Jump to content

Talk:Breitbart News

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 81.157.83.173 (talk) at 14:29, 20 January 2017 (→‎RfC: Should Breitbart News also be described as "right-wing" in the lead?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.- MrX 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".- MrX 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]
Whether or not you understood the consensus (or how consensus works here) doesn't change the truth of what I said. The most !votes were for including the phrase "far-right" and the most well-supported policy arguments were for including the phrase "far-right". The phrase was already in the article, "hence no action being taken". That's the very definition of consensus. You can't change that by claiming (or pretending) to not understand. Also, you say I didn't point to the archive where it had been achieved after I posted three fucking links to the archive?! lol Try again. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's unfortunate that you feel you can't get your point across without swearing. My understanding of a Consensus discussion is that a closing statement is made with the decision and reasons why that decision was made, but I can't find any such comment there. 81.157.83.173 (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's more unfortunate that I can't get my point across with swearing. It's a blatantly obvious point that's unarguably true. There is no policy which states that "consensus discussions" must be closed with a closing statement. Also, there is no such thing as a distinct "consensus discussion". All discussions are for the purpose of arriving at a consensus. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:54, 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]

It's already been explained. There is no benefit to adding this tautology to the lead, nor is there consensus as can be seen in the above discussions. If you disagree, you are welcome to create an RfC.- MrX 15:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to where it was explained please? I've read the archive and you agreed that these sources were mostly fine, and should stand presumably. The term 'right wing' was (re)added in November 2016 and was only removed yesterday after you requested it to be, as far as I can tell. If you can point me to where that was discussed I'd be happy to stand corrected. 81.157.83.173 (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous section. Can you point me to a consensus for including that material? Start an RfC is you think there is an unarticulated consensus for including redundant adjectives in the lead.- MrX 15:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You just argued that it's "patently false and lazy" to say that "far-right" is a subset of "right-wing". The sheer ignorance and dearth of logic in that claim is mind boggling. No. It's neither false nor lazy. It's blatantly obvious and logically certain that if an individual or organization is "far-right" that they are not left-wing or centrist. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A completely different point entirely, and I'm sure you know that. 81.157.83.173 (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will not speculate about your cognitive abilities, but I will say this: a failure to grasp the fundamentally simplistic and unassailable logic of "a specific subset of a group is still a part of that group" is the sort of failure that would raise serious questions about one's suitability for editing WP. I'm not convinced that you don't understand this, however, so I will also say this: refusing to drop an argument that has been clearly and thoroughly defeated multiple times is the sort of behavior that raises serious questions about one's suitability for editing WP. Seriously, I mean this to be helpful: If you want to participate here you have to do so within the context of our policies and standards. Right now, your argument is well outside of those. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Blah blah. Can you please point me to where there has been a discussion on whether the term "right wing" is suitable for the lede, and if not, then why not? As I said above, it has been sourced just as well as the term "far right", which MrX conceded in November 2016. Of course, simply because they are distantly related, does not mean they cannot both be used. I will file an RfC, if an IP user is permitted, as per MrX's suggestion, any further discussion or trading of insults is moot. 81.157.83.173 (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've already linked to the discussions. Also, stop trying to cloud the issue with whining about "insults". I never insulted you, I pointed out how poor your argument is and gave you two policy based reasons and one pragmatic reason to drop it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Impartial (and non-passionate) opinion of an observer with no connection to the article
    • @MjolnirPants: Perhaps "ignorance and dearth of logic" was a poor choice of words, though your argument is correct (apart from the fact the IP correctly states that "Right Wing" is not a subset of "Far Right" in his opening sentence—which you reversed in your assessment of their comments).
    • @81.157.83.173: The matter re "Far Right" has been settled. "Right Wing" is simply the super-set containing it (to continue the set theory analogy) so using that term would be over-kill. Also, the lead goes on to say "Breitbart later aligned with the European populist right and American alt-right ..." and then explains how the group denies any connection with racism etc that these terms suggest. This seems disinterested enough for WP standards and satisfies the decision (made at the discussion I just alluded to in the talk archives) to temper the usage of the term "Far Right" (and by implication any near-synonyms like "Alt-Right" etc), again–further obviating the need to explicitly use the term "Right Wing" in the lede. The fact that sources mix up their usage of the various terms doesn't alter the fact that the organisation is indeed far to the right (as demonstrated by the sources cited) and the term "Right Wing" as used by many newspapers does not exclude "Far Right" but rather encompasses (and perhaps intentionally avoids) it.
    • Conclusion: We need to be careful how we handle editorialized sources... and this is a prime example of the bear traps that await any editor on WP dealing with the more controversial subjects. I suggest the lede as it stands has the balance correct — Iadmc♫talk  17:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Iadmc: My counterargument (as well as that of MrX) is that, by saying "far-right" it then necessarily (and obviously) follows that breitbart would be included under the banner of "right-wing". The crux of the IP's argument is that we need to include "right-wing", a position which is at odds with the opening statement. You certainly seem to understand this, but I wanted to open by reiterating it. In fact, it was the IP who was mischaracterizing MrX's point in their opening sentence. MrX had earlier stated "Obviously, right-wing is subsumed under far-right, as is "conservative"." in the above section, which led the IP to post this section. The fact is that the IP's statement in the leading sentence stands at odds with their (explicitly) expressed position throughout this discussion. In context, they appear to be something of a "cheap shot" in that, in misunderstanding MrX's meaning, the IP seemed to have found something MrX said that was obviously wrong, and could be used as 'ammunition' in the argument. Hence my comments about the qualities of the IPs argument: this discussion is the result of the IP not grasping the (parent-child) relationship between "right-wing" and "far-right", and furthermore not grasping the explanations and arguments offered in response to their comments. The sad fact is; any reasonable person who stopped to consider for a moment what has been said by both MrX and myself would conclude rapidly that our conclusion is inescapable. The fact that the IP continued to argue indicated that -at least until their last response- the IP was either unwilling or unable to consider the logic involved here in even the most superficial way. This becomes a sticky issue because the presumption on my part of either of those is an assumption of bad faith likely to degenerate the argument further. So I try to address both possibilities without favoring one, as this gives the IP the chance to say "No, you're not understanding me, what I really meant was [insert rational argument here]." instead of immediately leaping to an "I'm not stupid" or an "I'm not biased" defensive stance. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MjolnirPants: !Thanks for pointing me upward on the page... It did clarify the contradictory nature of the IP's statements, however. I don't feel inclined to be drawn further into this discussion which I see as having been settled months ago, if I'm reading the archives correctly. I only came here because I noticed (as a TPS) that the IP directly requested an admin waste his time and "arbitrate"... I suggest you don't humour the IP any further, also, and instead move on to higher other things — Iadmc♫talk  19:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we're at that point. I try to make an effort to explain why certain edits which might seem like common sense to some editors are not realistic, but eventually, there's no functional difference between not getting it and trolling. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. And good luck with the immediately following... — Iadmc♫talk  13:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should Breitbart News also be described as "right-wing" in the lead?

Previous consensus determined that Breitbart News should be described as "far-right" in the lead. Should it also be described as "right-wing" in the lead?- MrX 01:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • No "Far-right" is a subset of "right-wing" and it says so quite clearly in the link on the phrase. The addition serves no purpose other than to "soften the blow" of accurately describing the site. I would suggest that anyone who both finds "far-right" to be a distasteful term, and finds breitbart to be a good source of information has larger problems than the phrasing in a wikipedia article and could stand to benefit from reading our articles about the far-right. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes the term is just as well sourced as the term "far right", as per the above section which contains around 30 verifiable and reliable sources. To argue that it's sufficient to say something is "far-right" as an umbrella term, suggests perhaps a misunderstanding of the political spectrum. We cannot group together "right-wing" and "far-right" any more than we can group together an apple and a banana. By the way, I wouldn't have any issue with the previously long standing use of the word 'conservative' here as an alternative;- though would prefer 'right-wing' as it's a broader term. My other issue with the usage of 'far-right' (in the context of this article only) is that it stinks of selective relativism, i.e. recent political events and appointments have lead certain Wikipedians to attempt to re-brand or reclassify something in their own terms that they don't agree with or find distasteful (see comment above this one). I could not find any discussion on these two terms on the Breitbart News Talk page until very recently, for example. 81.157.83.173 (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Breitbart_News&oldid=761038736"