Talk:Rebel News/Archive 3

How Wikipedia deals with "denial"/"skeptic" terminology for Climate change denial
The Wikipedia community has a very clear understanding of how we should deal with this subject, all backed by RS, as demonstrated in the lead for the Climate change denial article, and that certainly applies here.

"Climate change denial, or global warming denial, is denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its effects on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions. Many who deny, dismiss, or hold unwarranted doubt about the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming self-label as "climate change skeptics", which several scientists have noted is an inaccurate description.  but the word "skepticism" is incorrectly used, as scientific skepticism is an intrinsic part of scientific methodology. Climate change denial can also be implicit when individuals or social groups accept the science but fail to come to terms with it or to translate their acceptance into action. Several social science studies have analyzed these positions as forms of denialism,  pseudoscience, or propaganda.



Ping: Peter Gulutzan, Masterhatch -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Agree, should also mention oil sands extraction industry in Alberta, and maybe claims that it's "ethical oil". . dave souza, talk 05:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that good addition. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I see no relevance to the earlier threads ("Sentence inserted in the lead on 6 February 2022" + "Climate change denial again"), unless this is another attempt to claim that Financial Post said Rebel News is denialist. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Peter Gulutzan, are you trying to say that they are not denialist, even though RS say they are? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Valjean No. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Citing last=Graves and last2=Beard
Dave souza: Re this edit: It's my understanding that a cite should have the name of the author. Shouldn't that be Roberta Laurie? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * When I put that URL into this tool (https://citer.toolforge.org/citer.fcgi) I get the same result. It chooses to use the editors' names. When I find that chapter here (https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781351052146-10/still-ethical-oil-roberta-laurie) and put it in, it can't handle it and create a ref. I guess that could be done manually. Do you have a proposal for improving that ref? Should we just use her name instead of theirs? Give credit where credit is due. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I asked the editor who made the cite. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Current ref: Proposed version: Feel free to improve. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Good call, it's Laurie's contribution in an edited collection, so have now modified it using some of the template from WP:CITET to suit, dave souza, talk 12:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That looks good. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Climate Change Denial Again
Valjean, while and after walking back a bit of the editing discussed in the previous thread, has: (1) kept category = climate change denial, (2) kept link to Wikipedia climate change denial article, (3) moved up a clause that Rebel has published articles "claiming that the public has been deceived about [climate change]", which again is completely missing from the cited Financial Post article, (4) added a section heading "Climate change denialist views", (5) added a cite to an opinion article in National Observer, which Rebel News calls "far-left", without in-text attribution, (6) added a partial quote of a 2013 article by Maxwell T. Boykoff (paywalled) (Rebel News was founded in 2015), (7) added a quote from a blog post i.e. Oil Change International which insults two living people i.e. Ezra Levant and Tim Ball, (8) added a quote from The Walrus, another obvious opponent of Rebel News. Naturally I think there are problems with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, WP:BLPSPS, WP:UNDUE, and poor sourcing. I will remove these items if there is no consensus for them. Is there consensus for them? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Peter Gulutzan, I agree with you on these points. Biggest problem here on wikipedia re climate change is that for some reason skeptic and denier are synonyms. Being a skeptic is healthy. Being a denier is unhealthy. They are not synonyms and shouldn't be treated as such. Masterhatch (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Masterhatch, you recognize a key fact, the "Biggest problem here on Wikipedia..." That is a problem for pseudoscience pushers, not for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is dealing with the problem correctly, so it isn't really our "problem". Our job is to recognize what's really happening and to deal with pseudoscientific deception accordingly. An RfC on this subject would undoubtedly implicate editors who whitewash these articles using fringe reasoning, and maybe that's what we should do if they keep whitewashing these articles. Topic bans would be handed out and their reputations would deservedly be damaged.
 * You correctly recognize that (at Wikipedia, when dealing with pseudoscience subjects like vaccine and climate change denialism) we treat skeptic and denier as synonyms. That is because we are dealing with Big Oil pseudoscience propaganda terminology, and in that world they misleadingly use the word "skepticism" to disguise their denialism and anti-science views as legitimate scientific skepticism. They are lying to us. In the real world of science, the words are not synonyms. In science, skepticism is a fundamental part of scientific thinking. One starts by questioning everything, especially unusual claims. Then, as a near universal consensus forms, those who still refuse to accept the evidence are treated as obstreperous and ignorant anti-science deniers. Wikipedia and scientific thinking are aligned. We treat deniers like Rebel News the same way that science treats it. Our policies demanding verifiability and RS for content mirror scientific demands for evidence before believing unusual claims.
 * Climate change "skeptics", especially at Rebel Media, are not scientific skeptics. Their "skepticism" is poorly disguised denialism used to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change, and many of these "skeptics" are funded by big oil to push their denial while deceptively claiming they are "skeptics". That BS subterfuge and whitewashing should not affect editing here. RS accurately tell us that Rebel News and Levant are denialists. That's why they vigorously oppose the scientists who support the reality of anthropogenic climate change. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Masterhatch, I see that a few minutes after you posted that, Bishonen sent you a DS/Alert. I doubt that Bishonen will comment about the actual issue here but this sort of administrator interest is a danger sign so Valjean's threats can't be dismissed. However, Valjean has not even tried to reply to the points I mentioned, and two people oppose Valjean's editing, and zero people support it (so far). I'm hopeful. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah. I post ONE edit and she fires a shot across the bow. That plus the damaged rep comment by valjean. I don't have time for people who use threats to stiffle debate. Masterhatch (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Peter, I have tried to deal with the few legitimate objections in your complaint above. Is there anything left to fix? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Valjean I have known from the start that the fixing, i.e. removal, is up to me. Valjean walked back 6), which was the insertion of In a research article for American Behavioral Scientist, Maxwell T. Boykoff grouped them with others as "Outlier voices—particularly those views often dubbed climate 'skeptics,' 'denialists,' or 'contrarians'... [whose] outlier interventions demonstrate themselves to be (at times deliberately) detrimental to efforts seeking to enlarge rather than constrict the spectrum of possibility for varied forms of climate action. ... since I don't have access to that paywalled article it was pure luck that I noticed Valjean was claiming that Boykoff's article written in 2013 was describing Rebel News which was founded in 2015. And Valjean replaced the bad citing of (3) i.e. it wasn't in the Financial Post article, but not removed it. I will wait for another day, in case anyone else has something to say. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I've done removal for items I mentioned in this thread's initial post. Valjean didn't reply directly about most of them on this talk page (I don't count accusations about whitewashing or suggestions they weren't legitimate), nobody supported the insertions, two editors opposed while pointing to PAGs. For (1) I removed the category per RfCs that have discussed bias categories (e.g. here, upheld later). For (2) I did nothing because the improper use of the Financial Post was removed by another editor. For (3) I removed the BLP-related remarks by Andy Rowell ("When not blogging for Oil Change, Andy is a freelance writer ..."). For (4) I only removed the word "denialist" which does not belong in the section heading because we should allow for all views. For (5) I removed, there's no reason to give this opinion article so much space i.e. not due. For (6) I didn't need to remove any further because the Boykoff claim is already gone as described above. For (7) I removed for the same reason as for (3). For (8) I removed the lengthy quote from The Walrus since it's still an opponent magazine and besides the only mention in the article is ""every Rebel or Breitbart fan you meet", once again failure to get direct support which is necessary for WP:V as I explained in the previous thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have restored two small things, per the edit summary. Even though the rest of your reasoning is generally bogus wikilawyering, I have not undone the rest of your deletions. NPOV demands that the views of opponents is included. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Valjean has also commented on my talk page. The two not-so-small things are: (4) put back "denialist" in the section heading (5) put back this: In an article for Canada's National Observer, Max Fawcett mentioned Rebel Media as one of the groups who undermine "the scientific consensus around climate change and vaccines". It's another paywalled piece but I have seen it. The url contains "/opinion" and just after the title line are the words "By Max Fawcett | Opinion, Politics". Valjean had already inserted many words from it (the quote from Mr Trudeau), which I left alone. The passage with context is: But while the exchange between Rebel News and the PM may have been an unwitting gift to the Liberals, the exchange should remind everyone that all groups dedicated to spreading misinformation and anger are a cancer on our body politic. These groups specialize in ginning up fear and anger around any number of causes, whether it’s attacking progressive leaders like Rachel Notley and Trudeau or undermining the scientific consensus around climate change and vaccines. Indeed, it’s built right into their business models, and the prime minister’s rebuke will almost certainly generate a renewed flow of donations and cash for groups like The Rebel. I think that's vague and I suggested it's not due. I believe Valjean has not tried to make a case for re-insertion in this talk page thread (again I am not counting accusations), except for the claim "NPOV demands that the views of opponents is included" (sic), which isn't exactly in WP:NPOV, and in any case the article has views of opponents. I would like to know whether Masterhatch agrees specifically with removal of this re-insertion in whole or in part. And of course it would be fine if anyone else who's been just watching would comment specifically about this re-insertion. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Peter regarding the National Observer text. As for "denialist" in the heading, that shouldn't be there either. It is "leading" to the readers. Simply putting "Climate change views" as the heading says enough. By adding denialist to the heading, it removes the neutrality before the reader even has the chance to read the first sentence. Let the body of the section and the sources describe Rebel's views on climate change, not the section heading. Masterhatch (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Peter, your efforts to whittle down any mention of the climate change denialist views held by Rebel News/Levant are tiring. The mention in Canada's National Observer is due, and if you think that NPOV doesn't require the inclusion of existing opposing views found in RS, then you don't understand NPOV. You've already succeeded in removing significant mention of opposing views, and now you're going after mention in a major RS. That mention is attributed properly and worded very simply, yet you keep on trying.
 * The heading should neutrally and accurately describe the content. Rebel News has denialist views, so that mention in the heading is NPOV neutral.
 * Climate denialist views are fringe views, which means that due weight requires greater/larger mention of the mainstream views than of the fringe views of Rebel News. The criticism should be glaringly obvious. By whittling it down, you are giving fringe views too much weight, and that violates FRINGE and NPOV. WP:PARITY also comes into play, so we are very lenient with any mentions from sources that voice mainstream views sympathetic to the scientific consensus. Those sources do not have to be major sources, just ones that voice the mainstream POV in criticisms of Rebel News/Levant. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Valjean: WP:ONUS says "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." You didn't have it before you inserted, you didn't have it or seek it when you re-inserted, nobody has agreed with you, two editors have clearly disagreed and have explained why. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Update: since Valjean insists that NPOV is involved, I posted to WP:NPOVN, thread Sentence in Rebel news article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The WP:NPOVN discussion is now archived. Although it still led to no consensus, I'll respect the comment of Doug Weller (though I disagree with it) "In. It's clearly accurate and he's a good source, even if he has made mistakes in the past." referring to Max Fawcett after I pointed to this. Doug Weller: one dispute remains: whether the re-insertion of the word "denialist" in the section heading "Climate change denialist views" is okay despite objections above from two editors. Unless you (or anyone else watching) supports it, I will remove, noting WP:ONUS as before. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Peter Gulutzan thanks for your comment about Fawcett. I think it's pretty obvious RN is denialist/skeptic, in a nutshell why not have it in the article? Doug Weller  talk 15:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Doug Weller: The question is rather: why not have it in the section heading. You'll see the objections above: (by me) "I only removed the word "denialist" which does not belong in the section heading because we should allow for all views." (by Masterhatch) "By adding denialist to the heading, it removes the neutrality before the reader even has the chance to read the first sentence. Let the body of the section and the sources describe Rebel's views on climate change, not the section heading." To expand on my statement: their view (or somebody's view of their view) can change or there can be additional statements about Rebel New's frequent articles slamming the government's handling of the matter i.e. something that is related to climate change but not to whether it occurs, and it is better to have a section heading that can encompass all the topic from an early stage because MOS:BROKENSECTIONLINKS is a hassle. To expand on Masterhatch's statement (without consulting Masterhatch) WP:SECTIONHEAD says Section headings should generally follow the guidance for article titles ... which indirectly relates to WP:NDESC "Non-judgmental titles" (implication = the word is unacceptable if judgmental and not neutral), and mentions "... sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent with those of related articles." The extra word makes it too precise and less concise, and the related article Ezra Levant has section headings that mostly don't say what his views are, e.g. "Political views", "Views on Quebec" (though the two section headings containing "against/opponent" show this isn't universal). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, Peter, you summed up my thoughts about "denialist" in the heading quite well. Masterhatch (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * But the way it is at the bottom of the lead is consistent with WP:LEAD. Doug Weller  talk 13:04, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller: The last sentence in the lead was adjusted by Dave souza on 26 April 2022, it was not one of the matters brought up in this thread. If there are no replies to my requests for other opinions about whether denialist should be in the section heading, and to the objections from me and Masterhatch, that's fine, I'll remove it soon. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not too excited about that, just wanted to mention the lead. Doug Weller  talk 14:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Then there's no support for the re-insertion of "denialist" except from the re-inserter, there are opponents and unanswered objections, and WP:ONUS applies. I removed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You are not listening. You try to paint me as a sole supporter of using "denialist", but User:Doug Weller said, regarding your intent to remove the word from the section heading, "Not too excited about that". That makes two mainstream editors in favor of keeping it, and two who favor a fringe POV against, and mainstream wins around here.
 * Again, you are still trying, one word at a time, to delete/minimize any mention of the climate change denialist views held by Rebel News/Levant. This removal of the word from the heading makes it less descriptive of the actual content, so you know what this looks like. If this wasn't a fringe topic, there wouldn't be much to say, but since it is, removal of the word clearly "tends to further a fringe POV". Why do we always have to keep an eye on editors who do this? Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia that favors mainstream RS, and thus the views they document (such as the scientific consensus on global warming). We do not favor fringe POV here, and editors should not tend to support such views or protect those who advance them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller: is Valjean's interpretation of your words true? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I won't die on the barricades for it, but I think it's a good idea. Sorry if I was confusing. Doug Weller  talk 14:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, you certainly confused me. So now two editors (Valjean and Doug Weller) favour Valjean's re-insertion, two editors (Peter Gulutzan and Masterhatch) oppose, and Valjean has inserted a third time. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

RfC whether Rebel News should be in category Alt-right websites
Should Rebel News (also known as The Rebel Media) be in category = Alt-right websites? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

In 2017 in talk thread Alt-right there was a side discussion whether Category = Alt-right was okay. (In December 2020 Feminist moved it to the more specific category Alt-right websites.) Thread participants were PackMecEng Doug Weller Newimpartial PeterTheFourth Edaham. It wasn't decided, and I backed off from doing an RfC about it at the time. I see the matter has has come up again because User:MrMemer223 removed the category with no edit summary, then Valjean re-inserted it with edit summary = "External links: Rvt vandalism. This is justified by content and RS." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * No. WP:CATVER requires that there be sources to show the categorization is appropriate but they only vaguely say the accusation has been made. WP:CATPOV says categorizations should generally be uncontroversial but the proof that it's controversial is right here we're seeing a controversy. WP:CATDEF says reliable sources should commonly and consistently define thus but in fact the ultimate sources of the accusation are unspecified.  And a removal of a bias category is justified "per RfCs that have discussed bias categories (e.g. here, upheld later)". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes Why wouldn't it be? This seems like a bizarre question to ask. Rebel News is an absolutely classic example of an Alt-Right website. The article content should probably reflect this more than it does. If Breitbart News belongs in that category then Rebel News does equally. It is listed in the Alt-right footer template. I see no reason to exclude it from this category. Wikipedia is not censored. DanielRigal (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This comment is significantly more bizarre than the question being asked. If it's a clearly obvious fact to everyone that it's an alt-right website, the article would state that, but it doesn't. In fact from a quick google the sources I can find about Rebel News don't call them alt-right, and neither do any sources in this article. You can't WP:BLUESKY your way into calling something alt-right. Endwise (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. The article should say it. It is way beyond bizarre that it doesn't. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * No. The article does not state in Wikipedia's voice that it is an alt-right website, so it cannot be a category (this is implied by WP:CATPOV/WP:CATV). Endwise (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * But why doesn't it? It definitely should. This is not a news website with an incidental sideline in Alt-Right opinions. This is a site set up for the propagation of Alt-Right content as its core activity. Rather than censor the categories we need to improve the article with valid content. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No one here is being "censored" because a category not supported by the article's content is removed from the article. Your issue is with how the article itself is written -- which is fine, but outside the scope of this discussion. Endwise (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anybody was being censored. I was pointing out that we should not censor the article just because an Alt-Right website is a bit sensitive about being described as Alt-Right. We can note their denials, of course, but we can't ignore the facts here. DanielRigal (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on the sources I linked below, I believe that the category is justified and the term "alt-right" should appear in the article text, in wikivoice. The sourcing has improved markedly since 2017. Newimpartial (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes - we have multiple, peer-reviewed, academic sources that show the categorization is appropriate. I don't know what your mean, Peter, by they only vaguely say the accusation has been made, but that statement appears to be your personal opinion, and not based on high-quality sources. And your subsequent comment about the ultimate sources of the accusation seems absurd: this isn't an "accusation", and "the ultimate sources" of the characterization in question are qualified academic experts in the field. Who better? This controversy you speak of exists among Wikipedia editors, not within the RS. Newimpartial (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Where? They're not in the article. Endwise (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Newimpartial (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * To assist with access for people who can't read those, some relevant quotes about Rebel News/Rebel Media from those papers:
 * Other ‘alt-right’ sites have appeared across the Western world including Rebel Media in Canada, ... In Canada, Rebel News is also anti-establishment and features a strong focus of attacking mainstream media, feminism, Islam and immigration
 * Rebel, whose masthead has been a revolving door of alt-right influencers... The controversies erupting from the Rebel’s alt-right ties have also... In managing the Rebel, Levant’s editorial strategy has been to flirt with the fringes of the alt-right, only letting pundits go when public outrage reaches a high pitch... etc., this is a deep dive mostly into Rebel's YouTube channel, so it says a lot.
 * The most active engagement from conservative audiences, however, was reserved for alt-right outlets such as The Post Millennial, Rebel News, True North, Breitbart and...
 * Might it be beneficial to stop this RfC and discuss how this article should describe them instead? IMO that's the actual relevant question, as the category should just follow the article content. Endwise (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe. I wanted to say that, on the second source, its authors decided to use The Rebel as a case study to investigate the relationship between alt-right hosts and alt-right audiences. The relationship between the study's corpus of evidence, the concept "alt-right" and The Rebel defines the entire project. Newimpartial (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Mr Levant's actual opinion of the alt right is extremely negative, according to quotes in National Post. I notice Wikipedia's current Alt-right article allows that the term is "ill-defined" but features a demo with a swastika flag. I have no idea what definition the referenced paywalled writers use but it doesn't appear to be either Mr Levant's or Wikipedia's. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes it is currently in both "far-right" and "alt-right", as they both apply per RS. We could certainly add many more RS to the article about the "alt-right" label. Google searches show that "far-right" is by far the most commonly used of the two terms, but "alt-right" is also used and both are true. "Extremist" should also be included more in the article as this is also a description used by RS. They are in the same class as Breitbart and have been called Canada's Breitbart. Here's another good source for "alt-right": -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * More quoting from the same editorial: ""The organization of this special issue and the editorial has been made possible in part by the support of the Government of Canada." I wouldn't call it "another" source since Newimpartial already pointed to the article in this CJOC issue. I wouldn't call it a "good" source since editorials are opinions and citing them in the article without attribution (which Valjean has suddenly done) is only an aid to saying they've been described, not whether the category is appropriate, which is the topic. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a clarification about this "since Newimpartial already pointed to the article in this CJOC issue". They pointed to a different article from cjc. Different articles with different authors. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, Peter: we should not be saying have been described any more. We now have consensus among the high-quality sources that Rebel News belongs to the alt-right, just as we previously had consensus among the high-quality sources that Rebel News belongs to the far-right (as already reflected in the stable article text). We do not attribute facts, and by the standards of WP:V, these are facts. Newimpartial (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Bingo! How true. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I realize that opposition to removing the category is strong. Per WP:RFCCLOSE I, as the editor who started the RfC, am removing the rfc tag, which effectively closes the discussion as an RfC but does not say other comments must end. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. From the discussions above, it appears to me that both "far right" and "alt-right" labels have enough justification to warrant a categorization. In addition, for what it's worth, the Alt-right footer has had Rebel News since September 18, 2020. SWinxy (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)