. The concerns isn't whether they're valid, it's whether they're appropriate as a summation. Nor is it a consensus, considering it cherrypicks the criticisms from more left-leaning media, both niche and mainstream. The Wallstreet Journal for example, does not call it alt-right (predictably, neither does Fox News), and it was Mother Jones--a left-leaning site--that said it aligned with the alt-right. It's different for media to be alt-right, and for the media to be supported by alt-right; in NYT magazine feature's own words, "maybe the difference between these things is slight," which detailed a Harvard study that concluded Breitbart wasn't "alt-right," and it's a label Breitbart's own editors disagree with. Rather pertinent details that aren't included.


 * In other words, it's overly simplistic to apply such labels, and requires more detail that cannot be succinctly expressed at the top--again it should be elaborated more below. I do suggest changes to make it more neutral, because the treatment should be more nuanced in interest of neutrality. Sugaki (talk) 08:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article's intro violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, as well as MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH. Of all places to add the info about "falsehoods" and "-isms", it's in the very first paragraph of the intro for some reason, as if it's the most important thing possible to know about Breitbart. Those sentences actually look out of place when read along with the rest of the intro, and they give the article the appearance of bias (and like in law, the appearance of bias is important). --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 1990'sguy, I believe that specific issue was raised and addressed in the talk page archives. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean... it is the most important thing to know about a news source.  It's the main thing reliable sources have to say about it, as the extensive and broad citations make clear. --Aquillion (talk) 07:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The problem is that, while many of the verifiable facts you refer to are correct, many are also things that can be said of, for example, the NY Times (obviously not the alt-right). Let me be clear: I'm not going down the road of false equivalency. NY Times is obviously miles ahead of Breitbart, and Breitbart does itself zero favors by being one of the sloppiest news outlets I've ever visited, even if one only looks at proofreading on their articles. Nonetheless, the fact is that mistakes happen, and sometimes those mistakes are impacted by a lack of a desire to rigorously cross-check (see especially the Iraq war section on the NY Times Wikipedia page). Thus, when you include a description in the header of the BB article that can, in some form, be said of many other news outlets, the question becomes why it is included in the BB header and not the others. You then have to argue severity of offense, which is not a hill I would choose to die on. My suggestion is that the format of the article be restructured to more accurately reflect that of other articles on institutions and news sources. That is: Up top a technical layout (summary of structure/current heads/business strategy; no problem with alt-right designation here, but if it is cited as what someone else says then it would be worthwhile to include what BB says on that front about itself). All the misogynist/xenophobic etc. should, imo, be relocated to the controversies/criticisms section, where the rationale behind describing it as such can also be included. Oddly, this section is missing, and seems to have been replaced with a 'notable stories' section, which, to some degree, serves a similar purpose. I'm actually a bit curious as to how consistency of formatting works here? (edit: accidentally placed this in the middle of someone else's comment the first time; moved down here)WeeSquirrel (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Your comment is respected but inconsistent with community standards, most specifically WP:LEAD, which requires us to summarize the most important aspects of the subject in the intro, including criticisms and controversies. The aspects of Breitbart that you want moved out of the lead are some of the ones that have received the most attention from reliable sources. Demoting them would be whitewashing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Understood and thank you for the clarification.WeeSquirrel (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * No. This article, as published, violates the rules of wikipedia and has gone off the rails . Abbot Luigi (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Organizational edits
I have made several edits in an attempt to better organize the content on this page (for instance, by keeping the "History" section focused on historical events and presenting them in chronological order). I have not changed anything substantively (other than perhaps some small edits to some headings), so I hope that the edits are not controversial. But this article is a minefield, so here are the diffs if you wish to review them. . –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:47, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the reordering of the lead; I think it's important to keep the summary of the site's reputation in the first paragraph, while its history is better kept together in the second one. --Aquillion (talk) 07:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, I strongly disagree with merging parts of the second paragraph (focused on the site's history) into the lead. The "Huffington post of the right" quote and the later alignment with the alt-right are important parts of the site's history, but not as important as the general summary of the site's reputation; beyond that, combining the two turns the first paragraph into a bit of an ugly mess that leaps from topic to topic, while leaving the second (history-focused) paragraph awkward and a bit gutted by removing the site's origin and a key change of direction.  I think it's more useful to have the first paragraph give a broad summary of what Breitbart is, and leave the history (from its origins to the current day) for the second paragraph. --Aquillion (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The article itself discusses history before accuracy and ideology, but regardless, the part I merged wasn't even focused on history as much as it was focused on Breitbart's ideology. The first paragraph should have some discussion of what it publishes stories about. One sentence in the first paragraph currently says that the editors are widely considered to be "ideologically driven," and having a sentence right before that discusses how Breitbart News is the "Huffington Post of the right" and part of the "alt-right" would make it very clear which "ideology" its editors are accused of driving. We're talking about combining a single sentence from the second paragraph (the first) into the first paragraph to cut down on redundancy and to give more context about what Breitbart News is generally before going into more specifics. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 23:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * what do you think of my most recent edit? It only moves the part about it being conceived as the "Huffington Post of the right" into the first paragraph, and it flips the order of the last two sentences in the paragraph so that the sentence discussing its "ideologically driven" editors comes right after the sentence that makes clear what its ideology is. The rest of the first and second paragraphs remain the same. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 23:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Recent reverts.
Regarding this, we cannot cite Breitbart itself for that statement; they do not pass WP:RS in general, and WP:ABOUTSELF only allows limited exceptions for things that are not "unduly self-serving." The claim that it was conceived during a visit to Israel in mid-2007 as a website that would be "unapologetically pro-freedom and pro-Israel" is clearly unduly self-serving, especially since it contradicts the more prosaic goals described in reliable sources ("committed to the destruction of the old media guard", "the Huffington Post of the right", etc.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The claim that it was conceived during a visit to Israel in mid-2007 as a website that would be "unapologetically pro-freedom and pro-Israel" is clearly unduly self-serving, I think the use of quotation marks in the content around "unapologetically pro-freedom and pro-Israel" is (barely) sufficient to render the claim fairly unremarkable. It shows that wikipedia is not calling it those things, but that someone else was. In context, that person could only be Andrew Breitbart himself. But I wouldn't mind seeing some more explicit attribution. How about the following?
 * The website was conceived by Andrew Breitbart during a visit to Israel in mid-2007 as a website that would be, in his own words "unapologetically pro-freedom and pro-Israel".
 * I've bolded the proposed change so highlight it. At that point, the Breitbart source is used only to source Andrew's own words, which I think is acceptable. I certainly don't think we should excise any mention of Andrew's purported motivations, as they're highly germane (and the site was much better -though still not very trustworthy- back when Andrew was still alive and in charge). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm with MjolnirPants. There may be some room for qualifying this information more cautiously, but I don't think it's appropriate to remove it altogether. It's important information that Breitbart was originally started with at least the purported goal of being pro-Israel. We can and should convey that information without implying that we agree with it. This is routinely done in articles about organizations when we describe their mission statement. We say, according to the organization's website, their mission statement is "X" where "X" is usually some puffy, self-serving marketing language. This is pretty similar. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Good Doctor, I'm glad we're in agreement, but there's nothing pressing about this content. It can remain out until we've had a nice discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's longstanding content. I'm just following BRD. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The discussion had already started. There's no call for further reverts once that happens unless the consensus turns out to be to revert the original edit. Plus, it's quite arguable that your revert violated the consensus required restriction. Understand that I think the material just needs a little tweak, but we haven't even waited for Aquillion to respond to my suggestion (that you agreed with) before restoring the original, contested text that we apparently all dislike. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh. Consensus required. I'll self-revert. Also I hadn't seen this discussion when I reverted. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Even with that change, quoting is still fundamentally saying that that's the main self-description he gave for his motivations. If that is accurate (that is, if this is what reliable sources say Breitbart gave as his description for why he created the site), we should be able to easily find a cite for it in a secondary source that passes WP:RS.  If we can't find it, it does not belong in the article, no more than we would place a quote from a blog post or a forum post in the article.  I might be convinced that it could be given a sentence paraphrasing it in the body; but placing a clearly self-serving quote by Breitbart in the lead, when we have no reliable sources for it at all, is clearly untenable (even if we ignore the sourcing issue, it is also WP:UNDUE, since this is a random Breitbart article and not eg. a major self-description on their site.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to moving it to the body. It's not that important, and my view is that quotes should generally be avoided in the lead. I do think it's important to convey this information however and I don't think it's unduly self-serving. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should be excluded from the lede. The motivations -even potentially false, self-serving claims about the motivations by the founder- of the founder are an important thing. It fits perfectly into my lede rule of thumb: if someone asked me what Breitbart is, it's part of what I would tell them.
 * Also, I would like to point out that a quote from a relevant individual is a perfectly valid use of a primary source, see WP:SELFPUB. Objections to using it on that ground are purely spurious. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Some of the content at issue was restored by . Care to weigh in? Do we have consensus at this point? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * With no (policy based) objections to (and one voice supporting) my proposed change, and no-one continuing this discussion since Friday, I'm going to institute my proposed change now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

You cant be serious
Is this article not shameful and embarrassing ? Even if you are a die hard leftist encyclopedia now, having a smear job as a page for a news organization is fairly blatant and transparent. Having at least one section devoted to reasonable opinions or dissent from the policy of cultural marxism would probably make the rest of this propaganda page less obscene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.57.127 (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2018‎


 * Cultural Marxism? What does that have to do with Breitbart News? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "news organization"? What does that have to do with Breitbart News? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please participate in making Wikipedia articles better, but mere criticizing won't do that. Study the policies, get experience editing, then come back with something more specific. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Love the "sources" on the "Far-Right" adjective from random papers from 2015. This is necessary because all major modern sources refer to Breitbart as "hard right" or "populist."   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:C480:2844:3DCF:8A59:878F:A6E9 (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And... you have proof of this? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The original commenter is correct. The wikipedia label of "far right" is subjective. It either needs to qualify the subjective label (such as: breitbart is far right as msnbc is far left) or drop the subjective label. RustyDurham (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No serious group or person calls MSNBC "far left." So no, we won't use that label for them. Meanwhile, lots of people use "far right" for Breitbart, so we will use that label for them. That's how Wikipedia works. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That looks a bit like a No true Scotsman argument.  Tigerboy1966  05:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hardly. The reliable sources which describe Breitbart as "far right" are amply cited in the article; Wikipedia content is based upon citations to reliable sources. If you wish to add "far left" to our article on MSNBC, you're welcome to present the proposed addition over at Talk:MSNBC, along with the reliable sources you believe support that description. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm still trying to figure out how a fallacy so closely aligned with the example of "No true Scotsman would do such a thing!" that it's frequently named after it has absolutely anything whatsoever to do with anything said in this thread. Because North said "no serious group"? If so, that's a tenuous stretch, as we have this standard for our sourcing called WP:RS that is often shorthanded as "reliable", "serious", or "legit". Even if you were unaware of that, "serious" has an obvious definition in this context of "not satirical or polemical". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I am serious, and stop calling me Shirley. Guy (Help!) 13:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well then, I'll call you Stryker, but not when any women are present. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Removing one cite in the first sentence
There is a cite in the article's first sentence, after the words "far-right", to a book about UKIP. I removed the cite, edit summary = Removed one cite used for the "far-right" label in the first sentence because source actually called it "ultra-conservative" not "far-right". Five minutes later MjolnirPants reverted me, edit summary = ... source wasn't being used for "far-right" label but for "conspiracy theories" claim. I cannot remove the cite again without consensus. So ... (1) Please look at the cited book and cited page, it is available via Google. Look for the words "far-right" in reference to Breitbart, which you won't find. (3) Please look at the Wikipedia article. Look where the cite is -- immediately after "far-right", not near "conspiracy" (and actually the cited book and page doesn't mention Breitbart conspiracy theories either). (3) Please acknowledge that "(1)" and "(2)" are facts. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The cite order was showing up screwy for some reason, so my edit summary was inaccurate. It appeared to have come at right after the text "The site has published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories," but I can see now that it is used right after the first mention of "far-right", instead.
 * But I don't think it really matters in the end because "ultra-conservative" and "far-right" are functionally synonymous in American politics as well as UK politics (that was what led me to look at the edit in the first place). I suppose one could split hairs about it, but I would also bet good money that anyone who calls Breitbart "ultra-conservative" would also agree that they are "far-right". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The solution is to put the cite immediately after the relevant word or phrase, ergo after "conspiracy". Move it, don't delete it. Deletion of RS is a serious matter. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you might be confused. Let me lay out what has happened so far:
 * Peter removed the source because it said "ultra-conservative" instead of "far-right" and it was used to support "far-right".
 * Peter's edit summary piqued my interest, so I looked into it.
 * When I looked at the preview of the text, it appeared to me as if Peter had actually removed a citation that followed the text "The site has published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories,"
 * As a result of spotting what appeared to me to be a mistake, I reverted, and explained myself in my edit summary.
 * Peter posted here to start a discussion.
 * I started to write a reply to Peter, double-checked my edit, and saw something different than I saw last time (this has actually been happening a lot lately, I'm beginning to get the impression that this isn't just "operator headspace and timing" as it were). In fact, I saw that Peter had, in fact, removed this cite from right after the first use of "far-right" as stated in his edit summary.
 * I erased my original response before posting it, then I admitted my mistake here, but opined that the original removal justification was not enough, in any event.
 * Right now, the source is question quite clearly does not support the "conspiracy theories" claim. Me and Peter seem to be in disagreement over whether it supports the "far-right" claim. So if the consensus is that it does not, we should remove it. But I don't believe consensus will go that way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That content in the lead is very well supported in the body. If folks feel the need for a ref in the lead, it can be taken from there. Jytdog (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification, MP. I say remove it per WP:CITEKILL. There's no need to argue with Peter and others over whether ultra-conservative means far-right. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter to me. I was pretty much just explaining my excuse for not self-reverting when my initial reason turned out to be my own fault. But if I'm the only one to object to the removal, then feel free to rv me or I'll do it myself, eventually. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for self-reverting, I regard this issue as fixed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, I like being wrong from time to time. It's the only way you really learn anything ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

"Far-right"
Several sources list the site as "right wing" instead of "far right". Can it be changed to right to far right wing? --2001:8003:4023:D900:6D8E:E8CD:C80C:591A (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No, see the FAQ at the top of the page. "Right wing" is a less precise term, with "far right" being more precise, and incredibly well-sourced. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  02:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Important notification
To the editors of this article, breitbart.com has been deprecated as a source except for some opinions, and you may remove any citations to it from the article. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Thanks, w umbolo   ^^^  13:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have the sneaking suspicion that this is an article where Breitbart's opinion is generally going to be WP:DUE. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah a little ironic to make the announcement that we cannot use them as a source on the one article we could probably use them as a source... PackMecEng (talk) 14:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed! There are situations where it can be used, but the general deprecation is indeed proper. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I archived the thread from RSN and directed the shortcut at WP:Breitbart to it, for anyone interested in reading the RfC. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

For the record, here's the RfC close:

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Bans Right Wing Site Breitbart as a Source for Facts (also InfoWars)
Press coverage

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Question
Why is Breitbart News called far right, when the Free Republic is only described as a conservative site on wikipedia? (ManyMoonsoons (talk) 11:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC))


 * I think if you read the discussions above you'll understand that we depend upon what sources meeting WP:RS (which Breitbart doesn't, by the way) say about the subject. Doug Weller  talk 12:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * But surely the Free Republic should therefore be described as far right too? It has the same content/agenda as Breitbart News. (ManyMoonsoons (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC))
 * It really doesn't. Besides, FR is a forum that presents articles written by its members in a featured manner. It doesn't purport to be a news outlet, hasn't been associated with the alt-right, and the opinions it expresses range from the moderately liberal to the far-right. It's just not even in the same category as Breitbart. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * FR is an anti-gay, anti-Muslim hate site that pushes far right conspiracy theories. How is it "moderately liberal"? (ManyMoonsoons (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC))
 * You need to read my comments better. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * FR is far right. I'm surprised the site is still legal. (ManyMoonsoons (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2018
I suggest you stop labeling this site as "FAR RIGHT" UNLESS you are going to label CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC As The FAR LEFT And Label ANTIFA As A TERRORIST GROUP Richmond4611 (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC) — Richmond4611 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Noting that this was the editor's only edit so far. Doug Weller talk 12:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We label things as reliable sources describe them. You will not find any reliable source labelling mainstream media sources as "far-left", because, well, they aren't. Suggest you read the discussions in the "General Concerns and Questions" section at the top of the page. Black Kite (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Mainstream media sources aren't far-left to you folks? Exactly what/who do you consider a "reliable source?"  Oh, and "labeling" has only one "l".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.214.40.153 (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No.  G M G  talk  19:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Removing some conspiracy theory references
I'm removing a few of the "Breitbart News pushes conspiracy theories" references because they don't really support the assertion in a meaningful way.



This is an article about Michael Flynn in which Steve Bannon is mentioned only briefly and in passing, along with the unsourced assertion that he has "peddled conspiracy theories". One could argue that the fact that the AP fact checkers and legal team were comfortable enough with this description to let it through is evidence that the AP endorses the "Bannon is a conspiracy theorist" statement. Nevertheless, the actual source includes no details and makes no specific assertions, so it really isn't relevant.



The FactCheck article is about a series of controversial ads that two Republican senators claimed were taxpayer-funded. Breitbart News is mentioned only in passing. The version of the Breitbart article that's in place now (can't link directly; blacklisted - but the path is /politics/2013/11/12/obamacare-ad-hope-hes-as-easy-to-get-as-birth-control/) says only that "the taxpayer-funded Thanks ObamaCare campaign released the 'Brosurance' ads", which is in fact accurate, though misleading: the releaser is partially taxpayer-funded, although no federal funds were involved in making this specific series of ads. It doesn't matter anyway, because there's not even a hint or an accusation of conspiracy-mongering here, unless you believe that funding ads constitutes a conspiracy. This reference would perhaps be better used as support for "intentionally misleading information".

The book mentions Breitbart and Bannon on a few pages and elaborates on their connections to the alt-right. The James O'Keefe sting operations are also mentioned. However, there's nothing about conspiracy theories. I'm not sure if the O'Keefe material is what motivated the original citer, but if so, it's political activism or a disinformation campaign (depending on your viewpoint), not a conspiracy theory.

NillaGoon (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I am restoring the first two since your rationale for them is inconsistent with our verifiability policy. The AP and FactCheck.org are extremely reliable outlets that fact check everything they publish. If you wish to contest their reliability further I suggest you do so at WP:RSN. R2 (bleep) 07:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, NillaGoon's argument is not that the sources are unreliable (they are reliable), but that they just don't support the statement in question. At least the first one does support it, though, albeit only in passing (as NillaGoon says), so it seems OK to include, even though citations covering the issue in detail would obviously be preferable. -sche (talk) 08:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't know why you say it would be obviously preferable, it's certainly not obvious to me. But no, for the first two sources NillaGoon was saying that the sources were not reliable for the statement that Breitbart promotes conspiracy theories. R2 (bleep) 08:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure how you came to this conclusion from what's written above, but for the record, I have no problem with the AP or FactCheck.org as reliable sources. For that matter, I do not disagree with the statement that Breitbart News is a publisher of conspiracy theories. However, allegations of wrongdoing--which this certainly is--require solid sourcing. Attempting to document an inflammatory claim like this with references that aren't actually relevant just makes Wikipedia look partisan and unreliable.


 * My issue with the AP article is that it contains only the most offhanded reference to Breitbart News. It's not an article about Breitbart News. It's not an article about conspiracy theories. It's not an article about journalistic standards. It's an article about Steve Bannon and his interactions with the Trump administration. [Edit: actually, not even that - it's about Michael Flynn] I hope we can stay away from wikilawyering here, but since you cite WP:RS, let me quote it: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article." (boldface in the original) This seems pretty clear, no?


 * The problem with the FactCheck.org article is that it supports the accuracy of the claims published in the corresponding Breitbart News article. I agree that Breitbart's wording is somewhat misleading and only accurate in a narrow and technical sense; however, that doesn't make the Breitbart article a "conspiracy theory". Even if we were to all agree that it was a conspiracy theory, that really doesn't matter; our personal opinions are irrelevant. To support the claim that "Breitbart News promotes conspiracy theories," you need reliable sources that talk about specific stories that Breitbart has promoted and that label these topics as conspiracy theories. NillaGoon (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * On the AP source, I don't think that's how most people here understand our reliable sources guideline to work. It's true that context matters, but when it comes to mainstream, reputable news sources, it's standard journalistic practice for editors to check all statements in an article, not just the central ones. Therefore, in general, all statements in mainstream, reputable news sources are reliable. If you wish to contest this further I suggest you do so at WP:RSN.
 * On FactCheck.org, which source are we talking about, "Trump's ISIS Conspiracy Theory" or "The Keg Stand Obamacare Ads"? I think "Trump's ISIS Conspiracy Theory" supports the "promotes conspiracy theories" bit, whereas "The Keg Stand Obamacare Ads" does not. R2 (bleep) 00:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The Keg Stand Obamacare Ads. I did not challenge, comment on, or remove the Trump's ISIS Conspiracy Theory reference. Since you agree that the Keg Stand article does not support the "promotes conspiracy theories" statement, are we agreed that it should be removed? NillaGoon (talk) 01:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have replaced the factcheck.org source that doesn't support the content with the factcheck.org source that does. R2 (bleep) 04:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

has started a relevant discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at. —  Newslinger  talk   07:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Masthead
Certain of the info box information is inconsistent with the Masthead of the Breitbart News Site. I am unable to add the url here, which is available by simple search. I would like to make the following edits: Add Ezra Dulis, Senior Editor; Add Noah Dulis, Deputy Managing Editor; add Rebecca Mansour, Senior Editor at Large; remove Wynton Hall, Managing Editor. (Connerblack8 (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC))
 * Are you "unable to add the url" because an administrator put it on a spam list? If so, that might make it difficult to add appropriate citations. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The discussion on that page indicates that Breitbart can be added if there's consensus to do so. I think adding it as a primary source for this sort of thing would be perfectly appropriate. However I'm having trouble finding the masthead to verify the requested content. I found the "People - Breitbart" page but it doesn't list any of the people., can you please point me in the right direction? R2 (bleep) 22:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, primary source is fine for that, but I can't find it either (I tried searching for one of the people, Ezra Dulis, but it came up with www . breitbart . com/author/ezra-dulis/ which doesn't match ... Black Kite (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * www . breitbart .com /masthead/ has Dulis and Mansour. I think Black Kite's method of putting spaces in the url is a good way to work around the spam list problem, and easier than hoping "Breitbart can be added if there's consensus to do so" (which I think refers to a white list). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is where I obtained the masthead. The two Dulis editors and Mansour are there; Hall is not. Connerblack8 (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you. I think there might be something fishy going on between Noah and Ezra Dulis though. I can't tell if they're one and the same person; perhaps one is a pseudonym of the other. Two independent reliable sources indicate Ezra is the deputy managing partner, not Noah. Ezra's LinkedIn says he's been deputy managing editor since 2011, but a Breitbart "meet the team" page published in 2015 doesn't even mention him. Bizarre. R2 (bleep) 16:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go out on a limb and posit that the masthead isn't reliable as a primary source. According to the Wayback Machine it's only been around for six weeks . Not only is there an issue with the Dulises, but there's also an issue with Wynton Hall's absence. Various independent reliable sources confirm that he was the managing editor at least into 2017 (ex: ). But there was a brouhaha that year with the U.S. Senate Daily Press Gallery’s standing committee of correspondents refusing to grant Breitbart a permanent press pass due to connections between the editorial staff, particularly Mr. Hall, and the Government Accountability Institute . Not only is Mr. Hall not on the masthead, but his LinkedIn says nothing about Breitbart. This could very well be a whitewash, especially when you consider that Breitbart doesn't exactly have a stellar reputation for openness and honesty. R2 (bleep) 16:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I have made this edit boldly and with what appeared to be consensus (prior to the last comment). Happy to revisit/discuss. Connerblack8 (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I reverted due to the lack of consensus here. R2 (bleep) 16:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Aside from "reputation," do you have any sourcing that contradicts the senior editors listed on their own masthead as of now, as opposed to articles that are a couple of years old? Thank you.Connerblack8 (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have Ezra Dulis's LinkedIn, which says he's the deputy managing editor. But, bear in mind, the burden to establish verifiability is on the editor seeking to add content to the article, not the other way around. A source isn't reliable just because no other sources contradict it. Breitbart's reliability is very much tied to its reputation for accuracy. Reputation isn't something to be minimized; it's very much what reliability is all about. R2 (bleep) 17:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And there's also the "People - Breitbart" page, which doesn't agree with the masthead. R2 (bleep) 17:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So, in short, you are arguing that their own masthead, labeled "Masthead," is not their masthead and a variety of external non-definitive signals are more useful? I have a hard time agreeing with that.Connerblack8 (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. I'm not denying it's their masthead. What I'm saying is that their masthead isn't necessarily reliable for who works for them and what their positions are. I know that sounds weird, but Breitbart isn't a traditional or reputable news organization, and the masthead is brand new and conflicts with other available information, both on their website and elsewhere. R2 (bleep) 19:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Since we are at an impasse, I have asked for a third opinion from the appropriate noticeboard. Connerblack8 (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure., perhaps you'd like to weigh in again as well? R2 (bleep) 19:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And ? R2 (bleep) 19:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The request for a third opinion was cancelled because "more than 2 editors involved". So editors who comment are counted as "involved" even if we didn't give opinions about www.breitbart.com/masthead/ use? Odd. But anyway I'm not giving an opinion. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I see 4 editors already involved in this discussion, and it does not appear to be at an impasse. If a decision cannot be reached among the editors here, an RfC may be the way forward. I hope this helps. Bradv 🍁  15:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Peter that that's an excessively strict reading of that rule. The disagreement is between two editors (Connerblack8 and myself) even if two other editors chipped in initially on tangentially related issues. That being said, I'm not a huge fan of 3O for well-trafficked, politically sensitive articles and agree that an RfC would be a more effective way of obtaining consensus here. R2 (bleep) 17:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Back to the matter at hand, I believe that the publication’s own masthead should serve as an acceptable source for the name of its senior editors, unless there is direct countervailing evidence. I would urge a rethinking of this prior to filing a RfC, which will be my next step if we are unable to reach a consensus. Connerblack8 (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you that ordinarily it should, but Breitbart is not an ordinary news outlet. If you want to advance the discussion, why don't you provide some explanation of why the masthead is reliable, beyond repeating that it's a masthead? R2 (bleep) 19:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC) And I did provide countervailing evidence; you just chose to ignore it. R2 (bleep) 18:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Wrongthink cabal strikes again
Article still fails to mention a big development that runs amock the current description set by cabal editors: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/25/facebook-breitbart-news-tab-alt-right   2601:602:9200:1310:4422:EA17:C2EC:BF6C (talk) 08:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Must remove far-right label
Breitbart is not far right. It's conservative, certainly right wing, but not FAR RIGHT. Daily kos is listed as a liberal leaning site, and that "source" is as FAR LEFT as they come. Far right needs to be changed to "conservative". Markvrb (talk) 10:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Sure, right after reliable independent sources stop identifying it as such. You probably already know this, but the problem is the Overton window. In current US politics, entirely moderate policies accepted through most of the Western world as mainstream centre or centre-left, are castigated as "radical socialism" by the partisan right, and ideas that were previously far-right, including overt racism and anti-gay hate speech, are now asserted to be "conservative speech". For the most part, mainstream sources do not subscribe to this framing yet. Guy (help!) 10:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a violation of your topic ban. You need to pull back.- MrX 🖋 10:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Notable stories
I am expressing concern that this article's "Notable stories" section may violate Wikipedia's WP:NOTNEWS. I see that the purpose of the section is to tell readers why Breitbart is notable and how those notable controversies emerged. However, the presentation of the facts on this article is written in the format "header–on mm-dd-yyyy, Breitbart—reactions to the Breitbart stories—repeat". A lot of those stories are of similar topics. For example, we can merge two or three subsections into one and make it say that Breitbart regularly publishes conspiracy theories or defamatory content relating to Democratic politicians such as former President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, with just a handful of examples. We could also move one of the subsections, "Climate change denial", to the "Content and coverage" section, and make it summarize that Breitbart has disseminated numerous reports rejecting the scientific consensus on climate change, also with only a handful of examples. I would like to hear from other editors on this.  GaɱingFørFuɲ 3 6 5 00:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

"Facebook includes Breitbart in new 'high quality' news tab"
Should we mention this in the article? There's some decent coverage. . Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , looks like there's enough coverage of the backlash to do it neutrally, so I say go ahead. Guy (help!) 22:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

"Far-right politics in the United States" is called "Radical right (United States)" in Wikipedia
Since far-right politics in the United States redirects to far-right politics which Main points to Radical right (United States). Be nationality specific (not generic Far-right politics), without a redirect, for "far-right"; change request per hidden note: This may *not* be changed without getting consensus on the talk page. Any attempts may result in an immediate block. See Talk:Breitbart News/Archive 3. X1\ (talk) 04:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Should remove far right label
Mainstream sources are as biased as Breitbart, they do not have credibility as it is proven that mainstream political scientists are on the left of politics. I would say to classify Breitbart as Anti-establishment Right, or put "self-proclaimed ...-right", therefore this article is not biased. --2.28.242.39 (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This by someone who would rather edit Conservapedia. A lot of the social scientists may hold progressive opinions, and I will say that I do agree that they tend to rank high on social issues (they are called social for a reason). However, I also agree that they do stink at economic policy, and those two are the ingredients for progressivism. Vice versa is for conservatism.


 * Nevertheless, I must tell you that mainstream does not, and never will, mean "progressivism". In fact, we treat both sides of the political spectrum—not just the right—as opinions. You are drawing a false equivalence between their biased opinions and their ability to report. Does holding opinions dictate that the political scientists will ethically propagate them as fact? You really do need to express a factual proposition that relates to their ability to propagate truth as the truth, rather than giving a cum hoc fallacious argument. I suggest we WP:SNOW close this.  GaɱingFørFuɲ 3 6 5 21:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , the point that cited article misses (and is also missed in the source research) is that the Overton window has moved so far to the right that people who would have been considered conservative ten or twenty years ago are now seen as radically liberal. Conservative now means radical anti-abortion, anti-LGBT, Christian nationalist and extreme anti-government. Guy (help!) 23:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the problem I have. is obviously liberal and the exact type of people editting this article. We all talk about racial and gender diversity but why not political diversity in editting these articles? Why is it overwhelmingly 'liberal' (Modern-day liberalism is completely against liberal values) editors editting these political articles? We cite sources that doesn't get challenged since they're sourced however these newspapers cited have extreme anti-Conservative views and misinterpret Conservative policy (Being anti-abortion, anti-LGBT, Christian Nationalist and Extreme Anti-Government is very contradictory, Conservatives aren't radical Authoritarian Libertarians). We need to link sources that aren't biased or don't link them at all.--2.28.242.39 (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am very small-c conservative. I went to a thousand-year-old school and most of the music I like was written at least 200 years ago. The problem is the Overton window. My moderate small-c conservative views now look liberal by comparison with what passes for conservatism today, which is in reality a pretty radical libertarian extremist view of government coupled with Christian nationalism and a dose of white supremacy. Guy (help!) 01:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * All I can say, as a Libertarian myself, is that your description of Libertarianism is contradictory with your coupled opinion of them being "Christian Nationalist" (Conservatives like Breitbart, Ben Shapiro, Daily Wire, etc. all have Jewish and some Muslim & Buddhist support). I am totally fine with your small-c conservatism, I in fact probably agree with a lot of your opinions, however do you think calling these people "Far-Right" and "Alt-Right" really helps conversation and debate of the spectrum, where Big-C Conservatism trumps (pun intended) small-c conservatism? Don't you think we (as in Wikipedia) should be more fairer to the New Right instead of attacking them as some sort of wacko crazy cowboys that vote for Brexit and Trump and hate blacks and the "Moozlums"?--2.28.242.39 (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * But all the evidence says that's exactly what they are - from shacking up with Richard Spencer and other overt white supremacists/neo-Nazis, to declaring that LGBT rights are further degeneration of society. Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources say, and reliable sources are essentially unanimous here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are implying that we draw an equivalence between mainstream conservatism and that dark right corner of anti-fascist fascists, here is my answer that aims to be as simple as possible with hopes that it does not require clarification: we do not. In fact, we never had. We acknowledge a fraction of Trump supporters being affiliated with the alt-right, but we also acknowledge that the other supporters despise the alt-right and believe that the government is too big or that it has failed to serve the people. I suspect that the latter supporters greatly outnumber the former.


 * As if that does not erase our incorrect "liberal" label, let me tell you as a former hardcore conservative what I once thought. When I first got into politics, I used to think that I (then a Republican and ardent Christian) was martyred by opponents and the mainstream media. I used to believe that Obama Jr. might have been from Kenya and that climate change is a politically charged pseudoscience propagated by liberal scientists. I used to think that after the nomination of Donald Trump in the 2016 election, he would repair his predecessor's damage. I also used to believe that as a Christian, I had to support purportedly pro-Christian policies such as banning drugs or keeping the state and church un-separate. The only reason I believed them is the intimidating thought that everyone upholding my cause expects me to share their opinions, because if I did not, I would be called out as a pro-abortion, anti-heterosexual, anti-Christian, pro-big government Democrat, amongst other labels, and then be berated as such. Nominalistically, to me that does not matter anymore. I regret believing those things. I realize that laws—and other types of barriers—do not make anyone any better when they still want to do what those laws would ban (remember the Eighteenth Amendment?), and some of them will transgress. I realize that there is a reason to criticize the current GOP, though I do not think that all of the criticisms are valid, and I still have legitimate criticisms of the Democratic Party.


 * I still consider myself to be a Christian, although I am more open-minded these days. I also consider myself to be a center-right libertarian, as I oppose every government intervention unrelated to theft, fraud, assault, and necessary self-defense, although I do strongly oppose abortion for secular reasons and believe that it is assault. I do not, however, consider modern-day conservatism to be true conservatism, and if all of that makes me a liberal, I do not know what would not.  GaɱingFørFuɲ 3 6 5 04:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , In order to be a member or supporter of the Republican Party right now, you don't need to be a racist, but you need to be OK with racism. You don't need to be a Dominionist but you need to be OK with Dominionism. You don't need to be a crook, but you need to be OK with criminality. It's extremely disturbing. I do not see how the party gets itself out of this spiral. Guy (help!) 21:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

12 April changes
Think we need to change this to say something like 'right wing' or alternatively 'right wing populist' or 'radical right'. It isn't accurate to say the far-right is part of Conservatism btw, it's an inherently different ideology, saying it's part of conservatism is like saying Communism is part of Liberalism, it just isn't true. Far right should be reserved for groups which openly call for race based policies, rather than policies some people think are racist by implicationPompeyTheGreat (talk) 05:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Basically the problem here is that even in academia, there are very well respected sources which will also say "right wing populist", I've edited the article to say "right wing populist or far right". The issue is that there's a different meaning of far-right in Europe and in the US, because in European academia and politics, there is a designation of "right wing populist" which encompasses most groups to the right of mainstream centre right parties that are not openly racist, for example the AfD in Germany, the Brexit Party and UKIP in the UK, the Dutch Freedom Party etc. Breitbart definitely falls into whichever category UKIP is in, given the fact Breitbart London ran UKIPs campaign in 2015 (their editor was the campaign manager and everything). PompeyTheGreat (talk) 06:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, there is currently no consensus for the content you restored in Special:Diff/950463856 after I reverted it in Special:Diff/950463367. Please undo your reversion to meet the "consensus required" page restriction until there is consensus to implement this change. Far-right is a subset of right-wing, and your added sources do not negate or diminish support for the far-right descriptor. —  Newslinger  talk   06:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

's edit in Special:Diff/950463856 added four sources into the article: Far-right is a subset of right-wing. It is redundant to say that Breitbart News is both far-right and right-wing. The six sources in already establish that Breitbart news is "far-right". As none of these four new sources show that Breitbart News is not far-right, the article should say "far-right" and not "far-right and right-wing", and especially not "far-right or right-wing". I have no objection to mentioning that the site espouses a "populist" point of view in addition to (not in replacement of) the term "far-right". —  Newslinger  talk   08:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) "How Breitbart hijacks right-wing populism" from The Spectator describes Breitbart News as "right-wing", but does not dispute that the site is far-right.
 * 2) "Breitbart News: from populist fringe to the White House and beyond" from Financial Times is a 9-minute podcast with no transcript. It states that Breitbart News "has plans to tap into the wave of populism" in 1:01, and quotes the Southern Poverty Law Center describing Breitbart News as "the media arm of the racist alternative right movement" at 4:35, but does not dispute that the site is far-right.
 * 3) "Alternative media for a populist audience? Exploring political and media use predictors of exposure to Breitbart, Sputnik, and Co." from Information, Communication & Society considers Breitbart News "alternative media with an affinity to populism", but does not dispute that the site is far-right.
 * 4) "Hyperpartisan news: Rethinking the media for populist politics" from New Media & Society describes Breitbart News as a "platform for the alt-right" and "hyperpartisan media", but does not dispute that the site is far-right. In fact, it says "The ‘alt-right’ has made expert use of blogs, tweets, hashtags, memes and trolling to provide a legitimised voice to far-right ideas and ideologies."

"Far right" or conservative?
Obviously, there are some leftists who call everything conservative far right. I have an article right here from the NY Times, a liberal (or should we call this a "far left" source), which specifically refers to Breitbart News as conservative. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/18/business/media/what-is-breitbart-news.html Other sources which refer to Breitart News as conservative: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart/, https://www.allsides.com/news-source/breitbart, and https://ballotpedia.org/Breitbart_News — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campbell301 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Being "conservative" is not mutually exclusive with being "far right". The latter is part of the former. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 23:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You'd need sources which analyse the identification of "far-right" and reject it, to balance the sources we cite which identify it as far-right. As noted above, far-right is a subset of conservative these days, so merely finding sources that say conservative is insufficient. Guy (help!) 23:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, we're unable to use Media Bias/Fact Check for this information because it is a self-published source. —  Newslinger   talk   23:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Describing Breitbart as far-right really leaves the word 'far-right' without any value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.176.150.236 (talk) 09:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Can you find as many sources of the quality cited here which do not describe it as far right? Steve Bannon has himself has described the website as "the platform for the alt-right". The credibility of that term is suggested by multiple citations, while Breitbart's own denial is also mentioned. It looks as though your issue with the use of the term "far right" has been dealt with. Philip Cross (talk) 10:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Breitbart News is now old enough to have been discussed in academic publications. I've cited several academic sources to support the "far-right" descriptor. —  Newslinger  talk   04:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC: name in italics?
Which of these best describes Breitbart News Network/Breitbart News/Breitbart.com/Breitbart/etc.?
 * Option 1: It is a news aggregator website, an organization or company without a publication, and the name(s) should not be italicized.
 * Option 2: It is a publication, and therefore the name(s) should be italicized.
 * Option 3: Some versions of the name reference the organization, but others reference a publication. (Please detail which should be italicized)

- Adolphus79 (talk) 10:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * What started here was a conversation regarding whether Breitbart should be italicized or not, whether it is a publication or simply an organization. From what I can tell, it is nothing more than a news aggregator website, an organization or company, and therefore should not be italicized because there is no WP:MAJORWORK involved. But believes that it is an "online publication", and therefore all variations of the name should be italicized per MOS:ITALICWEBSITE. I suggested they open an RfC to try to gain consensus, but then Sangdebouf made this edit, and to preempt an edit war I want to gain consensus. - Adolphus79 (talk) 10:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC) Refactoring earlier comment by per WP:RFCNEUTRAL. See user talk page for details –Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think Breitbart News is a news aggregator. Analyses such as "A new, online culture war? The communication world of Breitbart.com" (Routledge) make it clear that Breitbart publishes a large amount of original opinion. Breitbart News is unlike Google News and MSN, which predominantly aggregate articles from other sources. —  Newslinger  talk   00:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 3: Breitbart News Network is the name of both the website and the organization or company that publishes it. The former is often shortened to Breitbart.com, Breitbart, or Breitbart News. These should be italicized when talking about the publication, which has a "masthead" listing its editorial staff, and employs writers to produce original stories. Whatever one thinks of the contents of the site itself, there's no question that it is some kind of publication. (Frankly I'm not sure why we wouldn't italicize the names of news aggregator websites as well, but that seems beyond the scope of the present RfC.) Breitbart News Network LLC, referring to the organization, is not italicized. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * May I ask then, why you went through and italicized every instance of the word Breitbart in the article without discrimination regarding organization or publication? Including the instances "Andrew Breitbart launched Breitbart.com as a news aggregator in 2005." and "Breitbart News is a for-profit organization.", both clearly discussing an organization, not a publication. Or the line "In response, Breitbart announced plans to boycott the company.", cited an article from The Guardian that specifically refers to Breitbart as a "right-wing news organization". - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've of the "for-profit organization" part. I did not italicize every instance of the word. For instance, the organization's name is Breitbart News Network LLC. Breitbart.com refers to the website, not the organization. Some sources may be ambiguous whether they are discussing the website or the company, effectively treating them as a single unit. (The cited article in The Guardian also calls it a "news site".) In such cases I think we should default to italics, since the website is the more notable of the two, and indeed is the only reason the company exists at all. If possible I think we should specify in the text whether we mean the "website", the "company", etc.  —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Option 3 - I mean, it's obviously both a publication and a company of the same name. The same way that Bloomberg is. Whatever rules apply to Bloomberg should apply in this case as well. Also, honest question, is there a reason news aggregators are not italicised, but publications are? PraiseVivec (talk) 11:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * News aggregators, by definition, do not include any original content, only sharing other people's stories... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Option 2/3: I don't understand what argument is being presented in favor of Breitbart being a news aggregator rather than a publication. They have journalists and publish original content. Do the same thing as for any publication: italicize when you're referring to the publication ("John Doe of Breitbart wrote that...") and don't when you're not ("Breitbart founded [the LLC] Breitbart News Network when..."), though I would think the latter case is fairly rare. Am I missing something? — Bilorv ( talk ) 01:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 3 (2?): Everything that isn't referencing the organisation (Breitbart News Network LLC) should be italicized. Why on earth would anyone think Breitbart is a news aggregator and not a publisher? They publish their own original articles. What is even trying to be argued here? Volteer1 (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Italicize the name (invited by the bot) I didn't pick an option number because there is a math challenge with the structure.  The "italicize" idea is split between two choices.  North8000 (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2/3; it clearly publishes (a lot of!) original opinion, so if publications' names are italicized, this publication's name should likewise be italicized. As Bilorv says, if not referring to the publication but instead the LLC, then follow the style guidelines pertaining to that. (Summoned by bot.) -sche (talk) 04:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic, and racist
Lutesque on 18 April 2021 inserted "homophobic" with no edit summary, so the sentence reads "Its journalists are widely considered to be ideologically driven, and much of its content has been called misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic, and racist by liberals and traditional conservatives alike." I on 10 July 2021 reverted with edit summary = "Undid Revision as of 05:48, 18 April 2021 by Lutesque. Unsourced." Lutesque on 15 July 2021 re-inserted with no edit summary. What the cited source actually says is "But it remains an outsize source of controversy — for liberals and even many traditional conservatives — over material that has been called misogynist, xenophobic and racist." I don't see the word homophobic. Incidentally I also don't see that the cite supports the Wikipedia sentence. So our choices are (a) keep homophobic (b) remove homophobic (c) remove whole sentence. I favour at least (b) and preferably (c). Other opinions? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I've seen this exact edit reverted previously, though it may have been at the article of a Breitbart writer. The given source does not say this, or anything which could be construed as this. And while I would never consider Breitbart to be anything but socially and politically backwards and misguided, it's worth noting that the lead image in the source is of a gay writer for Breitbart. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Generally unreliable source Daily Wire
Earlier I made an edit which another editor reverted. I had removed some text and a citation by Daily Wire, which is on the WP:RSP list as generally unreliable. The content in whole, plus its citation, should be removed from the article.

The content in question is a single sentence purporting to quote Ben Shapiro/Daily Wire uttering hyperbole about Steve Bannon/Breitbart News, sourced by a citation to DW. RSP writes of Daily Wire, "There is a strong consensus that The Daily Wire is generally unreliable for factual reporting." If one omits the sentence of Shapiro's opinion (which I had done), and reads the new paragraph (containing sentences before and after the removed Shapiro opinion), one will see that nothing is lost for the reader's understanding.

's argument on my User talk page was that the content was "an acceptable use case" because he said RSP allows that The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable.

I assert that the Shapiro opinion is not a "self-description", because in the alleged quote he's referring about someone else. Not only that, but the text accompanying the citation incorrectly attributes half of the quote towards Bannon, when in fact the article is referring to Yiannopoulos. Actually, the text looks like someone SYNTHed a sentence together out of a DW article. (Link to archived version of article for those with no subscription.)

WP:GUNREL is clear:
 * "Outside exceptional circumstances" (which this is not)
 * "the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person." (Aren't Bannon and Yiannopoulos both still alive?)
 * "If no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate." (That's the whole point of GUNREL)
 * "The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, (Shapiro isn't referring to himself)
 * "and self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable." (no one could consider Shapiro an SME of someone else).

Even though this content is inserted into an article for Breitbart News (not a person), WP:BLP should apply since the comment is directed at Bannon (a living person). The inclusion of Shapiro's comment is unnecessary, and because of GUNREL it should be removed. Platonk (talk) 04:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

No, Breitbart is not far-right
They defend Democrats on occasions (yes, even Nancy Pelosi) https://www.breitbart dot com/politics/2021/10/26/some-house-democrats-oppose-radical-wealth-tax/ https://www.breitbart dot com/politics/2021/10/26/nancy-pelosi-calls-on-democrats-embrace-scaled-down-infrastructure-bill/

In fact they're less right-wing than Fox News. Change it please. They're neoconservative at best. Far-right is stuff like Newsmax, OAN and all that other crap 71.94.157.155 (talk) 04:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Also my stepdad is a centrist, agrees with half of Trump, three quarters of Biden and one quarters of Bernie.. he's definitely a subtle Yanger and he follows Breitbart on social media and reads Breitbart
 * What reliable sources back up your viewpoint? -- Valjean (talk) 04:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you provide third party reliable sources to back up your claim? A couple individual Brietbart articles by themselves are not enough for Wikipedia, we need other sources (as defined in the link) to verify your claim. Multiple reliable sources have provided the verifiable material to source this article. - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The other source is my stepdad. Please read the entire message +2600:1012:B0D9:4463:8183:A0D2:4F1C:557B (talk) 05:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Weeellll... I fear Reliable sources does not count your stepdad among the third-party reliable sources, so, nothing doing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2020
Remove "fake news" as a category

(I don't even like Britebart, but I think classifying a major well respected right-wing news commentator as "fake news" is a bit less unbiased than an encyclopedia should be.) 68.192.245.4 (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done as not currently supported by sources in the article as far as I can tell. If sources do exist or can be supplied, feel free to add back / revert. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 20:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * On July 31 2019 Internet is Freedom added "Fake news" and other categories in this revision. There was no explanation in the edit summary, and WP:CATVER seems relevant. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Should Breitbart be allowed as a source, or does Wikipedia still consider it fake news?
 * Also, when I just now tried to input its website into this talk page, I received an alert that it was blacklisted: "Blacklisting indicates past problems with the link, so any requests should clearly demonstrate how inclusion would benefit Wikipedia. The following link has triggered a protection filter: breitbart.com" Weagesdf (talk) 02:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The given reason for the addition to the blacklist was "... to control massive spamming and disruption by JarlaxleArtemis socks".Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is EVERY right leaning news site stated to be "far right" on Wikipedia? 66.68.178.180 (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia does not use your specific position as a point of reference, calling positions slightly to the right of it "right leaning" and positions slightly to the left of it "left leaning", but follows reliable sources instead. When they call something "far right", we do. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Amazing, using those who are left wing to judge those they oppose is NOT being encyclopedic. Huffpost is a far left website and it is not listed as such.  What does it take for a website to be listed as far left? 66.68.178.180 (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/huffington-post/ 66.68.178.180 (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That link A:) does not appear to be a reliable source, B:) says nothing about Breitbart at all. The entirety of this conversation can be answered by reading the FAQ at the top of this page. If you wish to discuss the Huffpost article, please start a new discussion on the appropriate talk page. This talk page is for discussion on improving the Breitbart article, not your opinions on Huffpost or Wikipedia editors. - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I was reading this page a few days ago(the Breitbart article itself not the talk page) and I saw that the page had seemingly accidentally been listed as an American far-right news site. This seemed dangerous to say the least, but I figured someone else would soon fix it.  I have quite literally never read a single news article on a personal level from Breitbart and only knew of it as the name was familiar.  From what I remembered, Breitbart was a conservative news source.  To quench my curiosity(as again I was not extremely familiar with the site) I went to the website so I could see if in-fact Wikipedia was correct.  Instead it seemed that right off the bat from the sitemap, I had been correct and my memory had not failed me.  I was shocked to to come here and see the talk page with Hob Gadling making one of the most foolish statements I have heard in some time although I will assume good faith.  I'll give the benefit of the doubt and say that Hob Gadling simply did not understand what (talk) was pointing out, as the alternative is that they are motivated by political bias(see Reliability_of_Wikipedia).  The positions shown on-site seem somewhere left of the New York Post which is accurately considered conservative on Wikipedia.  I would recommend you do the research for yourself, but if would rather go to the experts then feel free.  I will say that following the Wikipedia guidelines, it would be best to simple remove the characterization of Breitbart as far-right because Breitbart does not even fit Wikipedia's own page description for a far-right new source.  However if you still to fix the article for Breitbart and you want to keep Breitbart classified as far-right, you are going to have to go immediately change the following Wikipedia articles to reflect their status as far-left: Buzzfeed, HuffPost, CNN, MSNBC, The Daily Beast, Esquire, Mother Jones, Rolling Stone to name some of the least controversial ones.  See AllSides if you need verification for citing.  Essentially we cannot have it both ways; we cannot say articles that are xfar right of a neutral stance(neutral like in the Wikipedia stance remember) are "far-right" but then articles that are xfar left of a neutral stance are undisclosed or "lean-left".  It is important that we maintain Wikipedia's core principles of fairness and unbiased editing that make it the great site it is. FoXXXlady (talk) 05:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * see https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings?field_featured_bias_rating_value=All&field_news_source_type_tid[1]=1&field_news_source_type_tid[2]=2&field_news_source_type_tid[3]=3&field_news_source_type_tid[4]=4 FoXXXlady (talk) 05:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, not on its editors personal opinions and analysis. The characterization of Breitbart News as is supported by eleven such sources. Do you have multiple sources of comparable quality describing the outlets you listed as ? Kleinpecan (talk) 07:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the complaint that breitbart's .com domain is blocked due to the spam-blacklist entry: there is no evidence that http://breitbart.co.uk was used for spamming so it might not be blocked. But the Breitbart RfC restrictions still apply. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ginnysomers.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Far-right question
This question does not mean I agree with anything published by Breitbart.

What is the definition of far right? I used to understand this to mean politics that combined racism/antisemitism with totalitarian authority. Hyper nationalistic. Far right politics would include Nazi party and Fascism. However it seems that the term is much more far reaching now. People call other people far right all the time and it seemed to be hyperbole to me. Or even malicious. Is Breitbart really akin to Nazi Germany? Isn’t it just name calling? Or has my understanding of what far right means got out of step. Quadrow (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * You may find the Radical right (United States) article to be a helpful explainer for far-right politics in the US. Among the citations in Special:Permalink/1074735648, the most comprehensive academic article that analyzes Breitbart's far-right discourse is "A new, online culture war? The communication world of Breitbart.com", which is unfortunately paywalled. —  Newslinger  talk   16:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The Radical right Wikipedia article is broadly my understanding of the term. In that article it states that "far-right" is broadly used by scholars to mean militant white supremacists. But I can't find the evidence in this wikipedia article that Breitbart - the organisation - is a militant white supremacist organisation. I can see that there is evidence some crossover of ideas and that some ex employees are involved in white supremacist groups. When I read the scoop article on Bannon and Yiannopoulus emails, it refers to them as "alt-right" and "white nationalists" rather than them being militant white supremacist. It looks like they have some connections with extremists but connections doesn't mean they are politically homogeneous. But in any case, neither of those individuals work for Breitbart anymore. Quadrow (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As the Radical right (United States) article explains, the radical right is not limited to white supremacism. Also, article talk pages aren't intended for general political discussions. The article describes Breitbart as far-right because this descriptor is strongly supported by the consensus of reliable sources, including high-quality academic sources. The answers to your questions from 2017, archived at Talk:Breitbart News/Archive 6 and Talk:Breitbart News/Archive 7, have not changed. —  Newslinger  talk   18:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

My discussion is focussed on Breitbart and the correct classification. I accept the meaning of words as defined by the consensus. It seems that “radical right” may be better as this is defined differently and is not limited to white supremacy rather than “far right”, which seems to have a narrower definition of militant white supremacists as defined by the consensus in the article you have referred me to. Quadrow (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Your personal evaluation of whether Breitbart fits the definition of the far-right descriptor is original research, and cannot be cited in the article, unless your evaluation is published in a reliable source. The article already links the words American far-right to Radical right (United States), and the article's use of the exact term far-right is consistent with the consensus of reliable sources. —  Newslinger  talk   03:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My reasoning is is not original research because I am referring to sources that are documented on wikipedia. Specifically the consensus is that "far right" not only has a scientific definition but is also being used in a way to "disqualify and stigmatize all forms of partisan nationalism" - see the Modern Debates section of Far-right politics. Given that there are plenty of sources that call Breitbart far right but without providing direct evidence that Breitbart is in fact a "militant white supremacist" organisation - which is the definition used by scholars as described in Radical right (United States), it tends to suggest that the term is being used in a non scientific way. Indeed, some of the sources don't even directly define Breitbart as far-right much less provide evidence that Breitbart meet the scientific/scholarly definition of that term. I would also point out that the question of whether Breitbart is far right is continually discussed in these talk pages which tends to suggest that there is not a consensus that Breitbart meets the scientific definition of far-right. Quadrow (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Do RS call Breitbart far-right? Yes. End of debate. We document what they say. Your reasoning and any definitions are in OR territory. -- Valjean (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Please could you link or define RS and OR so I can discover what you mean. Thanks Quadrow (talk) 07:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Consider checking your talk-page where-in reliable sourcing was discussed with you during your previous bad-faith stint here. Dricoust (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've provided links for both in my 13 March comment. For your convenience, here are the links again: Reliable sources and No original research. —  Newslinger  talk   08:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2022
In the first paragraph it makes reference to "traditional conservatives" criticizing the website, which links to the article about traditionalist conservatism. However, I believe that this phrase in this context is used more in reference to anti-Trump Republicans than it is to proponents of traditionalism. I think the article should be edited to reflect this. 100.15.110.54 (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The cited New York Times article says "But it remains an outsize source of controversy -- for liberals and even many traditional conservatives -- over material that has been called misogynist, xenophobic and racist." It does not make clear who these traditional conservatives are or what more precisely they said, although it does mention Ben Shapiro's criticism elsewhere in the article. I agree that linking to Traditionalist conservatism is wrong because it's not clear New York Times meant what that Wikipedia article means. I removed the link. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

2014 Ebola epidemic
Hi @Peter Gulutzan, the source you removed here has the following statement, in case you missed it:

"During the 2014 epidemic, hoaxes included claims that an infected woman had been found in Atlanta, and that Ebola was a bioweapon. The false stories spread across the internet, helped along by Donald Trump, far-right outlets like Breitbart News [emphasis mine], pseudoscience platforms like Natural News, and last but not least, the Kremlin’s notorious “Internet Research Agency” troll farm." Isi96 (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Isi96: I apologize, my edit summary contained the false [emphasis mine] words "did not even mention". However, even if we accepted that Isobel Cockerell of .coda was reliable for this, that only says "helped along", not that Breitbart actually made the claims in order to spread a hoax. I googled site:breitbart.com ebola weapon and got 10 results, but they were mostly about what others (Forbes, Daily Mail, Daily Observer, Chinese propagandists) said. And they're hardly alone, yet I don't see that the National Institute of Health and Washington Post are far-righters helping along the conspiracy theory by reporting what others said. Do you have anything to show your insert is supported and npov and due? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Peter Gulutzan Okay, thank you for the clarification. In that case, I have no objection to your edit. Isi96 (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I made another edit just to note the false wording of the edit summary and point to this thread. (I hope that's a right way to make a correction when an edit summary was bad.) Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Recruiting
DrFleischman on 5 April 2018 added a "recruiting" template. I am removing it but if there's evidence that it happened recently, fine, re-insert it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

FAQ additions
DrFleischman added this talk page's FAQ on 27 June 2017. This was perhaps justifiable, there was a short mention on the talk page at the time about putting in a FAQ about the use of "far-right". But only about far-right. Subsequently JzG and Newslinger, without any discussion that I can see, added their opinions about what deprecation means and why Breitbart is blacklisted, etc. (Changes of transcluded pages don't appear in the main talk page history.) I have removed their additions but if there's agreement after discussion that their opinions deserve such positioning, fine, let them re-insert. Peter Gulutzan (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The endless gaslighting about Breitbart is worrying. You know why nobody talks about the alt-right any more? They are no longer alt. Breitbart is a far-right propaganda outlet. Pretending otherwise does nobody any favours. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)