Talk:Breitbart News: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:56, 16 June 2017

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Breitbart News article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9: 30 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Andrew Breitbart was copied or moved into Breitbart.com. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.

The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Blogging C‑class (inactive)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Conservatism C‑class Mid‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Websites: Computing C‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance).

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

How Should this Article Be Updated in Light of Recent Changes?

"Breitbart has made moves that signal a desire to shift away from its renegade roots and mature into a more established news outlet." http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/07/media/far-right-abandons-breitbart/index.html Técnico (talk) 03:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/is-breitbart-news-veering-away-from-the-farthest-far-right/2017/06/06/35f91160-4ad1-11e7-a186-60c031eab644_story.html?utm_term=.75efcb0a1b59 Here's a similar article from the Washington Post. Marquis de Faux (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need for updating on this basis -- we can wait until something actually happens. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The story is that Breitbart (which is and has been a mainstream outlet for some time) is moving to a slightly more center-right position, and that the far-right reacted with predictable melodrama. I'm not seeing anything in there that's going to add any value to the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the source (or other related sources) even suggests that Breitbart is moving from far-right to center-right. It sounds like they're simply trying to move away from some of the more overtly race-related content that they started publishing after Bannon took over. (There's a recent PBS Frontline about this.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the source (or other related sources) even suggests that Breitbart is moving from far-right to center-right. That's why I qualified it with "slightly more". As in, if I walk ten feet North, I'm slightly more "in Canada" (I live in Florida). Maybe I should have said "slightly closer to". That would have been clearer. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article suggests that Breitbart is becoming or has already become right-leaning. The source says, "Its editors have talked about becoming the Trump era's paper of record .... And some new hires have come from more established right-leaning news outlets, such as The Wall Street Journal and Fox News." One correspondent seems to say that Breitbart is moving to the left of the Gateway Pundit and Drudge: "'They are leaving the island occupied by the Gateway Pundit and Drudge Report and a few other news sources,' Wintrich told CNN." Técnico (talk) 02:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article suggests that Breitbart is becoming or has already become right-leaning. If you are suggesting that Breitbart is not right-wing, then you need to stop editing political articles on WP, because you are not competent to do so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think someone who identifies himself as a "male feminist" should be calling out someone out on their ability to be neutral. Your bias is clearly visible.Thismightbezach (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am suggesting, in light of recent changes ongoing at Breitbart, that no adjective at all be used to characterize Breitbart until after those changes have stabilized. Técnico (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd oppose that. Breitbart is verifiably far-right and will remain so until reliable sources expressly indicate otherwise. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiably far-right to all your left-wing sources. Don't bother wasting your time, Técnico. The far-left editors on this page will never be convinced otherwise. They'll continue to slander Breitbart with scary adjectives like "far-right" for the foreseeable future.Thismightbezach (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing scary about "far-right." Lots of organizations are happy to be described as far-right. (Please stay constructive and avoid personalizing content disputes.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dr. Fleischman, you raised three issues above:

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

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

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

"The angry critics descended on Breitbart after the website parted ways on Monday with writer Katie McHugh following incendiary remarks she made about Muslims in the aftermath of the London terror attack" [1]. Técnico (talk) 07:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dr. Fleischman, why are you saying that Chuck Johnson is not a reliable source? CNN characterizes him as a far-right blogger. Thus, Chuck Johnson most likely is able to reliably report on whether a site's content is far-right. Chuck Johnson calls Breitbart "basically a shell of its former self." Can a shell be far-anything?

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

The term certainly connotes Antisemitism, which is evil.

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

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

No, we drop it from the lead like it was dropped from the New York Times per WP:UNDUE. See [2] --Chlorineer (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Fleischman, no, I am suggesting that the content is ambiguous. ZOA president Klein said last Sunday evening: "But I’ll tell you where this phony image comes from, when Steve Bannon said that 'Breitbart is a platform for the alt-right,' Steve Bannon meant a platform for those who are anti-establishment, anti-the mainstream people. Too many people thought wrongly [when he said that] that 'alt-right' meant Neo-Nazis and David Dukes." [3] Let's consider Klein's recently expressed observation; The content is ambiguous. Let's drop the ambiguous content. Técnico (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No, Breitbart is not happy about being called antisemitic. "Democrat ... Under Fire for Inaccurate Claim that Breitbart, Bannon, Gorka Anti-Semitic" [4]

"[The Zionist Organization of America] denounced Brown for making the inaccurate insinuation that Breitbart News, Bannon and Trump are somehow anti-Semitic." [5]

Zionist Organization of America president Mort Klein said, "Steve Bannon, Breitbart has never had a neo-Nazi or racist or David Duke type article ever. I’ve never seen it. The articles I see are articles fighting anti-Semitism and articles telling the truth about the Arab-Islamic war against Israel and promoting Israel. But I’ll tell you where this phony image comes from, when Steve Bannon said that "Breitbart is a platform for the alt-right," Steve Bannon meant a platform for those who are anti-establishment, anti-the mainstream people. Too many people thought wrongly [when he said that] that "alt-right" meant Neo-Nazis and David Dukes. Frankly, I’ve urged him to make it clear that he never meant that and that’s where this distortion of meaning about Steve Bannon came.'" [6] Técnico (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Why is the removal of the politically-charged "far-right" even a question?

Per WP:UNDUE the lead of the article is clearly not the place to place to highlight this. Otherwise all articles on all other publications (e.g. The New York Times, HuffPost, et al) will have them. It has been discussed in the past as well. (See: Talk:The_New_York_Times#Accusations_of_bias_in_lead_section) --Chlorineer (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak argument. WP:UNDUE obviously doesn't apply since we have more than 38 sources that support far-right. Also see WP:OSE.- Mr X 13:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You make no actual argument. Ipse dixit doesn't work. Neutrality^talk 14:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, not even Pravda has such statements on the lead, but I guess if it's an evil right-wing publication it's alright. Got it! --Chlorineer (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And you are an administrator? Oh my! Never mind, keep it as is. No wonder Wikipedia is rubbish. --Chlorineer (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

False equivalence. Our neutrality policy is based primarily on what the reliable sources say. If the RS say without attribution or contradiction that a publication is X or Y, then we say it's X or Y. Reliable sources say without attribution or contradiction that Breitbart is far-right. Reliable sources do not say without attribution or contradiction that the NYT or HuffPost are (fill in the blank). And if they did, you are free to suggest appropriate changes on those articles' talk pages. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with User:DrFleischman. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's arguable that "Breitbart News has published a number of falsehoods and conspiracy theories" is biased for the lede paragraph, but "far-right" is indisputably correct and appropriate. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it really is a central tennet of the outlet: to make up or fabricate stories. This is undisputed in reliable sources. Carl Fredrik^talk 20:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Show me. There are plenty of sources for their mis-behavior in the Firing of Shirley Sherrod affair, are there sources for more recent events? I do find the lack of distinction on their site between news and editorials troublesome, but not relevant in quite the way it is presented. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can look at the sources and the RfC. Carl Fredrik^talk 20:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Falsehoods and conspiracy theories

Following on Power's most recent comment, the second sentence ("Breitbart News has published a number of falsehoods and conspiracy theories, as well as intentionally misleading stories.") seems lead-worthy to me, but placing it as the second sentence sees undue to me. I'm in favor of demoting it to between the alt-right (3rd) paragraph and the personnel (4th) paragraph. Thoughts? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's central to the topic and belongs in the second sentence. And that is also where the RfC placed it. Carl Fredrik^talk 20:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific RfC you're referring to? I see several, none referencing this. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carl, I'd like a link to the RfC as well. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, it's more credible than The National Enquirer, and I don't think the article reflects that. I would remove the two words "falsehoods and", and move the sentence to the 2nd paragraph, right before "The New York Times describes Breitbart". Power~enwiki (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to whom is it more credible? Carl Fredrik^talk 20:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you at all familiar with this topic or industry? I consider it common knowledge that The National Enquirer is primarily a supermarket gossip column. While it occasionally reports news stories ( John Edwards ), reporting news is not the primary function of that publication. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a shitty source — but so is Breitbart, and reporting news isn't a function of Breitbart either. Carl Fredrik^talk 20:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reporting news isn't a function of Breitbart either - is there a source for that? A secondary source for a claim that the website's primary function is to promote editorial voices rather than to report the news would improve the lede. Newspapers are technically competitors to Breitbart and can't be assumed to be unbiased (and we already have the NYTimes quote), a book or academic article would be best. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 100: / Line 100: @@
 :I think it's central to the topic and belongs in the second sentence. And that is also where the RfC placed it. [[User:CFCF|<span style="color:#014225;font-family: sans-serif;">Carl Fredrik</span>]]<span style="font-size: .90em;">[[User talk:CFCF|<sup> talk</sup>]]</span> 20:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 :: Is there a specific RfC you're referring to?  I see several, none referencing this. [[User:Power~enwiki|Power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|talk]]) 20:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
+:::{{u|CFCF|Carl}}, I'd like a link to the RfC as well. --[[User:DrFleischman|Dr. Fleischman]] ([[User talk:DrFleischman|talk]]) 20:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 :: Overall, it's more credible than [[The National Enquirer]], and I don't think the article reflects that. I would remove the two words "falsehoods and", and move the sentence to the 2nd paragraph, right before "The New York Times describes Breitbart".  [[User:Power~enwiki|Power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|talk]]) 20:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 :::According to whom is it more credible? [[User:CFCF|<span style="color:#014225;font-family: sans-serif;">Carl Fredrik</span>]]<span style="font-size: .90em;">[[User talk:CFCF|<sup> talk</sup>]]</span> 20:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)