Talk:Breitbart News

Mention of Milo Yiannopoulos Twitter squabble

I do not think the mention of Breitbart journalist Milo Yiannopoulos's Twitter squabble with actor Leslie Jones is worth mentioning in this article's "Breitbart Tech" section.

Tons of journalists have been in conflicts before, are we really going to mention every single incident involving a NYTimes reporter on the main NYTimes article? How are the personal conflicts of a reporter relevant to the main news organization? The fact that the report identifies who he is as a Breitbart journalist doesn't make it relevant to this article. Marquis de Faux (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Two sentences seems appropriate. He's not just a journalist, he's the editor of the section, and a major figure with the site. Twitter reflects on tech journalism, also. Breitbart interviewed him in response to this incident (per the Guardian source), where he claims this is about not just himself, but all conservatives on Twitter. There are other sources covering this incident as a reflection of the site, also. These could be added if necessary. Grayfell (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it's a WP:COAT and probably WP:POV, and should be removed. It seems fairly plainly there to say "these guys hire racists". Compare the complete lack of coverage of the firing of Roger Ailes on Fox News. The minutiae and drama of individuals is simply not relevant to an encyclopedic coverage of an organization. TimothyJosephWood 21:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm really surprised that's not mentioned at Fox News, since Ailes is absolutely central to that station's identity and history. Far more so than Yiannopoulos is to Breitbart. That seems like something that should be addressed at Fox News Channel, and the comparison doesn't clearly show a weakness in this article. Grayfell (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

It's in the lead on Roger Ailes. And how is this Milo fellow even close to fulfilling the role that Ailes did at Fox? Seems a lot like he's just a guy in middle management. TimothyJosephWood 01:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, he's not, isn't that what I just said? Yiannopoulos is not as important to Breitbart as Ailes is to Fox (although trying to compare Breitbart to Fox is dicey), but he is a prominent, popular face of the site. His activity on Twitter is significant to both his personal notability, and, I think, to his status as technology editor of the site. Anything more than this would probably be too much, but I don't see a problem with a couple of sentences. On the other hand, this may be a case of recentism, but the sources do make the connection. Grayfell (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I was sortof pointing out how you were making my argument for me. I think if you follow the reasoning to its logical conclusion, than if two sentences for this person's twitter spat are WP:DUE, then so should be two sentences for their apparent involvement in Gamergate, and so should a few sentences on Brandon Darby's FBI involvement, and Greg Gutfeld's remarks on Canadians and the Ground Zero Mosque, and...

Well, you see where this goes. BB is a controversial outlet, that hires controversial people, who are involved in controversies. That's kindof their brand. A body can probably dig up a controversy for nearly everyone named, and include a few sentences per your argument, and the article would become an unreadable bloat of unrelated content. If we agree that that's not appropriate, then I see no reason to make exception for this person.

This of course wouldn't be the case if an argument could be made that this individual is somehow centrally important to the org (as Ailes arguably may have been), but that doesn't seem to be the case. I'm not really seeing any argument for inclusion that, consistently applied, doesn't destroy the article. TimothyJosephWood 13:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The sources plainly illustrate the relevance to Breitbart. Including a couple of sentences in this article seems reasonable to me. Even Breitbart considers it WP:DUE [1] [2].- MrX 14:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

And they've also published Gutfeld's sentiments about a ground zero Mosque. So we should include that also? TimothyJosephWood 14:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I think we can and should judge these on a case-by-case basis, and in practice, that's what always seems to happen, anyway. If Darby had been an informant while also being a Breitbart editor, that would almost certainly have gotten coverage specifically in relation to Breitbart. As for Gutfeild, his comments haven't even reached Fox News Channel controversies which says more about Fox than Gutfeild, but again we would judge based on sources. Grayfell (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh well. I gave it a try. I still think it's a WP:COAT and WP:POV, but I don't care enough about BB to argue it at length or go to RfC. That's probably where some of the supposed WP bias comes from: no one who lasts long enough to make a difference cares enough about these articles. All the best. TimothyJosephWood 20:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you're wrong, I just see it as a matter of degree. Sometimes Patience - Apathy = Consensus. It's not a great way to get there, but it's still consensus. Grayfell (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The passage is about a person who is not the subject of the article, therefore it should go in the article about the person, and not the article about which the person is not. That's the beginning and end of my argument as it pertains to policy. If that's not convincing then there's no point pursuing if further. I'm not sure there's really a grey area where you can agree with me and still want to include it. There's not a lot of nuance required. TimothyJosephWood 20:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

This is a minor detail which arguably relates to Breitbart as a topic. It is arguable. I see what your saying, and agree that restraint is called for. I would be willing to explain further why I still side with including it here, but it doesn't seem like either of us really wants to bother dragging this on any longer. That's fine, but don't make it personal. These kinds of arguments are frustrating, but I'm not sure what the point of implying in passing that the editors you don't agree with are being biased. We don't agree on this. So what? Grayfell (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't mean to imply that you in particular are biased. But I do think that if similar content were to be debated on a non-horse-shit bile-spewing ethnocentric propagandizing pulp-impersonation-of-a-news organization, that it would be fairly uncontroversial. TimothyJosephWood 21:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Well... maybe so, I dunno. Non-horse-shit news sites hold their representatives to higher standards, though, which is why they're non-horse-shit. Maybe this is just more gossip, but when these things happen at more reliable sites, they are handled very differently by those sites, like Vox suspending Emmett Rensin. Breitbart ignores or actively embraces this kind of behavior which seems kind of noteworthy. Maybe that's too WP:OR-ish, but when there are so many incidents like this it becomes frustrating to have an article that doesn't at least attempt to reflect this larger picture. As you say, they appear to deliberately hire controversial people. It's not a coincidence. Yiannopoulos and his activity with Breitbart have been very controversial, but all this article says is that he's technology editor. That's accurate, but it seems almost euphemistic. I don't know how to include this, which is why I say I see where you're coming from, but I still think this helps fill-in a gap in the article. Grayfell (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's WP:OR at all, I just think that the WP:DUE weight is questionable given that everyone involved is a propagandist involved in some sort of controversy. TimothyJosephWood 00:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I was just reverted by MrX because I reduced the couple of sentences he advocated to one sentence. The due weight standards of a news site (and I use that term loosely) are very different from those of an encyclopedia. Reporters ask themselves "will the following be significant a week from now?" We ask ourselves "will the following be significant 10 years from now?" If you want to make all sections in this article have miniature biographies of their editors, then go right ahead. But as it stands, the fact looks completely cherry-picked. I agree with Timothyjosephwood's sentiment that it's only an issue here because the people with a strict view of Wikipedia policy tend to stay away from articles about shitty sites. Connor Behan (talk) 02:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Eh. RfC is always an option I guess. Or request third party opinions. TimothyJosephWood 10:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

My main objection to Connor Behan's edit is that it removed too much context. Doing so leaves readers in the dark. We should either explain what the controversy is about, or remove it altogether. I note that the controversy received quite a bit of coverage, and Breitbart can't seem to stop talking about it.- MrX 12:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

This is an instance where I would say BB isn't a reliable source, even about themselves. They have a clear interest in drumming up controversy and making themselves look like they're relevant and waging some kind of cultural battle. Same way I would say that Fox isn't a reliable source on the recent sex scandal, the Megan Kelly spat, or wars on nouns. TimothyJosephWood 12:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 24 September 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Keeping the current WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT setup. — JFG ^talk 15:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

---

Breitbart News → Breitbart – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Most sources call the website "Breitbart" and not "Breitbart News". Consensus that the news website is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Breitbart" has been established at Talk:Breitbart (surname). SSTflyer 13:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Per nominator. Meatsgains (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. The site's official accounts use "Breitbart News", as do its profiles on sites like Politico. On Google News, they're listed until "Breitbart News". Articles about them mostly use "Breitbart News" upon first mention. I don't think it should be shortened; dropping "News" is mostly a colloquialism. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Echoing what Nohomersryan said. The vast majority of reliable sources use Breitbart News at first reference, as does the website itself. For example, some recent articles: [3], [4], [5]. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support - 'Breitbart' commonly refers to the news website/organization and is prominently the brand in their masthead and copyright notice. It's concise, sufficiently precise, natural and recognizable. Mainstream media routinely refers to the website/organization as just "Breitbart" in their headlines [6] [7] [8] [9] [10].- MrX 17:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• Headlines are generally pithier because of space constraints. Headlines also typically use only last names (e.g., "Obama did X"), but I don't think that should mean we should only use last names as titles for articles. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. I believe "Breitbart" should continue to exist as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, but titling the article "Breitbart" is less recognizable and precise for a shaky WP:COMMONNAME claim. As said above, the site itself is mainly identified as "Breitbart News" at first reference. The company's own Twitter handle is "Breitbart News" [11] and their editorial articles are frequently credited to Breitbart News. In addition, they have a feature called "Breitbart News Daily". So, the WP:COMMONNAME usage here is questionable. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 04:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Breitbart should remain a redirect. For example, Fox News Channel is more commonly known as Fox News, and yet the name of that page is "Fox News Channel". Yoshiman6464 (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Potential WP:Undue with "curiosity of the fringe right wing" in lead

The lead reads, "The New York Times describes Breitbart News as a "curiosity of the fringe right wing", with "ideologically driven journalists", that is a source of controversy "over material that has been called misogynist, xenophobic and racist", and is now a "potent voice" for Donald J. Trump's presidential campaign."

While personally I think that that is certainly a valid description and should be included somewhere in the article, having a direct line that calls it a source of controversy "over material that has been called misogynist, xenophobic and racist" seems very POV. Numerous outlets have been "called" many things by critics, and while they should be considered, their criticisms ought not to be displayed so prominently in the lead which would be WP:Undue. I am in favor of creating a section entitled, "Editorial perspective and criticism" devoted specifically to this topic in the body. Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe. A 'perspectives and criticism' section is really tempting, but that's got many, many potential problems. It could be done, though. I don't get the impression that anyone is 100% happy with how the article is organized (I'm not, at least) but preserving NPOV is the priority, and the NYT line is helpful for that.

Since it's hardly a novel position, the NYT's take seems as good as any summary. Leads should summarize the body, and if this is worth including there in any depth, and it is, it's worth mentioning in the lead. Separate WP:CSECTIONs risk ghettoizing critical commentary, and in this case, it would be misleading, since this is more-or-less the position held by the majority of reputable analysts of journalism. It's not just one source saying this, it's one of the world's major news outlets echoing countless other sources, so I don't think it's undue in this case.

CSECTIONS also attract weak sources like a magnet, and tend to get overstuffed with every semi-notable blogger's comments, or worse, a tit-for-tat game of "liberal says this, but conservative says that" which is non-productive. That's not necessarily an argument against the idea, but if it's going to be done it needs to be done well to prevent that junk. Grayfell (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Faux. Most news organisations have probably been called what is stated, although not supporters of Trump. 37.253.215.83 (talk) 06:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't recall any actual news organizations being described that way. The NYT description of Breitbart does appear to be a rather tame summary reflecting the general consensus regarding the website's content and positions. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I have heard people say such things about the new york times personally. I dubt you can say there are a consensus on what insults you can call a news site. And yes these claims are insults, not factual statements. 37.253.242.210 (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by verifiable sources, not personal anecdotes. The professional opinions of reputable journalists and other experts should be considered regardless of whether or not they're perceived as insulting. Grayfell (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Then verify that their claim are true. And by this I mean, show that actual racist, sexist etc. things has been written. And be sure that the defenition you use are correct. I did not write percived to be insulting, Grayfell, I wrote that it were meant as insults, by these so-called journalists. 37.253.210.216 (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Breitbart News. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150702002145/http://www.nationaljournal.com/the-man-behind-weiner-s-resignation-20110616 to http://www.nationaljournal.com/the-man-behind-weiner-s-resignation-20110616

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The "propaganda" label in the lead

1. The first source quotes accusations from former staffers. A quote from a former staffer calling it "propaganda" does not make it Wikipedia's official voice. 2. The word "propaganda" has a specifically negative and NPOV connotation. The article makes Breitbart's political ideology very clear and describes it at several different places. Citing a source linking it to an ideology does not merit its description as propaganda. Any partisan news outlet can be described as "propaganda" under this logic. Nearly all MSM sources, for example, describe The Huffington Post as a liberal news outlet, with journalism professor Jon Bekken calling it an "advocacy newspaper." Should the Wikipedia article on The Huffington Post describe it as a "propaganda website" citing those sources? Are the Daily Kos, Daily Caller, Fox News, and MSNBC all "propaganda outlets", since it would be easy to find sources describing them as having a political ideology? This is an extremely POV description that can be applied to every single media outlet with sources linking it to a political ideology. I understand that many Wikipedia editors have an extreme disgust for the right-wing populist ideology embraced by Breitbart, and I in many ways can understand why they may feel that way. However for the sake of maintaining the integrity of this project please put aside your feelings and maintain neutrality. There is zero precedent at all for this kind of characterization, and not even state-run government outlets like People's Daiy or PressTV are described as such. Marquis de Faux (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Propaganda is fairly synonymous with Breitbart now, especially since in the past year after they abandoned any pretense of being a news site and decided to pimp for Trump. There may be a less emotionally charged word that we should be using such as "advocacy", but the substantive point is that they have little objectivity and are obviously trying to increase ad revenue by furthering an ideological agenda.[12] (BTW, Huffington Post is not far behind them). Here's what some sources say:

"In the most visible sign of the New World Order, the Trump-loving Breitbart News Network—which operated as a propaganda conduit and outrage engine for the reality show billionaire’s angry-populist juggernaut—announced"
— 'Daily Beast'

""In the regular conservative movement, Breitbart is a laughing stock," said Shapiro. "It's all spin. It's a propaganda outfit." " (n.b. Shapiro worked for Breitbart)
— 'CNN Money'

"The full fruits of this effort can be seen daily on Fox News and Breitbart, the leading propaganda organs of the Trump campaign." (Eric Chenoweth is co-director of the Institute for Democracy in Eastern Europe)
— 'The Washington Post'

"Over the past year however, the outlet has undergone a noticeable shift toward embracing ideas on the extremist fringe of the conservative right. Racist ideas. Anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant ideas –– all key tenets making up an emerging racist ideology known as the “Alt-Right.”"
— 'SPLC'

"But Bannon had been on Team Trump for months before that as the power behind Breitbart News, the Web network whose unabashed advocacy for Trump (and disparagement of Trump's allies) helped reinforce Trump's campaign messaging through the spring and summer."
— 'The Washington Post'

We should discount Shapiro's opinion, but not completely dismiss it. I think we also have to acknowledge in the article that Breitbart's recent increase in traffic and popularity is due, at least in part, to them facilitating overt racism. - MrX 19:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the description paragraph "Breitbart is aligned with the alt-right,[9] and Bannon declared the site "the platform for the alt-right" in 2016.[10] The New York Times describes Breitbart News as a "curiosity of the fringe right wing", with "ideologically driven journalists", that is a source of controversy "over material that has been called misogynist, xenophobic and racist", and is now a "potent voice" for Donald Trump's presidential campaign.[11]" is sufficient enough to convey your points that it is unabashedly pro-Trump and ideological. I would not be opposed to adding criticism or expansion in the History section or somewhere else in the body but the straight-out "propaganda" label in the lead would violate WP:NPOV standards. The current article does a good job of making clear its agenda. Marquis de Faux (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough.- MrX 23:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Marquis.

Regarding the two concerns you've outlined:

• (1) You are correct that the "propaganda" description is presently conveyed by sources that quote Breitbart employees. If the description is indeed factual, then reliable sources conveying it as factual need to be cited, otherwise the description needs to be attributed to the actual sources (and possibly removed from the lead as merely opinion). This concern can be easily remedied by citing sources which affirmatively describe it as a propaganda outlet. For example, this source which not only makes an affirmative description, but also includes analysis from media experts:

But there is a line between a single endorsement—which explains a publication’s preference publicly—and a steady flow of propaganda. The latter peddles fallacies and promotes a certain political cause through the use of selective facts over time in order to make it impossible for people to make an informed decision. Throughout this election cycle, Breitbart’s coverage has often crossed that line, even going so far as to censor the experiences of its own journalists in order to protect Trump’s reputation. But those ties to Trump had been implicit. Now they’re explicit, and that, communications researchers say, is wholly unprecedented.
— 'Wired Magazine'

• (2) The word "propaganda" can indeed have a negative connotation, but that has nothing to do with Wikipedia's NPOV Editing Policy. Neutral editing means accurately conveying the information from reliable sources, regardless if that information is negative or positive, flattering or unflattering. A serial killer may be described as a "murderer"; an earthquake may be described as "devastating"; a carrion flower may be described as "stinking". "Neutral" editing does not mean never using negative descriptions when they are factual and properly sourced. As for your personal ideology, I'm not sure why you bring that up -- you should not let that factor into your editing. As for other Wikipedia articles such as HuffPo, Daily Caller, et al., I can't answer your question as to how they should be described without thoroughly reviewing the reliable sources; but please remember that the existence of other poorly written articles is not a license to edit this one poorly.

There is zero precedent at all for this kind of characterization, and not even state-run government outlets like People's Daiy or PressTV are described as such. --Marquis de Faux

Incorrect. There are many outlets similar to Breitbart which are prominently described as "propaganda" outlets in the lead section of their articles. Not because they have a "political ideology", as you say, but because our reliable sources have so described them. Russian Life, Korea Today, Amerika Magazine, etc., come to mind, and even your example Press TV is listed in a propaganda category, so there is certainly precedent. Are you aware of any reliable sources that have examined and refuted the "propaganda" description of Breitbart?

...the straight-out "propaganda" label in the lead would violate WP:NPOV standards. --Marquis de Faux

I would be interested in hearing your rational as to why you feel it would violate WP:NPOV. If it is applicable according to reliable sources, and it is covered in the body of the article, then it would be a violation of WP:NPOV to reject putting it in the lead. I suppose an argument could be made that adding "propaganda" may be redundant to the already existing lead content, which would test the "undue" emphasis part of the policy, but I'm not sure how strong that argument would be. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

If someone is a convicted murderer, that is an objective fact that cannot be disputed or argued with. "Propaganda" is used as a derisive term for "biased news outlet". Using "propaganda" in this case is like describing someone as a "scumbag" in an article about a serial rapist and murderer. While arguably true, and you won't find any sources disputing it, that is bringing in a negatively charged-word to describe something that is already described in neutral terms and violative of WP:NPOV standards.

Critics of a publication who label it as "propaganda" are still making an assertion based on their opinion. The fact that they publish that opinion does not make them their characterization the *objective* truth. The only objective statement about Breitbart is that it is a right-wing news, opinion, and commentary outlet. A quick Google search for "Fox News propaganda" can bring up several articles from various authors calling it "propaganda" yet that does not make their assertion an objective fact. I do concede that there is precedent for labelling sources "propaganda" but only for government-run sources promoting a state agenda, which is appropriate usage. There is no question that Breitbart is biased, and they fully admit their biases. "Propaganda" is simply used as a derisive way of describing it as biased and promoting of an ideology. The article already states it is a politically conservative news publication with alt-right views, which is a neutral characterization of its purpose. No need to bring in a word with a negatively charged connotation when it is already wholly characterized with neutral terminology. Marquis de Faux (talk) 05:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Misleading description of far right site as "politically conservative"

The description of the site in the opening sentence as "politically conservative" is highly misleading; virtually all sources agree that it is positioned to the right of "conservatism in the United States" (which itself would be considered an extreme-right ideology in Europe, markedly to the right of mainstream conservatism as it is found in Europe). The site itself emphasizes its (far right) opposition to "conservatism in the United States". Reuters calls Breitbart News "a forum for the "alt-right," a loose online group of neo-Nazis, white supremacists and anti-Semites." When did "neo-Nazis, white supremacists and anti-Semites" become just "conservatives"? I suggest that we describe it as a far-right white supremacist site. --Tataral (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I think Breitbart was politically conservative for many years after its founding, which is why that sentence in the lead has three sources. But I agree, I think the website is no longer conservative and a different description is probably called for. I would support changing it to something else. The question is what to change it to. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I think "a politically far-right American news, opinion and commentary website" would be adequate as an opening sentence, with more details on the "alt-right" phenomenon below in the lead, as far-right is the broad term for the political current to the right of right-wing politics in the mainstream sense. --Tataral (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Read the article on far-right. Far-right refers to national socialism and fascism, and not even Breitbart is at that level yet. Most mainstream sources still call Breitbart "conservative". Arguably, Breitbart is paleoconservative, which still falls under the conservative umbrella even if it is not mainstream conservative. Marquis de Faux (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

No, far-right doesn't refer only to national socialism and fascism, that's just two specific ideologies of just two countries within the much broader political spectrum known as the far right. Far right simply means all ideologies to the right of mainstream right-wing/conservative ideologies (as the article on far-right politics puts it, "far-right politics are right-wing politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right"). Clearly a website which has declared itself the platform of what the ADL calls "neo-Nazis, white supremacists and anti-Semites" is far right. Describing it as "conservative" is ridiculous and an insult to conservatives, and sources usually don't describe it in such a way, at least not today (it may have been different when the site had a somewhat less extremist platform some years ago). And no, neo-Nazism, white supremacism and extremism is not "paleoconservative" either. --Tataral (talk) 07:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Far right encompasses far more political positions than national-socialism and fascism. Claiming otherwise is a disservice to political science. I am puzzled by the necessity to state that.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The alt-right is a loosely defined segment and there are certainly neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and anti-semites in it. However there is no evidence that Breitbart itself is a neo-Nazi or anti-semetic publication. Opposition to immigration, free trade, and "globalism" IS paleoconservative. Marquis de Faux (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Reuters did not make this statement about Breitbart. They *reported* that the ADL made this statement. This is the same ADL that tried to stop the muslim community center from being built near ground zero, right? Not exactly a mainstream organization. I am not a WP editor -- just a reader who came here to understand all the commotion surrounding Bannon's nomination. I genuinely knew nothing about him or Breitbart before arriving here, and I have to tell you this article reads like a hit piece. I fundamentally question the value of trying to arrive at some sort of a "consensus view" on public opinion when that view appears to be based on literally no facts whatsoever. You're just regurgitating a bunch of pundit/opinion pieces, which I thought was the domain of Fox news and their ilk, not WP. Where are the facts??? This is not intended as a defense of Breitbart / Bannon -- again I came here for info and socially I lean left so I'd be open to this kind of criticism if it were written in a way that seemed remotely encyclopedic. But the front page of Breitbart at this very moment doesn't contain any "Nazi" or "anti-Semitic" material whatsoever as far as I can see. In fact, it links to a story quoting Mark Levin as saying that while he has “strong disagreements” with Bannon’s support of the “nationalist/populist movement,” charges of anti-Semitism against him are “absolutely outrageous.” Normally in an encyclopedia, these differences of opinions are illuminated by finding sources which contains FACTS ("Breitbart published XYZ on such and such date") and not just more opinions / appeal to authority ("ADL doesn't like them"). This article needs a ton of work and much, much better sources. 148.87.23.18 (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Reuters did not report that the ADL made this statement. If you would click the link posted by Tataral, you'd see it's not attributed to any organization. The article does not even mention the ADL, so I am not sure why you brought that organization up. Also, nowhere in this article does it say Bannon is antisemitic. The rest of your criticisms are without merit. I would suggest you read WP:V which describes Wikipedia's core policy on verifiability, or see WP:ANALYSIS for acceptable secondary sources. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The Reuters piece paraphrases a widely reported comment, opposing Bannon's appointment, which the ADL did in fact make. See for instance: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/11/15/anti-defamation-league Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources and WP:UNDUE

I object to adding material based solely on primary sources, for example this. It violates WP:NPOV by giving undue prominence to a singular viewpoint. As is widespread practice on Wikipedia, we should mostly be using secondary sources published by organizations with a established reputation for fact checking.- MrX 02:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Zionist Organization of America is a well-established third party source commenting on the subject in the article. Its perspective should be included, as should ADL's. Marquis de Faux (talk) 05:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ZOA's press release is a primary source. If you want to include it find a secondary RS that quotes them. NPalgan2 (talk) 11:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Update alexa ranking and change that downward arrow sing to an up arrow

See http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/breitbart.com

It's 711, not 719 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiberalTearz (talk • contribs) 16:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Updated. The arrows correctly point down and are green to show that as the number move lower, the rank improves. See Template:DecreasePositive.- MrX 13:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I see it as 682. 151.229.53.102 (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Survey: Should Breitbart be described as far-right in the lead?

I'm seeking consensus for describing Breitbart as far-right in the lead. Please indicate your support or opposition (and reasoning) below. Threaded discussions go in the Threaded discussion section.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talk • contribs)

Support

• Yes - Prominent sources describe it as such. The Washington Post, The Guardian, Bloomberg Businessweek, The Independent, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, CNN, NBC News, New York Magazine, Politico, NPR, BBC, USA Today, Slate, Mother Jones, and Mic. That Breitbart is a far-right website is a widespread view which means we should describe it as such in Wikipedia's voice, per WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talk • contribs) Also Associated Press, Associated Press, Reuters, Orlando Sentinel, Seattle Post-intelligencer, San Francisco Chronicle, The Times of India, Chicago Sun Times, Sydney Morning Herald, Time, Newsweek, Wired, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, The Christian Science Monitor, Fox News, and Fox News. - MrX 17:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Also news articles in The Japan Times, The Australian Jewish News, The Arab American News, The Daily Dot, and The Daily Beast.- MrX 13:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• Yes "Far-right" or "Alt-right"? but yes, I prefer the latter. NOTE: the alt-right article names Breitbart in the lede. Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, it has been widely described as such in reliable sources. In fact, the site itself emphasizes its opposition to what is known as "conservatism in the United States" and its position to the far right of the "mainstream" right-wing/conservative political current in the US, and its alignment with the openly racist "alt-right" movement (comprising "white nationalism, white supremacism, Islamophobia, antifeminism, homophobia, antisemitism, and ethno-nationalism"). Hence, describing it as "conservative" is highly misleading and an insult to those normally called conservative in a US context. I prefer far right in the opening sentence because it is a more established (and broader) term, with the neologism alt-right mentioned below in the lead in the current form ("Bannon declared the site "the platform for the alt-right" in 2016"). The site declaring itself as "platform for the alt-right" is also a recent development. --Tataral (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Describe it as "right wing" not far right.

• Yes. Overwhelming support to call it "far right" based on multiple reliable sources. There are a few sources that describe it as conservative but are either brief articles that don't really discuss the website (e.g., [13] or add caveats to that description. This one seems straight forward to me. Alt-right should be mentioned in the lead as well based on reliable sources. I would support it being mentioned in the first sentence as well. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

  It's perhaps also worth considering that the site was somewhat less extreme some years ago (before it declared itself to be the platform of the alt-right), and that some sources may be out of date in regard to what the site is today. I think the opening sentence should be based on what the site is today, but that we should describe further down in the lead how it was originally conceived and evolved over the years (as we currently do). --Tataral (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Again this sounds like an opinion presented as fact, as per most of the other comments here. 151.229.53.102 (talk) 11:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. Overwhelmingly supported by the cited sources, as cataloged by MrX. I also agree with Tataral: the history section can and should discuss Breibart's shift over time from the right to the far-right (e.g., (NYT: "Mr. Bannon took over Breitbart News in 2012 after the death of its founder, Andrew Breitbart, and shifted it further to the right"; SPLC: "Over the past year however, the outlet has undergone a noticeable shift toward embracing ideas on the extremist fringe of the conservative right"); Irish Times: "Breitbart’s premature death led to the site’s takeover by Bannon, who has shifted it editorially towards becoming what he himself has described as 'the platform for the alt-right' ... a term for a movement of extreme conservatives"). Neutrality^talk 00:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - Reliable sources are clear on this, what more is needed? Grayfell (talk) 03:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources also describe it as 'conservative'. What Is Breitbart News? Avaya1 (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• Yes. Per MrX above. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, of course -- to call it "conservative" is to put it in the same camp as some conventional newspapers, when in fact it is quite distinctive. We would mislead our readers if we aren't sufficiently specific here. And of course the sources at our disposal enable us to do this, rather easily. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
• Yes per the overwhelming number of reliable sources provided above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
• Yes per the thorough and extensive research in the initial post by MrX (talk · contribs) at the beginning of this section up top. Sagecandor (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
• Yes There are many primary and secondary sources which now confirm that Breitbart is a mouthpiece for the "alt-right". The CEO, Bannon himself, said so to Mother Jones. Daaxix (talk) 04:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

That is an entirely different term, and not under consensus here. Phatwa (talk) 11:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

As a multitude of others have shown in the Steve Bannon article, the consensus in the media is that Breitbart is far-right. The following additional reporting and opinion pieces have labeled Breitbart as "right-wing" or "far-right", with the preponderance using "far-right".[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25],[26],[27],[28],[29] etc. Daaxix (talk) 12:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose it is only very recent events that have meant it has been changed from 'conservative' to 'far right'. That previous description has been in place for years. Citing the Guardian and other left wing newspapers is an obvious ploy. I think this needs to be put out for wider discussion. The edit histories of the above Wikipedians suggest something untoward here. There are more academic ie. non op-ed sources for the term "right wing" than there are "far right" also. EG: https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=%22breitbart%22+%22right+wing%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= 151.229.53.102 (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

  When the site has declared itself the platform of the far-right "alt-right" movement, and also is considered as such by sources today, it doesn't really matter if this is a somewhat recent development. The lead should of course chronicle its evolution from what it started out as to what it is today. In any event, the site's platform was always very right-wing and would certainly be called far right in many parts of the world even before its turn further to the hard right during the last few years. --Tataral (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

This sounds like an opinion. I see no evidence of Breitbart claiming to be far right. 151.229.53.102 (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The alt-right were once viewed simply as anti-immigration and patriotism, later it has been re-defined by left-wing news outlets. 88.89.178.194 (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Anti-immigrant is far right by definition in my book. --Tataral (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Anti-immigration, not anti-immigrant. To dislike immigrants who are leagal citizens, is not the same as not wanting more immigration (you probably know that, but just in case). 88.89.178.194 (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Your book doesn't define political terms. Marquis de Faux (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, smear campaigns by left wing news outlets should not dictate wikipedia articles. The previous description has been in place for years. 88.89.178.194 (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose, AP, Reuters, NYTimes, LATimes, all describe it as conservative. Most sources that describe it as far right are op-ed pieces by left wing authors. I would support labelling it "right-wing" as it is not tradictional conservative. However "far right" is way too extreme and is based on left wing characterization. Breitbart itself has stated "But Breitbart is not an alt-right publication, and the daily news content of the website speaks for itself. Moreover, there are no “white nationalists and unabashed anti-Semites and racists” working at, or published by, Breitbart." http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/17/bannon-breitbart-anti-defamation-league-backs-down/

Marquis de Faux (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• • Far-right "based on left wing characterization"? No, far-right is what conservatives, or indeed any decent person who is not an extremist, would call it. The attempt to whitewash an openly racist website as "conservative" is appaling and an insult to any conservative. --Tataral (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
    • That is your opinion that it is racist. It is not "openly racist" as the owners and editors have vigorously denied it. The fact is, Reuters, AP, and NYTimes, the paper of record, all describe it as conservative and you cannot find many non-left wing sources calling it far-right.Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
      • David Duke, grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan also calls himself non racist. Reliable sources of all stripes call Breitbart far right, even Fox news calls Breitbart far-right. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/22/trump-distances-himself-from-far-right-continues-to-attack-media.html. Perhaps Fortune is also progressive. http://fortune.com/2016/11/23/breitbart-news-ban-appnexus-digital-advertising-network/ Drsmoo (talk) 06:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Per my comment below, this survey was premised on a misleading characterization of various sources. I'm open to the application of "far-right" to Breitbart if we had a preponderance of unbiased RS using that terminology. We do not, and this entire survey has been slanted by the inaccurate citation of sources by MrX at the very beginning. I assume MrX was acting out of the best of motives, but the misleading beginning vitiates the validity of any resulting consensus, even if there was one. I'd also point out that, given the political salience of Breitbart right now, and that many RS are direct competitors and rivals to Breitbart, we need to be particularly aware of potential bias in the sources we cite. Gabrielthursday (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose The neutral articles - LA Times profile and NY Times profile - describe the website as 'conservative'. The owners themselves say they have no connection to the alt-right. The content from the website is far from 'far-right' by any stretch of the imagination - unless you want to apply the same label to Fox News or the New York Post. Avaya1 (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose On some issues, like trade and immigration, they advocate positions left of the Republican establishment. It's hard to categorize their political philosophy in a word or two but when the better sources (Reuters, AP, and NYTimes) use conservative, so should we. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose breitbart is not far right (does anybody know what this means?) and 2 of 3 sources that are saying far right dont even say far right, they say conservative and right wing. but it doesnt matter either way, call everything far right / racist / blah blah cry cry, create cover for the real far right, racist and so on. KMilos (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose "Far-right" is a contentious, editorializing term, and, as has been pointed out by others, is mostly used by overtly liberal newspapers like the Guardian and the Huffington Post. The Los Angeles Times, a very reputable newspaper, uses the term conservative, not "far-right", as do a host of other newspapers. Password123 (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Password123 is a sockpuppet account used by multiple users (in fact there was edit warring occurring against itself on the Steve Bannon page), commentary from this account cannot count as separate/additional editorial commentary. Daaxix (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose A lot of users here are confusing the terms "alt-right" and "far right", even though there are ongoing discussions on the former term separately on the relevant talk page. I'd support a change to mention "alt-right" or even "neo right" or some other term, but the term "far right" is highly contentious and needs more sources than op-ed pieces in liberal/left-wing newspapers and websites (where in the exact same article they use other terms to describe Breitbart such as 'conservative' and 'alt-right'). Inferring slate.com or HuffPo as a "reliable source" is dubious in the extreme. Phatwa (talk) 11:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Wikipedia policy is NPV, but both "Far-right" and "alt-right" are being used maliciously as smear words, in the "label and dismiss trick". Neutral tradition is to use the label people self-describe as e.g. when it comes to tribal groups etc. Here "conservative" is the evidenced self-descriptor. The "Alt-right" description is not a CURRENT self descriptor , nor is there proper evidence of it in the past. A comparison would be : Would you label a business a ponzi scheme  ? Well only if there has been an official court judgement. Here another comparison would be : Would WP label Mother Jones an extreme-socialist website , just cos a few Newspaper commentators used that description ? Stewgreen2 (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Limited Use

• Restrict to accusative voice. It is our duty as Wikipedia editors to be politically neutral. The term alt-right is a self descriptor and has already become a slur among liberal circles, but since it is or was a self-descriptor it is valid. Unrestricted use of far-right causes Wikipedia to associate Breitbart with white nationalism, Nazism and fascism, which its proponents deny. If far-right is used as a term, it must be clear that the label is an accusation by commentators and groups. Sarysa (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Comment: These are all invariably from the past week. Older sources are needed to avoid the suggestion that this is a politically motivated edit. 151.229.53.102 (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• As has been mentioned above, would "alt-right" not be a possible alternative? Dustin (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure. In my mind, alt-right is a neologism and not as well known as far-right. Obviously there is a large overlap. I'm not sure that our readers would benefit from the article using a word that has only recently started to enter the mainstream.- MrX 18:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I also believe alt-right it too much of a neologism to be used in the opening sentence; unlike far-right it isn't self-explanatory or a well-known term. Alt-right should be mentioned a little further down in the lead instead (as is currently the case) in the context of Bannon declaring the site the platform of this movement in 2016. --Tataral (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Not really. Id suggest that right wing or conservative are bette. regardless this needs more consensus from a wider pool of users. Please someone tag it as such. the leftwing groupthink here isn't a fair representation. 151.229.53.102 (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Half of those are op-eds. AP and Reuters describe it as conservative, as does NYTimes in news articles. Marquis de Faux (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect. A few are opinion columns, but most are news articles. No one is arguing that Breitbart isn't conservative. Conservative and far-right are like frogs and toads.- MrX 04:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Holy cow. This entire nomination is laughable when you make statements like that. The leftwing cabal ie the same handful of users dictating political opinion as fact on Wikipedia is worrying. 151.229.53.102 (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

That's a statement based on your personal biases. Conservative is not alt-right and the standards of journalism, AP, Reuters, and NYTimes all describe it as conservative. Marquis de Faux (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment This is pretty appalling. Many of these citations either are to commentary (New York Magazine, NY Times, USA Today, Slate) or do not attribute the term "far-right" to Breitbart at all (NBC, Bloomberg, Politico). There are other problems with some of the other sources cited. This is a misleading summary, and really invalidates the whole of this effort at applying this label. You can't begin a survey/RfC with such an incorrect premise. Not cricket. Gabrielthursday (talk) 09:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment It'd be helpful if you could also offer a Yes/Oppose vote in that case. 151.229.53.102 (talk) 11:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• It seems you are throwiing in as many marginally relevant sources as possible to make your argument look credible.

Op-eds, which cannot be cited as WP's voice: Your NYTimes article (the actual NYTimes describes Breitbart as "conservative" in news articles), NYMag article (NYMag is an editorial magazine like National Review), New Yorker which is like NYMag, the Reuters article published in the website's "Commentary" section, Mother Jones, Slate, USA Today opinion article, Wired mag

Does not specifically call Breitbart News far right: The NBC News article, BBC.

You also took one AP wire article and counted it at least 5 different times because it was published in different sources. The quote exactly is, "Bannon led the Breitbart website, considered by many to be the alt-right's platform that has been widely condemned as racist, sexist and anti-Semitic." which does not say it is far-right.

NYTimes, US's newspaper of record, calls Breitbart conservative in all cases as does most MSM sources. NYtimes NYTimes, LATimes The Hill Associated Press Reuters (which also calls it "right-wing") Newsmax Abc news Politico Fox News Marquis de Faux (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

You have shown a handful of sources that describe Breitbart as conservative (Newsmax is not reliable), which is not in dispute anyway. The question is whether it is a widespread view that Breitbart is far-right, a fact which been overwhelmingly demonstrated with 38 sources.- MrX 13:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Gabrielthursday: - I have presented 33 reputable sources from around the world. There are many more available. A tiny minority of the sources that I presented could be classified as opinions, and are discounted, although not entirely. Your claim of "inaccurate citation of sources" is without evidence or merit, as is your assertion that the survey is vitiated because I presented the sources at all. Not to worry though—I'm confident that other editors took the time to read the sources, and probably even searched for some of their own.- MrX 22:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • A more accurate barometer would be using something like these, surely. https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-b&q="breitbart"+"right+wing"&oq="breitbart"+"right+wing" vs "breitbart"+"far+right"&oq="breitbart"+"far+right". Or the Google Scholar result that I posted above earlier; both of which show almost 3x as many results for 'right wing' versus 'far right'. 151.229.53.102 (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
    • @MrX: I appreciate that you're trying to present relevant sources. However, of the sixteen you first cited, I identified seven (on a first pass) that were irrelevant either because they did not attribute the term or were commentary. There were other difficulties I didn't enumerate. And, no, we cannot assume that everyone dug into each and every one of your sources. We cannot manufacture consensus on a misleading foundation. Gabrielthursday (talk) 01:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "attribute the term". Even if we ignore the few opinion sources, there are a plethora of bona fide news sources that say Brietbart is far-right. Unless someone here can present an equally large number of sources that say they are not far-right, we have abide by what the 33+ sources say, per WP:V and WP:DUEWEIGHT. Any argument against this descriptor that is not policy based and accompanied by evidence has little to no weight in this discussion.

When The Associated Press writes "Bannon was quoted before leaving Breitbart that he considered the site "the platform for the alt-right" — a movement often associated with far-right efforts to preserve "white identity," oppose multiculturalism and defend "Western values.", they are describing Breitbart as alt-right and far-right as a matter of reportage.

When Time magazine writes "But it was the announcement of Stephen K. Bannon, a former naval officer turned Goldman Sachs executive turned publisher of far-right vitriol, as chief strategist that signaled an astonishing departure from presidential norms." they are making an assertion of fact.

• Attributing the claim that the website is "far right" would weaken the argument that it should be described that way in the lead. Because reliable sources do not see the need to attribute it to an opinion of the website's critics, it suggests that reliable sources consider it common knowledge and widely accepted. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

When Newsweek writes "His comments came two days after Trump appointed Stephen Bannon, the executive chairman of the far-right Breitbart News Network, as his chief White House strategist." they are informing their readers that Breitbart is a far-right News Network. Our policies do not permit us to ignore this preponderance of sources because some editors happen to disagree with them.- MrX 02:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The NYT and LA Times specific articles on the site, describe it as 'conservative'. The owners of the site themselves say they have no connection to the alt-right - and 'far-right' is a particularly contentious label. See the NYT specific article on the site (What Is Breitbart News?) written prior to the Bannon appointment controversy. Avaya1 (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Note to closing admin - note that the IP accounts above have no edits except this discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

By the same token the article has existed for years with the 'conservative' label. Many of the Wikipedians who support the change to far right have been active for years on here yet only now they have taken issue with this term. Wonder why?! 151.229.53.102 (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment: There is clear consensus to describe Breitbart News as far-right based on the above discussion. Several editors have demonstrated that this is how the website is described in reliable sources, by presenting solid policy-based arguments and sources. On the other hand, most if not all of the oppose "votes" (although we don't really vote, which is why numbers as such carry no weight) are mere assertions based on the editors' own personal views instead of Wikipedia policy or sources, otherwise known as WP:IVOTETRUMP, and should at least for a large part be discounted.

There is also the question of possible alternative terms to consider: in particular, using the term "conservative" to refer to a website that openly promotes white supremacism, islamophobia, homophobia, antisemitism and misogyny and which is known for and openly decares its extreme hostility to the mainstream political right in the United States (and elsewhere), amounts to outright falsification and extreme POV pushing. --Tataral (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a certain irony in accusing others of injecting their personal bias when yours is so blatant. To claim that Breitbart openly promotes white supremacism and antisemitism is utterly ridiculous and vitiates any credibility you might have had. Almost as silly is your claim that there is a clear consensus here, when there is obviously a vigorous disagreement with both sides offering evidence and sensible arguments. Gabrielthursday (talk) 07:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus. I have yet to see any policy-based arguments or sources from anyone opposing it, or any policy-based arguments or sources supporting the absurd description as "conservative." --Tataral (talk) 07:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2016

The description needs to be changed from far-right to right-wing.

Reason Bot (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - This is being discussed upthread.- MrX 23:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Self identification as alt-right

In a recent article published, editor Joel Pollak wrote that, "But Breitbart is not an alt-right publication, and the daily news content of the website speaks for itself. Moreover, there are no “white nationalists and unabashed anti-Semites and racists” working at, or published by, Breitbart."

The lead, with the statement from Bannon makes it seem like the site self-identifies with the alt-right. It is clear that the site has either backed away from that characterization or Bannon made a rogue statement. The article should make this clear in the lead.

Marquis de Faux (talk) 04:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

No, it is not clear. In fact, it lacks any credibility whatsoever. This is why such claims needs to come from independent sources, not the subject themselves. See WP:ABOUTSELF.- MrX 22:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

How the heck does releasing a statement about yourself "lack credibility"? It would lack credibility to say that Breitbart is not alt-right based off of that statement, but it definitely does not lack credibility to say that Breitbart does not SELF-IDENTIFY as alt-right. At the very least the statement should be mentioned in the body. It would be extremely one-sided to not allow a subject to give a statement in response to accusations. Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

According to this article, Bannon is the website's supreme authority and executive chairman of the company publishing it, and he has said this very year that the website is "the platform for the alt-right". It couldn't be clearer. Hence, it doesn't matter if a junior employee might disagree with his own boss (if there is a sufficiently notable controversy over this disagreement, it could be mentioned as such below in the article body, as part of a discussion of a struggle over the editorial stance between the management and other employees). --Tataral (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

One is an article published on the website. That is official. The other is a statement that a MotherJones reporter said that Bannon made to him. The LA Times also quotes Solov, who is a higher rank than Bannon in the company. Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The leaders of Breitbart deny their website has any connection to the alt-right. (Bannon is also on-leave at the site according to the company's statement to investors). Breitbart News, fiery conservative outlet buoyed by Trump victory, aims to go global Avaya1 (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Random removal of well-sourced content with no reason

Prior to the page protection, User:Itzeug removed the following well sourced content required to provide the proper context and provide a fair overview with no reason or explanation whatsover:

Bannon has denied all allegations of racism and has stated that he rejected the "ethno-nationalist" tendencies of the alt-right movement. The owners of Breitbart deny their website has any connection to the alt-right.

If User:HJ Mitchell or another admin sees this I ask them to please restore this content. Marquis de Faux (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

References

I think it should be left out. The first sentence is about Bannon's view of the some members of the alt-right movement; it's not about Breitbart.

The second sentence grossly misrepresents the source, which says:

"As its popularity grew, many condemned its rhetoric as extremist, xenophobic, sexist and a platform for hate speech — accusations its leaders have denied. Others laughed it off as a journalistic lightweight catering to a far-right fringe known as the alt-right."

There's nothing there about "Breitbart deny[ing] their website has any connection to the alt-right."

- MrX 15:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The first sentence is relevant because the article quotes Bannon as saying Breitbart is a platform for the alt-right. it is important to note what Bannon's definition of alt-right is if you're going to quote that. The second article specifically says, "But company leaders deny they are actually part of the alt-right. “We have done a number of articles on the alt-right, but that doesn’t make us alt-right,” Solov said." Marquis de Faux (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The leaders of Breitbart deny their website has any connection to the alt-right. ( Breitbart News, fiery conservative outlet buoyed by Trump victory, aims to go global Avaya1 (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:About self

I just want to remind people, such as NPalgan2, when it comes to edits like this, Breitbart can be used to make claims about itself or its members, as long as the addition follows what WP:About self states. Such additions are not WP:Fringe. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but (when we've complied with BLP in the article body with sentences like "However, the owners of Breitbart deny their website has any connection to the alt-right") we need to decide in what proportion criticism vs praise of Breitbart should be in the article lead by using WP:WEIGHT of RSs. Defenses of Breitbart published in Breitbart should not be in the article lead with equal proportion to criticism of Breitbart when most coverage of Breitbart in RSs is negative. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Lede changes

There are some issues with misquoting of the NYT article in the lede, but I can't change them due to the locked status. The full quote on the NYT article is: "The opinion and news site, once a curiosity of the fringe right wing, is now an increasingly powerful voice, and virtual rallying spot, for millions of disaffected conservatives who propelled Donald J. Trump to the Republican nomination for president." Issues:

1) The article lede states: "The New York Times describes Breitbart News as a "curiosity of the fringe right wing"' yet the NYT article says it was, but isn't any more ("was once"), as if to imply it's gone mainstream. Can someone please amend this so that is more accurate.

2) The article lede also states that "[Breitbart] was a "potent voice" for Donald Trump's presidential campaign". However this isn't mentioned in the article body, only in the title. Given clickbait issues I assume this is problematic from an encyclopedic viewpoint. It should be reworded.

3) Finally the overly negative spin on the lede isn't warranted in an encyclopedia. The lede states "The New York Times describes Breitbart News as a "curiosity of the fringe right wing", with "ideologically driven journalists", that is a source of controversy "over material that has been called misogynist, xenophobic and racist", and was a "potent voice" for Donald Trump's presidential campaign";- the subtle implication that Donald Trump's presidential campaign is negative, which is how it reads to me, i.e.: aligning it alongside those others. Indeed you may think Trump's campaign was negative, but this isn't relevant to the lede of an article on a news network. 151.229.53.102 (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, "Stephen Bannon serves as the publication's executive chairman" in the lede at the very least needs to be changed to "has served" in order to be factually correct. This article from Breitbart describes him as the former chairman: [30]; like the editor immediately above this comment, I am unable to make the change since the article is locked. Kekki1978 (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Survey: Presenting far-right as an accusation

I'm concerned about the use of the term far-right in the definitive voice, since it has connotations including white nationalism, Nazism, and fascism which both Bannon himself and Breitbart have denied. I propose changing it to the accusative voice, phrasing as or similar to:

a conservative news, opinion and commentary website[ref] which is frequently accused of being a far-right publication.[refs]

Sarysa (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• The relevant question is whether the description is based on third party, reliable sources, not whether the description has a negative connotation or the website in question would like to be described in a more anodyne way. See Stormfront (website) for example. It is described as a white supremacy site based on reliable sources, even though the owner denies this description. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• Err... The page title of the homepage of that site says 'white nationalist community' and the meta description refers to itself as white supremacist... 151.229.53.102 (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
• See my reply to you below @FuriouslySerene:. There are legitimate cultural reasons that make this a special case, and failing to account for these is akin to encyclopedic slander. Sarysa (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Change to Accusative Voice

• Change for the reasons I stated. Additionally, I am of the opinion that Wikipedia must be held to a higher standard of neutrality than that of news outlets. Emotions brought about by recent events call into question the neutrality of recent articles not labeled as opinion pieces. Wikipedians should take the safe route, accepting Breitbart's self-labeling while acknowledging widespread accusations. This can always be reviewed in a few months. Sarysa (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a news outlet: WP:NOTNEWS. It's an encyclopedia. A core policy of this encyclopedia is WP:Verifiability. That means that information must be based on reliable sources. Reliable sources are third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Breitbart is not a third-party source, and is not considered reliable (we do accept self-published content, but not if it's self-serving or there is reasonable doubt as to its accuracy, which is the case here). If you want to convince people to use your preferred description, you need to show that reliable, third party published sources do not call Breitbart "far right." Unfortunately, other editors have already posted dozens of reliable sources that describe Breitbart News as far right. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• @FuriouslySerene:: I understand that I'm making an unprecedented argument that is hard to find an equivalent of, but to a large number of people the term far-right has a second meaning in the realm of "akin to Hitler". This article uses far-right and neo-Nazi interchangeably. This article demonstrates a business owner's fear of allowing a "far-right" organization to host an event due fear of association with Hitler, and aforementioned organization is not labeled far-right on Wikipedia! Godwin's Law and reductio ad Hitlerum are documented fallacies that prey on peoples' fears of being compared to Hitler. The line between the term far-right and Nazism is so blurred (including by reliable sources) that the term's use must be put under extra scrutiny. It's a very unusual case but using far-right flippantly is a violation of neutrality. Sarysa (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• I do not believe most people believe far-right automatically equals "neo-Nazi" (although it's impossible for either of us to say that conclusively). I think those articles show that far-right can sometimes refer to neo-Nazis. The great thing about Wikipedia is that the term far right is linked to WP's page about it, and the page gives an excellent description of the term. I have more faith readers can understand the difference. In any event, your issue should be with the reliable sources that are using the term, not WP. There really isn't any policy that supports ignoring overwhelming reliable sourcing because of WP editors' editorial concerns. What can be added to add some context is mentioning that Breitbart describes itself a certain way. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• If even 10% of readers get that idea from reading the term outright, a term assigned by a small number of articles (I debunk most of MrX's 33 here) then it's a problem. I stand by my argument that the term demands special treatment due to cultural guttural reactions to anything associated with Nazis or fascism. Claiming encyclopedic slander is not a stretch. sarysa (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• Incorrect, an overwhelming number of reliable sources describe Breitbart as far right. I think it's also safe to say that they are fully aware of what far right means, they're using the term because Breitbart is far right. Everything else is just WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT Drsmoo (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• I make an argument on the Bannon page that Wikipedia reserves the right to buck media trends in the interest of its own policy, be it clarity, neutrality, or whatnot. (it's in reply to your most recent post there) As it stands currently the tally is either 7:6 or 7:7 across both articles (inc. misplaced comments) with 7 going to the "change" vote, so it's not simply me trying to assert my views. In fact one of the No votes is accusing of whitewashing which suggests they know exactly what is going on. The only thing "I just don't like" is that I got sucked into being the standard bearer for this crap. Trust me when I say I'm writing for the enemy as I'm personally not even a nationalist and I believe that people currently here illegally should have a path to citizenship because I personally feel they've been exploited for years. Now I have to have my contribution page filled with this crap while my goal was neutrality and fairness. sarysa (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• Nope, Wikipedia does not reserve that right. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources only. Drsmoo (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• So then I can around Wikipedia and replace inexact references to "illegal immigration" and "undocumented immigration" with just "immigration", because I can cite news sources that have done so. You're misinterpreting Wikipedia policy as "leave your brain at the door." sarysa (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• If you can cite reliable sources that describe the policies as being in regards to general immigration as opposed to illegal immigration than feel free to do so. Drsmoo (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• Except they're not, they're referring to illegal immigration as "immigration" even though that's incorrect and not encyclopedic. Here is a reliable source doing so, and I could easily dredge up a dozen more if I felt like spending an hour. Like I said, use reliable sources but don't leave your brain at the door. Misuse of language is common in the media, and I make this case a little better over on the other side. sarysa (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• The link you just posted refers exclusively to undocumented immigrants, so I have no idea why you used that as an argument. Please don't try to mislead people on here. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, period. Drsmoo (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• It is just "immigrant" in the headline and the first paragraph. It's not until a few paragraphs in that "undocumented" is finally revealed to be what they're talking about. That is a RS misusing language, which I argue about here. sarysa (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• Nope, the first sentence refers to undocumented immigrants. Drsmoo (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• I was afraid something like that might happen. You're right, I didn't re-check the link because I'm at 7 of 10 free NYT articles (though it seems I can revisit it whenever) so I did make a mistake. With that in mind, if someone were simply to glance at the headline, they'd have a half-truth at best. (I admitted my screw-up, now admit yours over at the other thread :P ) sarysa (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• I'm sorry Sarysa, but Wikipedia policy just doesn't work like that. See WP:NOTCENSORED: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive—​​even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." Using reliable sources to describe an article subject is a core policy of this encyclopedia. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• @FuriouslySerene: I don't think WP:NOTCENSORED applies to this case. I'm arguing against a loaded term with numerous alternative meanings that are factually inaccurate, meanings more likely to be interpreted immediately by Europeans and the historically inclined. I'm not even personally offended by it, nor are most on the "Change" side. I'm concerned about slandering people I don't agree with. (plus I'm not arguing for its full removal) sarysa (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• Change seems like a reasonable compromise, as long as the article makes it clear that Breitbart has denied those charges. Marquis de Faux (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• Change - Particularly given the political significance of the current accusations, and the fact that many of the accusers are business or partisan rivals to Breitbart, accusative voice is appropriate. Gabrielthursday (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
• Absolutely not - Original research is not permitted by policy. The preponderance of reliable sources do not say that Breitbart has been accused of being far-right.- MrX 12:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Keep as Definitive Voice

• Keep, you also can't wish away reliable sources. Drsmoo (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
• No, this is a nonsensical proposal which falsely claims the website is "conservative" in Wikipedia's voice – an extreme claim that runs contrary to mainstream reliable sources. Would we describe Der Stürmer as "conservative" too? Also the premise of this discussion is false; far right simply means "right-wing politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right" (as it is defined by Wikipedia), it is a broad term not implying any specific ideology. The website has also declared itself the platform of a movement (alt-right) that is universally considered far-right. --Tataral (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

You prove your bias. Breitbart is not Der Sturmer. It also seems that you have paid exactly *zero* consideration to anything written in the long discussion above and are basing your stances on entirely visceral reasons. It is a complete bold faced lie that describing the website as "conservative" is "extreme" or contrary to mainstream sources unless you consider the AP, Reuters, and the NYTimes to be extremist groups. Marquis de Faux (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Reuters: "Bannon took over Breitbart after the death of its founder, Andrew Breitbart, in 2012, and has turned the website into a far-right, pro-Trump propaganda arm." http://www.reuters.com/article/us-election-trump-breitbart-commentary-idUSKCN10U0CC

NYTimes: "Before that, he worked as the executive chairman of the Breitbart News Network, parent company of the far-right website Breitbart News, which under Mr. Bannon became what the Southern Poverty Law Center has called a “white ethno-nationalist propaganda mill.”" http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/opinion/turn-on-the-hate-steve-bannon-at-the-white-house.html

AP: "Donald Trump's choice of far-right publishing executive Steve Bannon as a top White House adviser is bringing new scrutiny to a troubling, decades-old ideology: white nationalism." https://www.yahoo.com/news/ap-explains-election-brings-white-nationalism-forefront-223702647.html Drsmoo (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Those are all opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are not RS. Sarysa (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect, they are RS for the fact that Breitbart is far right in that they represent a consensus within the media. With that said the AP article is not an opinion piece. There are also many non-opinion articles which describe Breitbart as far right, I simply used those to show all the sources mentioned above describe Breitbart as far-right. Drsmoo (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Opinion pieces do not get to declare what is fact. They are free to accuse, which is what I'm arguing that far-right be framed as. If we cherry picked a few opinion pieces from RS we could call Sanders and Warren far-left (which is also inappropriate as it has connotations of Stalin and Mao) or justifiably make all sorts of BLP violating claims/slander against organizations. As for the AP article, the line is extremely blurry on that one. The term AP Explains indicates that it's a special type of section and it has a mixed voice. Sarysa (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Thankfully, plenty of reliable sources (not just opinion pieces) describe Breitbart as far-right, and not just as accusations, but as statements of fact. "During the 2016 presidential campaign, Breitbart News emerged as a haven for far-right factions that actively pushed for the election of Donald Trump." http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/breitbarts-steve-bannon-might-be-trumps-chief-of-staff.html "Until he left in August to work for Trump during the campaign’s closing months, Bannon was the executive chairman of the far-right Breitbart News." http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/breitbarts-steve-bannon-might-be-trumps-chief-of-staff.html "Under his leadership, the Breitbart website became one of the leading outlets of the so-called alt-right, a movement often associated with far-right efforts to preserve “white identity” and oppose multiculturalism." http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/fbi-hate-crimes-against-muslims-up-by-67-percent-in-2015/ "But he also named Steve Bannon, the head of his campaign and of the far-right website Breitbart, as his “chief strategist and senior counselor”." https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/13/stephen-bannon-reince-priebus-donald-trump-white-house-staff "The far-right Breitbart site" http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/17/media/steve-bannon-breitbart-donald-trump/ "Breitbart continually defined the far right boundary of the Trump universe" http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/donald-trump-steve-bannon-breitbart-pravda-214451 "According to Bloomberg, the ex-Goldman Sachs banker used the internet-y phrase "honey badger don’t give a s---" as the motto for the far-right website" http://www.ibtimes.com/who-stephen-bannon-breitbart-co-founder-trumps-new-campaign-ceo-2403094 And on and on and on. Drsmoo (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Check here for my direct retort and my positing of the equally RS valid term right-wing. Too much content to retool for this discussion. Sarysa (talk) 23:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Your retort consisted of claiming Reliable Sources like New York Magazine and Politico don't count for some reason. Here are a few more from a quick google search. "Breitbart is a far-right news site that traffics in racism, anti-Semitism, and anti-immigrant hysteria" http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/11/donald_trump_s_pick_of_stephen_bannon_means_white_nationalism_is_coming.html "Bannon was the executive chairman of Breitbart News, a far right online outfit that made Fox News look fair and balanced, dainty even." http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-election/who-is-donald-trumps-trusted-adviser-steve-bannon-ex-breitbart-news-chairman-20161111-gsnsnf.html "One of Trump's most controversial hires to date, Bannon joined Trump's campaign as CEO in August after serving as the head of Breitbart News — a far-right outlet that is one of Trump's biggest backers." http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/donald-trumps-cabinet-picks-43643918 "White supremacists celebrate Donald Trump's appointment of far-right Breitbart boss" http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/steve-bannon-white-supremacists-celebrate-donald-trumps-appointment-of-far-right-breitbart-editor-a7416661.html and so on Drsmoo (talk) 06:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

NYMag is an editorial magazine and Slate is an opinion website. That's like citing National Review and Weekly Standard calling Obama a socialist and saying reliable sources support it. The newspaper of record, NYTimes, calls it conservative, and I can find more reliable source NEWS ARTICLES calling it conservative. NYtimes NYTimes, LATimes The Hill Associated Press Reuters (which also calls it "right-wing") Newsmax Abc news Politico Fox News Marquis de Faux (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Please stick to one article. The Bannon talk page seems to be dominant so we should keep the discussion over there. sarysa (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

No thanks Drsmoo (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Well I implore others to visit the Bannon talk page as this discussion will simply be a one-sided argument. sarysa (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• Keep As a multitude of others have shown you in the Steve Bannon article, the consensus in the media is that Breitbart is far-right. The following additional serious reporting pieces have labeled Breitbart as "right-wing" or "far-right".[31],[32],[33],[34],[35],[36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42] etc. Daaxix (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
• Process disruption - There's already a survey upthread to decide if 33 sources (and more available) support describing Breitbart as far-right. Posing the same question again simply wastes time and space. - MrX 12:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

It'd be helpful if you could discount from those alleged 33 reliable sources, those of which are either a) op-ed pieces and b) those that use the term 'far-right' interchangeably in the same article as other terms such as 'alt-right', 'right-wing' etc. Phatwa (talk) 15:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Lol at alleged. If you have any confusion over what constitutes a reliable source, feel free to check the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Drsmoo (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Other

Discussion

• Ultimately, I think we might need an administrator's intervention on the subject. I've been watching the Steve Bannon article and I've had to call out violations of neutrality on both sides. (this discussion is also a mirror of one over there, since MrX has surveyed both talk pages) The "notavote" template seems almost pointless since I fear a tyranny of the majority is what will end up being the "consensus". Sarysa (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• The website is clearly described as conservative in the NYT and LA Times specific articles on the site. The owners of the site themselves say they have no connection to the alt-right - and 'far-right' is a particularly contentious label. See the NYT specific article on the site (What Is Breitbart News?) written prior to the Bannon appointment controversy. Describing the website as 'far-right', defies belief to anyone who has read the website. Avaya1 (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I find what you say about the owners of the site denying a connection to the alt-right... odd, to say the least, considering Bannon himself said that Breitbart is a platform for the alt-right. Now, I think I know what he meant by that: Breitbart, while not necessarily being alt-right per se, is one of the alt-right's favourite/most trusted news outlets. So yes, there is a connection. Maybe it's an indirect one (Which, I think, it's the reason why people cannot agree on where on the political spectrum is Breitbart located; "indirect" ends up meaning "kind of ambiguous". That, and what formerly was mainstream right seeming more far-right-ish in light of its continuing opposition to social advances which have become more-real less-hypothethical than before). But even so, there is one. LahmacunKebab LahmacunKebab 12:48, 26 November 2016 (Spanish hour)

Protected edit request on 23 November 2016

The opeds referenced in the "NEA Propaganda Story" section were written by Patrick Courrielche and he should included in the entry. The writer was intimately involved in the story, and the cite founder, Andrew Breitbart, notes his influential role in the story here: https://web.archive.org/web/20100704095116/http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/abreitbart/2010/01/06/thank-you-john-nolte/

Additionally, John Nolte should be listed as the first Big Hollywood editor, as also referenced in the above link. BenjaminJunto (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Check Citations

e.g. [9] USA Today contains the Bannon quote, but it sources it from Mother Jones. Surely the original source should be quoted not the secondary ?

e.g. [8] the CBS News piece is an opinion piece.

(personal note it seems editors are desperate to us the smear-label "Alt-Right" or "Far right-wing" so are inserting dubious sources) Stewgreen2 (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Compromise language: "right-wing"

I propose that the lead be changed to refer to Breitbart as "a right-wing website". This language adheres to WP:NPOV more than the non-neutral "far-right", and it avoids conflating its editorial position with that of the entire American right-of-center, for many of whom it could be seen as tarring by association. It's clear and uncontested there has been an editorial shift under Bannon away from standard conservative views, but "right-wing" could express that in general terms without courting controversy. --Varavour (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
References

Far right is inclusive of right wing and widely used in reliable sources. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and consensus. Drsmoo (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

"Far-right", you mean? It's not NPOV. --Varavour (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Far right is a descriptive term, it's not an insult/pejorative. There are policies and viewpoints associated with the far right, and Breitbart is described as far right by reliable sources. Drsmoo (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

At last count, 38 sources have been identified that describe Breitbart as "far-right", so WP:NPOV indicates that we do the same. If someone wants to present 38+ reliable sources that describe Breitbart as "right-wing", then there will be a basis for a debate over which term is more appropriate.- MrX 01:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Many of those sources are Op-eds. You can find many such sources (i.e. The Guardian) describing Fox News as far-right. There are specific articles on the website in the New York Times and the LA Times, that also describe the site as 'conservative'. And the leaders of the website deny any connection to the alt-right.Avaya1 (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Many are op eds, which are reliable sources, and many are not op eds, which are reliable sources. Drsmoo (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. - MrX 17:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Left wing op eds do not get to dictate the objective voice of Wikipedia, just like National Review and Dennis Prager calling Obama a socialist does not hold any weight in dictating the voice of Wikipedia on Obama. Trotting out your highly inflated list every single time while ignoring any debunking of your list and the fact that your list is filled with repeats and mischaracterizations is extremely dishonest. You have not responded to the fact that you can easily find just as many sources, including the newspaper of record, the NYTimes, describes the site as "conservative" other than a very partisan statement "Conservative and far-right are like frogs and toads". If reliable sources describe the site as "conservative" why should that not be in the lead? At the very least, if "conservative" is backed up by reliable sources then both terms should be included going by that logic. Marquis de Faux (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Breitbart is widely described in reliable sources all across the political spectrum, from The Guardian to Fox News, as far right. Your description of the reliable sources as left wing op eds is both incorrect and irrelevant. Drsmoo (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@ Marquis de Faux, feel free to provide citations that the 38 sources I presented are "left-wing", or any Wikipedia policy that says we can't use Fox News, LA Times, NBC, NY Times, CNN, AP, Reuters, Time, Newsweek, The Times of India, etc.. Again, no one disputes that Breitbart is conservative. They are, and to such an extent that that they are widely considered far-right.- MrX 23:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@MrX, well stated. Wikipedia is not in the business of shaping public opinion, but rather reflecting it. The most widely-read and circulated news sources describe Breitbart as far-right; it's not for us to suddenly decide it isn't. If for whatever reason the common viewpoint changes, then you can change the description here. Drummerdg (talk) 05:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus here or in the above section. Please do not modify the article until consensus is reached. Also, adding 6 different links to sources for the term looks ridiculous and is unnecessary. Phatwa (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Insertion of a random JDF article calling the website 'antisemitic'

A randomly chosen JDF article is being re-inserted here. Not sure why this opinion article was chosen, or constitutes anything other than POV. Attempts to remove it are being reverted without argument. I can't see any reason for this, unless you want to add a bunch more randomly chosen opinion articles from more notable sources, and showing both points of view. But I don't see any such section on newspapers, and I can't see how it is anything other than cherry-picking. There are no secondary sources reporting on this article's opinion, or suggesting that it is notable. Avaya1 (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

That's a news article, not an opinion article, from a reliable source. I'm not sure what you mean by "randomly chosen". As far as I'm concerned, if the ZOA material stays in the article, so should this.- MrX 14:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

As the user responsible for the original edit - the article is no more random than the Zionist Organization of America; both the ZOA and the JDF represent different spectrums of Jewish opinion (by sheer numbers, the JDF appears to have more subscribers than the ZOA has members, though it's fairly close), which is obviously relevant to the topic of alleged anti-Semitism. As MrX says, the JDF is equally as valid an opinion as the ZOA. My edit did not imply that either was more correct than the other, only that they disagree; articles all over Wikipedia report on differences of opinion and this is no different. Drummerdg (talk) 07:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Revert / edit warring concerns

What is the point in a user asking others for consensus, then deciding their own take on the consensus without it being duly summarized or decided? The 'convervative' term has been in place on this article for many years, and there is no clear consensus. Something strange is afoot here, I have reverted it back to the previous "conservative" term until consensus is agreed upon. Note that means general consensus from a wide base of users, and not 'MrX Of The 38 Sources (TM)' consensus only. Phatwa (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Lack of consensus is not a justification for edit warring. That said, I think the sources in this version are clear in describing Breitbart as far-right. Other sources even in the current version of the article show Breitbart is aligned with the alt-right (even though they reject that label), and that's not a political ideology that could be termed simply conservative. I mean, even National Review thinks Bannon's Breitbart is too extreme [43]. clpo13_(talk) 17:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe there is consensus. In raw numbers, 11 support, 10 oppose. Of the 10 opposing, 4 are WP:SPAs and almost certainly sock- or meatpuppets. Of the remaining 6 opposes, one argues for cherry picking the sources that they want to use; one substitutes original research for verifiability; and one makes the demonstrably fallacious assertion that "Most sources that describe it as far right are op-ed pieces by left wing authors." without providing a shred of evidence to back up such a preposterous claim.

By the way, it's sheer hubris to express concern about edit warring upon reaching the brink of 3RR in your determined effort to force your will into the article.- MrX 17:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)