Talk:Andrew Breitbart

Possible Bias

Its Blog & "Network" links, however, tend to represent almost solely a US conservative point of view, such as National Review, Instapundit, and Townhall.com.

This statement should be backed up shouldn't it? Seems like POV otherwise. Hyacinthsandthistles (talk) 08:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is the rule in liberal-dominated America: when a person is liberal, he or she is objective and is simply stating the truth and he or she needs no modifier or qualifier (unless it is a positive one disguised as a neutral one); when a person is conservative, a modifier or a qualifier definitely needs to be added so that the reader will "know", immediately, for a "fact", that the person is not to be trusted (conservative being, in liberal America, a negative qualifier disguised as a neutral one). And of course, in no way can this be called double standards (if it is, the person will likely be bedaubed… with a qualifier of "conservative"). In the meantime, there is an interview of AB by Peter Robinson of Uncommon Knowledge. Asteriks (talk) 12:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Every conservative blogger, newscaster, writer, columnist, editor, etc is sure to add a sneering "Liberal" before mention of anybody who's to the left of Bill O Reilly. You're living in a dreamworld if you think NR, Instapundit, and TH aren't proud and explicit far-right publications. 128.2.51.144 (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Work

The "Author" section says that "Breitbart's work has been published in the Wall Street Journal, National Review Online and the Weekly Standard Online, among others", but it doesn't describe the kind of work he does; is he an opinion columnist, a humourist, a journalist a cartoonist? The rest of the article points out that his work for the Drudge Report and Breitbart.com involves linking to stories rather than writing them. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

B-Cast Hottie??

Who is Breitbart's co-host on his B-Cast program hosted at Breitbart.tv?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Highspeed (talk • contribs) 00:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Quote box

I removed the quote box. Maybe work into article if appropriate. Thanks, --Tom (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that my edit was reverted with revert unconstructive changes made without reason as an edit summary. I would still leave it out of the lead. --Tom (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Moved. ► RATEL ◄ 23:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --Tom (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Need Sources on Mute-Button Allegations; Also, Citations on H-Wood Attacks

I don't see anything to back up the allegation about Breitbart being trigger-happy with the "mute" button. Remarks about Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are off-topic (and, in Limbaugh's case, untrue--unless his behavior is very different on days I don't commute to work vs. days I do). Anyway, likewise unsourced and inappropriate in a BLP unless we got an objective source to say that he does it, preferably noting more than the folks at Air America do--or some such quasi-objective language.

The thing about him being critical of Hollywood was too strongly worded to belong here unless someone has an actual quote/citation, a la the "Drude's bitch" line, and I didn't see it. Please advise.Scooge (talk) 01:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Jim Treacher Quotation

I don't think that quotation runs afoul of the spirit of BLP, since the entire guideline was written to avoid issues of libel (or, on the flip side, puff pieces).

It was just a nicely worded expression of a sentiment that is out there in the Blogosphere. After all, Breitbart is... a blogger. Jim Treacher is a colleague of his. And this wasn't a factual issue, it was just an opinion, and it's one that is shared by most of the center-right blogosphere. But we can't refer to reactions within the blogosphere to a blogger? That just sounds odd, to take things to that extreme.

I think in this case, obeying the spirit of BLP requires that we bend "the letter of the law." Perhaps balancing it out with another negative criticism? --but that citation from The Standard seems to be getting much further afield than quoting a right-of-center blogger, which helps to balance the sometimes-negative tone of the article itself.Scooge (talk) 10:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a puff quote. We are not here to promote AB. No go. ► RATEL ◄ 12:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments on Kennedy

I have reverted a recent deletion by John Asfukzenski of remarks about Kennedy. Asfukzenski may wish to argue here for the deletion of this section, and if there is agreement for deletion then it may be deleted. -- Hoary (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy the POV pushing here is getting ridicilous. IT seems as of late some editors are only interested in adding anything negative about the guy. John Asfukzenski (talk) 06:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

So for goodness sake lets not turn this BLP article into a soapbox of opinions. John Asfukzenski (talk) 06:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

John Asfukzenski, your talk page shows that you habitually edit war. Now you have started to war this section and remove cited data without reason. Please stop. ► RATEL ◄ 06:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I have given reason, something you refuse to do. John Asfukzenski (talk) 06:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Why must I give you a reason for inserting apposite data from impeccable sources? I think an admin should clip your wings again before this degenerates. ► RATEL ◄ 06:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, please remove your ad hominem attacks. Let's keep the discussion on the article content, sources, and policies that apply. Snide remarks about another editor are not helpful. I can't even discern what the issue is from this discussion. Would someone care to provide diffs? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing Ratel's edits again. Simply because something meets WP:RS does not automatically make it acceptable for inclusion. John Asfukzenski (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Your arguments, if I can call them that: (i) "the POV pushing here is getting ridicilous"; (ii) recent appearance that "some editors are only interested in adding anything negative about the guy". You'll have to develop one or both of these more persuasively and get agreement for it/them. Till then, the material stays, and another deletion will bring a block. -- Hoary (talk) 03:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but the user Ratel has a history of this and he refuses to discuss anything. It is impossible to come to a conclusion if he is going to act in bad faith. John Asfukzenski (talk) 04:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's assume for a moment that your description of Ratel is correct. Then show your discursive superiority to Ratel by doing what you claim Ratel refuses to do: discussing, for the benefit of Ratel and the other editors hereabouts (myself included). -- Hoary (talk) 06:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I've made my point. Not to mention there are POV issues with this article. The stub opinion section, the opinions for the acorn videos, referring to him as matt drudges bitch and a quotebox at the top right hand part of the article. John Asfukzenski (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

his comments on Kennedy aren't relevant unless you have an agenda.... 173.151.117.231 (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Approach to Article

This article struck me as one of the most unprofessional I've ever read, no offense to contributors. It rambles too much and needs to be cut to be more concise. Perhaps merge several of the topics that only have one or two lines, by subject. All of the websites could be one topic for instance. Just a suggestion Ferris0000 (talk) 04:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Usually when someone says something like "no offense to contributors" they already know that they're being offensive. If you think this is bad, you don't get around much. The websites should be consolidated here but they should be broken out into their own articles as they are very likely to deserve them. TMLutas (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Image

An image of him was found and added. It is under the Creative Commons. Cousin Kevin (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Kevin. I also have an image which Breitbart LLC has released under the GNU license. If it is needed, let me know. But this one is nice, too. paul klenk ^talk 17:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Misused word

The article cites an author who claims that Breitbart "had 'an interesting epiphany' during the Clarence Thomas hearings." An epiphany is a supernatural being's appearance in the natural world. It is not a sudden understanding, realization, or enlightenment.Lestrade (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

Epiphany: -noun 3. a sudden, intuitive perception of or insight into the reality or essential meaning of something, usually initiated by some simple, homely, or commonplace occurrence or experience. [1] - LeeNapier (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Turns out it was Breitbart himself who used the phrase "interesting epiphany", during his C-SPAN interview. Cheers, CWC 22:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

C student

I miss typed my edit summary. I see the citation, I just didn't see that in there and even so, it seems like undue weight compared to most bios unless there is some reason for this? Anyways, --Tom (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticism by Eric Boehlert--worth including?

In the "criticism" section, I noted that Breitbart has been publicly accused by Eric Boehlert of Media Matters for America of misleading people about the James O'Keefe/ACORN "pimp" story. But someone removed the information, saying that MMA is not a reliable source. I think the accusation has been made by a source that many people take seriously and should be reinstated as part of the controversy surrounding Breitbart's relation with O'Keefe. What do others here think? Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Has this criticism been widely covered by mutliple sources? Has it reached a level of notability that is worthy of inclusion? --Tom (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC) ps Eric Boehlert(sp) is whom exactly and why is his opinion/criticism notable? --Tom (talk) 02:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Boehlert and MMA have been following the Breitbart/ACORN story for a few months now; MMA is a widely-cited media watchdog organization that calls out what they see as systemic misinformation from conservative news sources. I think as part of the controversy section, it's worth mentioning. I wouldn't put it in the main section, since it's still an accusation (though Boehlert links to the report of an independent investigator that casts doubt on the "pimp" videos.)Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

MMA is a widely-cited by whom exactly? Keith Oberman? Partisans? Again, Boehlert is whom exactly?--Tom (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Boehlert & co are claiming that O'Keefe did not "pose as a pimp" when visiting ACORN. But he did pretend to be a pimp, in the first video Breitbart released. MMA is the very opposite of a WP:Reliable Source, no matter how many people take MMA seriously, and is therefore not acceptable in this article. (For one conservative blogger's take, see here and here.) Cheers, CWC 17:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

04-18-10 Media matters is actually quite a reliable source. It might be antagonistic to Breitbart, but it is a valid source with valid and thoroughly vetted information. IF Breitbarts own websites are worth referencing (despite the fact that their content has more-often-than-not proved fallacious), then so is Media Matters. And it would truly be ironic if one were to assume that Wikipedia is "too good" for MMFA. They check their inforamtion, and have a preistine track-record.

Also, its far more than just MMFA that offers trong and valid criticism of Breitbart's work. Please see below, in the new section on criticism. ThanksCeemow (talk) 03:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Start a new page on Breitbart.com to include criticisms

This is a BLP so there are strict rules about sourcing for the page. If you want to insert quotes from mediamatters, I suggest starting a new page on Breitbart.com and moving the material relating to that site, and the subsidiary sites Big this-and-that, to the new page. NOTE: Breitbart.com currently redirects to this page, which you'll need to change. ► RATEL ◄ 04:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Slate profile

While the Slate profile is technically a WP:RS and seems good for details of Breitbart's biography, please note that it is mistaken (or misleading?) about two of the controversies mentioned in it. Here's a better explanation than I could write. Cheers, CWC 08:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes, please discuss

FreedomOne, please check whether Youtube can be used as a RS. AFAIK not.

SluggoOne, please discuss all the changes you wish to make here. Making mass deletions of cited material is not the way to go. ► RATEL ◄ 14:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You know we're not supposed to source to YouTube videos, right? And grammatical errors should be corrected, right? And quoting a partisan actor's partisan attacks, apropos of nothing in the rest of article, constitutes ad copy and probably violates WP:UNDUE, right? And if someone spends a lot of time poorly editing Wikipedia, this amount of time doesn't enter into consideration, right? Thanks, though, for going through my edit and deciding if it had any merit before you wiped it from the face of the earth.

Oh, and that whole "Please dont [sic] hack out half the article, representing a lot of work by other editors" is awfully baffling, since anybody could tell I spent a lot of time on that edit and didn't remove anything without considering what I was doing first. I'm sure that entered into your thought process, too. Şłџğģő 05:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not a wp:BATTLEGROUND, so please cut the snarky tone. I suggest you discuss your proposed large edit in detail before proceeding. You are attempting to remove data that has been discussed before and let stand by consensus, in general. ► RATEL ◄ 07:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There Needs to be a Section Dealing with Valid Criticism Leveled at Breitbart & with His Controversial Nature.

04-18-10 Hello all. Anybody who has followed Andrew Breitbart's work knows that he is a very controversial figure. He has been criticized for, among other things, submitting falsified data (the ACORN tapes, the footage of the Tea-Party rally with Lewis, etc..), slander (trying to make Kevin Jennings out to be a pedophile), and attempting to blackmail the Attorney General.

These are not small and inconsequential aspects of Andrew’s work, or public image. They are prominent features of his PR method.

The near absence from this Wiki article of material dealing with Breitbart’s controversial nature, or of the varied criticisms that have been leveled at his work, is absolutely startling. The single, paltry sentence dealing with O’keefe’s salary (posted under the subheading, “controversy”) certainly does not represent the very tangible and contentious truths about Andrew Breitbart as a public figure.

Dismissing the controversial truths about the subject makes this article unreliable. That needs to be fixed. Anyone who has been paying attention would realize that this wiki article, as it stands, represents a very partial picture of the subject, and one that does not fit with his impact in the national media scene. I think a section that highlights criticisms of Breitbart’s work, or underscores his controversial nature, is essential to any honest discussion of this character.

And I think Media Matters is entirely appropriate as a reliable source. They are cited by other news organizations, and have an esteemed staff of researchers each of whom has a very strong journalistic background.

That being said, here are some links that offer solid, reliable material which needs to be added to this article to help round it out (as a courtesy, I've avoided using MMFA for now.)

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/politics/2010/04/13/andrew_breitbart_misleading_video/index.html

http://www.fair.org/blog/tag/andrew-breitbart/

http://www.cjr.org/the_kicker/well_it_may_deserve_an_award_i.php?page=all&print=true

http://www.cjr.org/news_meeting/the_link_economy.php

http://www.cjr.org/regret_the_error/meet_retracto.php?page=all&print=true

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/03/15/breakfast_with_breitbart

These are just a few examples of the valid criticism leveled at Breitbart. One does not have to agree with them to understand that they represent a very significant part of this subject’s story. As such, they are entirely material to this entry.

Of course, I do think these criticisms and controversies should be addressed with all due respect to Andrew’s privacy and personhood. But to not include such material means that the article is providing a woefully fragmented picture... one that appeals specifically to the people who regard Breitbart as a leader. But that perspective, though important for this entry, is incomplete. The article needs to be balanced out with appropriate forms of criticism to make it whole.

To have an article on Breitbart that does not address either the criticism leveled at him, or the contentious nature of his work, would be like trying to write an article about the recent Health Care Issue without talking about criticism of it, or protest against it.Ceemow (talk) 04:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I've told you above how to go about doing this. In general, AB uses his websites and other platforms to create these controveries, so that's where you should describe them rather than here on a BLP article where other editors can exclude material because of the increased requirements for sourcing. ► RATEL ◄ 04:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sherrod Controversy

Fixed - In the "Activism" section, the entire second half of the paragraph was written in a manner sympathetic to Breitbart. Interpretations of events from one perspective only are not permissible on Wikipedia.

Someone should do a complete redo of this section in a neutral tone, or consider working it into a "Criticism" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.121.209.9 (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sherrod controversy 2

In undoing some vandalism, I unfortunately reverted an edit by user 157.127.124.15 (talk · contribs). For the record, here is our para about Ms Sherrod after that edit:

On July 20, 2010, Georgia's Director of Rural Development for the US Department of Agriculture, Shirley Sherrod, was forced to resign after Breitbart posted two severely edited videos of a speech that Sherrod gave at the NAACP 20th Annual Freedom Fund Banquet over a year earlier on March 27th, 2009. In the snippets posted on Big Government.com (a Breitbart website) and Yahoo.com, Sherrod (an African American) recounted an incident 24 years earlier when she worked for Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund. In the posted video, she explained that she limited how much help she gave a white farmer in foreclosure. Later explanations by Sherrod, given during an interview with John Roberts on CNN, indicated that the point of her speech was to describe for the audience how her thinking had involved over time to view all needs not as a race issue but as a true poverty issue. By July 21, 2010, Breitbart still refused to post the entire video of the speech. So, the NCAAP (which initially condemned Sherrod’s remarks) posted the complete video of Sherrod’s public address in March of 2009. While, the USDA reconsidered their actions towards Sherrod, Breitbart went on to other pressing matters of the day. Breitbart made the complete speech from Sherrod available as of July 21, 2010, but the point of the speech was never about Sherrod, but it was about how the NAACP reacted to Sherrod's statements of discomfort with racial issues as discussed in an interview with John King on CNN. Breitbart was interested in showing that the NAACP participants that attended the conference were egging Sherrod's statements on, not that Sherrod should be fired. Breitbart also includes other examples of NAACP conference reaction with Rev Jeremiah Wright making racially charge statements and the NAACP cheering on the statements.

I was going to repeat that edit, but someone else made conflicting edits before I could do so.

I have since added a subheading, "Sherrod controversy", for this section, plus a {{main}} tag pointing to the Resignation of Shirley Sherrod article.

Some thoughts:

1. It is largely a waste of time to edit an encyclopedia about events that are still happening. Will the USDA offer Ms Sherrod her job back? (If so, will she accept?) What will the NAACP say/do next? What about Pigford vs Vilsack? Etc, etc.
   See WP:NOTNEWS, WP:Recentism.
2. This is an article about Breitbart, not Ms Sherwood. We should say as little as possible about her, being especially careful about anything negative.
3. Some editors have fallen for the widespread lie that Breitbart himself selectively edited those tapes. (See, for example, the version just above.) No, he posted all that he had on the 19th. When the NAACP found their own video of the talk and posted it, Breitbart promptly did the same. (There's already speculation that whoever sent those videos to Breitbart was playing him.)
4. Breitbart has made it clear that he was aiming to cause trouble for the NAACP, not Ms S. He was responding to the NAACP's attack on the tea party movement. His headline for the initial videos was Video Proof: The NAACP Awards Racism–2010. See also here.

Cheers, CWC 17:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with most of your final thoughts. But, your statement "Some editors have fallen for the widespread lie that Breitbart himself selectively edited those tapes" assumes this is a lie. While the assumption may be wrong, the statements that he was not in some manner behind the editing, or that it is a lie to state such, are also assumptions. Just suggesting that we be careful about the word "lie."69.50.1.36 (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"After it became clear that the videos Breitbart posted omitted the point Sherrod was making, Breitbart posted the complete 40-minute video of the speech revealing the true meaning of her statements in context." This is factually inaccurate. the edited videos that Brietbart released clearly showed that Sherrod was able to complete her story and stated that she changed her opinions in regards to helping people of a different race. She states in the video "it was reveled to me that its about poor versus those who have. and not so much about white...it is about white and black but it's not...you know it opened my eyes because I took him to one of his own." I am deleted the the statement as it is factually inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.162.118 (talk) 07:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Phlashlite, 22 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The last paragraph under the header of "Sherrod controversy" in the article begins: "Based on Breitart’s mistaken interpretation of Sherrod’s speech, Sherrod says she “would definitely consider” legal action against him, and added that his intentions were obvious - but misguided."

The text "Based on Breitart’s mistaken interpretation of Sherrod’s speech", needs to be changed because calling Breitbart's interpretation "mistaken" is completely subjective. It is an opinion that presumes to know his (Breitart’s) thoughts and perceptions, and has no place in a dispassionate presentation of information. Rather the paragraph should read something to the effect of: "Based on Breitart’s representation of Sherrod's speech..."Phlashlite (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Phlashlite (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: That statement has been removed by another editor. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced claims

This is a highly visible BLP, and it is a piece of crap. It really needs to be better sourced. I am willing to eliminate all unsourced statements, claims, allegations, and whole sections if need be, to clean up this mess. I've seen many much better sourced articles nominated for deletion. Bearian (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yet again, someone else added back in a paragraph with no reliable sources. I give up! Bearian (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

ABC news appears to be a perfectly reliable source. Note that 'blogs' on news sites, that are written by the staff reporters, are subject to editorial oversight, and are reliable sources (see WP:NEWSBLOG, WP:IRS). Also, on another matter, the source Media Matters has been discussed on WP:RS/N several times, e.g. [2][3], and the conclusion is that it may be a partisan organization, but it is still a reliable source, and can be cited the same way as other partisan sources, like for example, Fox News, or Paul Krugman. LK (talk) 01:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent article published by Media Matters:

  http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007210024   

143.89.188.2 (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a "citation needed" tag on the statement that BigPeace is a Breitbart site...yet if you go to http://www.breitbart.com/ it is listed across the top of the page as an affiliate site along with the others.

If this is a typical example of the unsourced info, it's not much to be concerned with.Bustter (talk) 01:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

An edit to clarify the facts in the case

I made this edit which was reverted by an editor who labelled it as "POV". It is in fact a well established and easily verifiable statement. Even Breitbart does not now dispute that his initial claim about what the video showed was false. My reason for the edit (the edit summary) was ""falsely claimed" We don't want this paragraph to be taken out of context so as to support that [the] lies.". The falsehood of Breitbart's original claim should not be tucked away in some late sentence. .... added at 02:53, 24 July 2010 by Tony Sidaway

Well said. That the claim was false is not a matter of opinion. -- Hoary (talk) 03:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

"posted two short videos which he said showed the NAACP condoning racism despite publicly opposing it." It is true that the NAACP was condoning racism, as evidenced by the audience's reaction to Sherrod when she was telling of her initial treatment of the white farmer--before she got around to saying she changed her mind. That phrasing does not state that as a fact--it says "he said showed." Bretibart stands by that. It would be better to say "some members of the NAACP condoning racism" rather than the "NAACP condoning racism." Drrll (talk) 11:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

What? Could we stick to the facts, please. --TS 02:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I would go with just claimed rather than falsely. The unedited video proved his assirtion wrong/flase, not the edited one originally presented. Maybe something like claimed, then later proved to be false, ect. Trying to get into this guys head seems to be a tricky deal :). Anyways,--Tom (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks ok the way it was changed to "said", ect, which avoids the whole "claimed" vs "fasely claimed" which is clunky. How do we treat Holacaust deniers? Do we report what they say or claim or falsely claim, ect? Anyways, no biggie. --Tom (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"Sherrod controversy", not

The article talks of "Sherrod controversy". Of course there continues to be a controversy that's related to Sherrod. But I am unaware of any way in which Sherrod continued to be controversial after this non-story was (very quickly) debunked. There may be a Breitbart controversy, a Fox News hyping/amnesia/buckpassing controversy, a Vilsack controversy -- it's probably better to wait and see. In the meantime, how about "Sherrod fiction" or "Sherrod 'controversy'"? -- Hoary (talk) 03:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

PS: Cf "Siegenthaler controversy" about the uncontroversial victim of the "Wikipedia biography controversy": the former is now merely a redirect to the latter. -- Hoary (talk) 03:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, she has made some fairly inflammatory statements about Breitbart wanting to reintroduce slavery. Some might consider statements like that to be controversial. Ronnotel (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The victim of a smear heard 'round the world is likely to say lots of things. And this is a woman that has experienced the worst of racism in her past. I don't think that means the victimization should be continued by using charged words like "Sherrod controversy." As for "Breitbart wanting to reintroduce slavery," that's likely a reaction to Mark Williams. Just my opinion.Objective3000 (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"Barrack"

President Obama's first name is spelled "Barack." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.176.254 (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

No longer considers himself Jewish?

The way the "Origins and Personal Life" section is currently worded seems to imply that he no longer considers himself Jewish. Is this really true? If not, the wording in that section should be tweaked to clarify. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Good catch — thanks, Stonemason89. The "but" after "secular liberal jew" relates only to his politics, AFAICT. I've seen footage in which he calls himself a jew.

I've changed that sentence to

He says he "grew up in Brentwood a secular liberal Jew" who celebrated his bar mitzvah and "has the tape to prove it," but changed his political views after "an interesting epiphany" during the Clarence Thomas hearings.

Is this OK? Should I have split the sentence up? Cheers, CWC 17:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Revert

Since I've apparently been banished from asking legitimate questions about LEAC's reverts on his own talk page, I must address it here: What justifies this revert in the name of "no original research"? The source could, perhaps, be in question, but the insertion seems to correctly reflect the source, and not be original research of the original editor. Westbender (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. Revert if you don't like it. This is Wikipedia. Stuff like that happens all the time without the need to create Talk page subsections designed to harass a single editor for some perceived or actual imperfection. Do what you think is appropriate with my edit.--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Please don't dismiss this as "whatever". Your revert suggests you think the edit is a violation of WP:OR, and that's what I'm questioning. I fear you are not properly applying that policy in this case, which might point to larger concerns. Please directly address teh question, rather than deflecting it, especially since' you've already removed the same comment from your talk page (which is the appropriate place, since i'm concerned about your interpretation of policy). Westbender (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

And BTW, asking editors about their interpretation of policy as it relates to a particular revert is exactly what user talk pages are for. Westbender (talk) 02:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but "I fear you are not properly applying that policy in this case, which might point to larger concerns" is evidence of a personal ad hominem interest in me beyond this single page, rather than an interest in addressing an actual issue. This whole section is named for me after all. You are harassing me, not showing concern about an actual issue. At some point, WP:DFTT comes to mind. I won't be responding here further. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I fear you don't know what ad hominem means, as there's none there; merely concern about a possible mis-application of policy. And yes, this section is about you, because you removed it from your talk page and said it should be brought here instead. Westbender (talk) 03:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hint: WP:TALK#New_topics_and_headings_on_talk_pages

• Never address other users in a heading: A heading should invite all editors to respond to the subject addressed. Headings may be about a user's edits but not specifically to a user.
• Never use headings to attack other users: While NPA and AGF apply everywhere at Wikipedia, using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious, since it places their name prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history. Since edit summaries and edit histories aren't normally subject to revision, that wording can then haunt them and damage their credibility for an indefinite time period, even though edit histories are excluded from search engines. Reporting on another user's edits from a neutral point of view is an exception, especially reporting edit warring or other incidents to administrators.

Actually, based on that, I'll change the heading to one that is not "especially egregious", and I'll simply remove my name from the heading. Sounds ad hominem to me. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Please don't paste large chunks of policy; just point to the sections you wish to highlight. Nonetheless, you've succeeded to, again, ignore the actual issue at hand: your interpretation of WP:OR. Please explain the revert. Westbender (talk) 12:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Westbender,

I don't know about original research, but I think the change might not be a good summary of the source.

I suggest the following change instead:

Breitbart has not apologized and his controversial actions have been condemned by Shirley Sherrod's longtime attorney, Rose Sanders.

Media Matters can legitimately claim that it was not condemning Breitbart, but instead quoting Sanders.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 04:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That works fine for me. Honestly, I was just trying to understand how LAEC thought it was original research. He won't let me ask that question directly on his talk page, since he's convinced I'm evil or something. Westbender (talk) 07:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section

I think overall this article does a good job of not giving the criticism undue weight - very difficult indeed for any political media personality. However, I wonder if we should incorporate it into the rest of the text somehow? I kind of stink at writing, so I wouldn't be the one to make the change; but I'm wondering if it would sit better as integrated into the website section? I may be wrong; just want your opinions. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear; it appears I've unintentionally waded into a dispute between Westbender and LAEC, which I am enforcing as an administrator. As such, I'll try to keep my distance as much as possible from that dispute. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

What dispute are you referring to? Westbender (talk) 03:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The one above, which is an extension of the general back-and-forth between you and LAEC. I have blocked (and unblocked) LAEC before; I have blocked users harassing LAEC, and if I'm not mistaken I've given you a warning as well. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

No One Has Been "Credited" with Refuting Breitbart's Claims re: Tea Party Misbehavior During the Healthcare Debate?

This is an awfully strange sentence: "To date, Breitbart has not credited anyone for presenting such footage." The phrasing suggests that there is video or audio evidence somewhere, but Breitbart has simply chosen not to publish it. If nothing has turned up to support the charges, then nothing has turned up. This should be re-phrased, unless someone can provide evidence that Breitbart encountered audio or video, and sat on it. As it stands, there is a subtle imputation of dishonesty that is not documented.Scooge (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I've removed that sentence because it isn't supported by the cited sources. It also used poor wording ("To date...") for an encyclopedia, since any supporting source would have to be current as of today.

While many of the Tea Partiers at the protest were carrying recording devices, it is highly doubtful that one would step forward to present self-incriminating recorded evidence without some kind of monetary incentive. We also can't imply that recorded evidence (such as this inconclusive example) doesn't exist, because reliable sources won't (and probably never can) do so. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That's fair enough. I've seen footage of that scene from 3-4 vantage points, and none of it appears to support the "spitting and slurs" charge. Even the Politico vid, which sounds to me like someone is calling out a someone's name, or trying to get a friend's attention ("Eddie"? "Amy"?) doesn't support the original allegation of "15 people (saying it) 15 times."Scooge (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The gay slurs were clearly recorded (Frank was called "faggot" and "homo commie", among other things). The spitting happened, although the recording doesn't indicate whether it was intentional, or just accidental spray from a shouting protester for which he refused to apologize — either situation seems equally offensive. The original racial slur allegations, plural, come from Lewis, Carson and the aide; the snippet you put in quotes above is incorrect. When Carson was asked how many people were saying it, Carson actually said "...maybe about fifteen people, I heard it about fifteen times", but the key part is before that when he says the protesters where shouting "Kill the bill..." and someone would add in "n-word" right after. That would indeed be perfectly supported by the Politico recording (if it were clearer, but it is not). There is a more complete audio-clip of Carson's words here, where it says [Audio].

There are only a couple of videos of their departure from Cannon and trek across the boulevard, and unfortunately none of them have the proximity or audio quality to pick up whatever the congressmen were hearing. If someone did have a recording of the racial slurs, they would have been compelled to step forward if Breitbart had offered to give $100,000 to that person, instead of to the United Negro College Fund - but Breitbart did not. Was that merely an oversight, or genius? I'm puzzled by Breitbart's whole conspiracy theory that Lewis & company fabricated the whole incident at Pelosi's direction, in light of the fact that slurs and poor behavior were already recorded at the protest, and there was no plausible reason to make false racial slur claims — it was already too late to effect the voting. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't listening for the gay slur (which, by the way, has been deployed repeatedly against Breitbart himself, for some reason). But I'll listen again to the one you linked, since that kind of thing is profoundly disturbing to me. (But I'm on deadline, so I'll have to come back to it tomorrow.)

I don't know how to respond to your suggestion that saying there were no racist slurs would indicate a "conspiracy theory," since there have been a lot of strenuous efforts to discredit tea partiers as being racist. Someone who was able to make an allegation like that stick would see his or her stock rise. There would be an incentive to hear what one feared in a situation like that.Scooge (talk) 05:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The gay slurs were caught on news video, as well as witnessed by reporters. Double checked. You say there have "been a lot of strenuous efforts to discredit tea partiers as being racist", yet all I have seen are numerous incidents of racism from which tea partiers have made strenuous effort to distance themselves. Could you, when you find the time (I note that you are busy), direct me to a source or sources that show that efforts have been made to discredit tea partiers as racist? I can't understand how I could have missed such a source.

I didn't say that Breitbart's questioning whether slurs were made was the conspiracy theory. I was refering to his own assertion that it was all a pre-planned, cleverly concocted ploy by Pelosi, and involving several congressmen: "Nancy Pelosi did a great disservice to a great civil rights icon by thrusting him out there to perform this mischievous task. His reputation is now on the line as a result of her desperation to take down the Tea Party movement." I find that laughable, and it flies in the face of common sense. Maybe it's just me, Xenophrenic (talk) 08:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"Webmaster"? Huh?

I just changed the ridiculous descriptor "webmaster" from the opening sentence and replaced it with the more accurate "publisher." Calling Breitbart a "webmaster" is like calling Donald Trump a "building superintendent." A webmaster maintains and designs Web sites, or is "a person responsible for the administration of a website on the World Wide Web." Thanks, but no thanks, to whatever non-writer made that "contribution."

If you open your eyes and look at the citation (#2) following that word, you will see that C-SPAN used the word "Publisher" to describe him during his interview. This citation that was added when someone else was challenging an edit to "publisher."

Breitbart is more than a publisher; he himself has said "...I don't even have business cards, because I don't have a title." But unless someone can offer a more accurate term, "publisher" should stand. paul klenk ^talk 06:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)