Talk:Breitbart News

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!

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.

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.

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).

NEA "propaganda" story

This is regarding this edit and similar. Only two of the non-Breitbart sources used mentioned Breitbart's role, and only in passing as the site which hosted the audio. If this is a legitimately significant story for the site, it should be supported by more substantial coverage, otherwise this could again devolve into listing every story they publish which is ever mentioned by another outlet. The story is also redundantly mentioned in the "Big Hollywood" subsection, but even that seems thin based on coverage. Grayfell (talk) 08:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fake News

Some of the so-called news are blatant lies, for example this: http://www.deutschlandfunk.de/fake-news-wie-breitbart-fakten-aufbauscht-und-einen-mob.1818.de.html?dram:article_id=375553

Added. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

False report of Muslim mob

I removed this section for now. --Malerooster (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, without much justification. It's well sourced and indeed well covered. I put it back.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, without consensus. Is it so hard to gain consensus? --Malerooster (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is your objection to this content? There are eleven sources, so omitting would tend to run afoul of WP:DUEWEIGHT. It's 100% on topic. Mark me as supporting its inclusion.- Mr X 01:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Section-blanking is premature, to say the least. A reason for removal hasn't been clearly articulated yet. Grayfell (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX, my objection is that we don't need to include every "controversy" discussed by the talking heads, which I assume is the case here. Another "controversey" or "notable stories" was just added about Paul Krugman. These type of sections become dumping grounds and almost lists which really isn't helpful. I will not remove the content again because 3 editors have objected, but I would prefer to wait to see how notable this really is and whether there are any further "developments", that's all. --Malerooster (talk) 13:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't "every controversy", this is just one widespread controversy which received widespread coverage. Please don't drag out that ol' fallacious argument of "we can't include everything therefore we can't include this one particular thing I really IJUSTDONTLIKE".Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice strawman argument. Please try reading next time. --Malerooster (talk) 13:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even Breitbart felt the need to follow up with this by now. It has been in many many newspapers for days now. It may be comparable to Breitbart News#"Friends of Hamas" story, because there are other news sites and that politician that fell for the false story. Eventually, we may be able to shorten this to the most important sources only. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Breitbart_News#False_report_of_Muslim_mob_in_Germany – Response from Breitbart

In the article http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/01/08/fake-news-fake-news-media-sow-division-with-dishonest-attack-on-breitbarts-allahu-akbar-church-fire-story/, Breitbart respond to the Critique. The part "and as of January 7, 2017, the article is still online and not corrected." should be updated. Nsaa (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added. (Swapped this talk section with the unrelated section below to keep "fireworks" stories together). HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeping Giants

Perhaps this article should mention the 'Sleeping Giants' campaign (NYT coverage) which has had some success in persuading major bands not to advertise on Breitbart? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added in the most concise way to the Kellogs mentioning of the introduction. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on terms & consensus

The lede of this article has been in place now using both "right wing" and "far right" for a while and both are sourced; would it be wise to update the other articles for example the Milo Yiannopolous article lede to reflect these terms. I have tried it but got reverted instantly - unclear why. Perhaps someone with more resolve can do it as I don't want to get into an edit war. Phatwa (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, please refer to the WP page on consensus where it plainly states that consensus is not a vote, but a weighing of which side of a debate has a better grounding in policy. With that in mind, please refer to this section which I know you've read before in which two editors argue a policy based position in support of the term "far-right" and one editor argues a non-policy based position against it, while the OP made a weak policy-based claim against it that was responded to sufficiently to discredit it. There is, in fact, a consensus to refer to Breitbart as "far-right" per the preponderance of sources, per the fact that it's not a pejorative term, and per the lack of significant dissent among reliable sources. I'm not sure how the current phrasing managed to stay in, but the edit summary in which it was inserted is a bald-faced lie. So I'm correcting the article to reflect the actual consensus now. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further evidence of consensus which is against your assertion:

MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that we remove "right-wing". It adds nothing to readers' understand of the subject. Obviously, right-wing is subsumed under far-right, as is "conservative".- Mr X 15:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to who? Using the weasel term 'obviously' means very little. 81.157.83.173 (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

already did. The consensus was clear, contrary to Phatwa's claims. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus wasn't clear, hence no action being taken. Revisiting the same idea later and claiming "consensus has been reached" without referring to the archive of the conversation implies an axe to grind. Can you point out where there was a consensus reached to use the term "far-right" exclusively? Note that the previously used term "right wing" had been in place since, as far as I can tell, 2011 or possibly even further back. What a joke this website is, when MrX can ask for consensus on this Talk page, realise there is none, then simply wait a few months when other Wikiepedians have lost interest in the topic, and ask another user overwrite it with their personal viewpoint. How often do you want a consensus vote to be held? It was only 6 weeks ago. If this were a left-wing interest article, it would have been put out for consensus from a wider pool of users long ago. If there is anyone left here with any integrity, perhaps they can do it. 81.157.83.173 (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify the above point, as it might not be clear so far, I am NOT disagreeing with the description of Breitbart News as 'far-right', for which there are several reliable sources. My objection is to the removal of the term 'right-wing' which is as equally, if not more, well-sourced. Or indeed the previous term which was in use for many years in the article: 'conservative'. 81.157.83.173 (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right wing, Far right or both?

I note the term "right wing" has been removed again, as one user believes that the term is grouped under the "far right" family, which in my mind is patently false and lazy. I am reposting from another user from the archive who presented a list of various reliable sources that describe Breitbart as 'right wing'. Perhaps the user who reverted this change can explain the reasoning. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 81.157.83.173 (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]