Talk:Rebel News

Right wing

The Rebel is a right-wing media outlet, and I have placed three reliable sources backing that up. If it had more recognition it would be described as "far right", but because I don't have sources stating "far right" I'm not putting that into the article. However, The Rebel promotes hardline nationalism, which is a far right ideology, and it should be described that way as soon as sources catch up to it. Benjamin5152414 (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any reasonable doubt that The rebel is "right-wing", nationalist, and for that matter Islamophobic (viz. https://www.vice.com/article/photos-from-the-rebels-anti-anti-islamaphobia-rally); these perspectives should be clearly identified in the article. Newimpartial (talk) 04:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

There are equally plenty of sources that describe them as conservative. One shouldn't forget that it is a Canadian broadcaster, and the term conservative is more frequently used to describe what a lot of Europeans would define as right wing. Canadian sources I have seen prefer conservative, as is the same used to describe Ezra Levant. Alexandre8 (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Although...Classical Liberal

"...although Levant states that he is a classical liberal)..."

FYI to whoever wrote this parenthetical note in the main article, classical liberal means conservative.

Tcschenks (talk) 06:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

It most definitely does not.

Claims of Pro-Israeli stance

Following on from the dispute at WP:ANI, I've taken the liberty to open a dispute case here for both Erkanaz and Hungarian Phrasebook to discuss their differences, and work towards a mutual consensus.

1. To editor Erkanaz: put forward your views, including sources. To editor Hungarian Phrasebook: you do the same procedure.
2. Between you both, compare at your evidences and find which has the common ground.
3. Then look at the points you disagree upon, and work towards a compromise ground.
4. And to conclude, implement the agreed version, once you are both happy and reached an outcome without engaging in further warring.

Now are you both able to conduct this simple dispute resolution process peacefully and civilly? Wes Wolf ^Talk 19:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Evidence and views from Hungarian Phrasebook

The dispute is simply that Erkanaz hasn't provided a source that states Rebel Media is unusual among alt-right media for having a pro-Israel stance. Sourcing by synthesis isn't acceptable (see WP:SYNTH). Arguing that it's right because we know it's right isn't sufficient either. The claim has to actually be explicitly supported by a source i.e. a source actually has to say what's in the paragraph Erkanaz wants to say. There may well be a source out there that says this but I haven't found it and none of the sources Erkanaz has presented say it either. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I've just added the {{Find}} template to the top of this talk page. It provides links to a variety of news outlets, that may assist in this search for sources. But I am glad that you have taken the first step to engage in a mutual discussion. Just remember to keep it calm and civil, even if things get heated. Wes Wolf ^Talk 20:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from others

All I could find on a quick search was this from the media outlet themselves, which only validates them going on a "fact-finding mission". That does not endorse or portray any from of Pro-Israel or Pro-Anything for that matter. And I'm pretty sure using their own material to cite content on their own article would be self-publication to some degree. Following the guidance of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, discourages against self-publish sources. Then there is this content again from the same website that picks up on 10 things one of their reporters hated about Israel. So that doesn't exactly come across as being "pro". Those are just a few to look into, but not quite useful. Wes Wolf ^Talk 20:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

Aspects of the article should be reconsidered as they currently do not read as a neutral point of view and is noticeably negative to Rebel Media. No source is given to the claim in the article that Rebel Media contributors are Holocaust deniers. Reasons for hiring Tommy Robinson not given in an objective way. An example being describing the English Defence League he previously led as anti-Muslim. In an interview dated 20/06/17 he describes his views as anti-Islam not anti-Muslim. Also an emphasis on a seemingly unrelated crime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSwagasaurusRex (talk • contribs) 12:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I partially agree and partially disagree. The article doesn't describe RM contributors as Holocaust deniers; rather, it describes them as having defended Holocaust deniers, which is supported by the cited sources. However, I agree that the coverage of Robinson is pretty clearly non-neutral, as it cherry-picks the most negative content from his article. We should try to be consistent with the consensus language in the lead of that article, then perhaps add content that's particularly relevant to RM. Accordingly I'm "demoting" your article-level tag to an inline tag. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Far right

An IP editor is repeatedly changing the lead section to replace "right-wing" with "far right," even though the cited sources say "right-wing." Please review our verifiability policy and stop doing this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The first citation on that phrase explicitly characterizes RM contributors as advancing far right rhetoric. If I have to add further citations to clarify, I will be happy to do so. That said, the use of a broad term as "right wing" in other sources (the latter two of which barely mention the Rebel Media) does not in any way preclude the editorial slant from being labelled as far right. Looking at the contributions of these editors, I am concerned that politically motivated users (including those reverting the "far right" edit) are softening the tone of articles on far-right subjects and downplaying the radicality of those subjects (as Dr. Fleischman may have noticed on the Breitbart conversation). For reference, they should review Wikipedia policy on euphemisms. Additionally, the two cited sources explicity referencing RM as "right wing" don't really have much to do with RM, which is a problem all on its own.

If it's worth any consideration, I would also point out the frequent hosting of prominent white nationalists in interviews, use of white nationalist slogans by primary contributors (ie. deus vult), and the fact that one of its most prominent contributors founded a fraternal organization with extensive associations with various alt-right groups definitely qualifies as being far right.

Apologies for not using the user tag, icons on mobile aren't working properly. I am the IP contributor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.223.154 (talk) 02:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand how Wikipedia works: we follow the reliable sources. If the reliable sources say organization X is far right, then we can say it's far right. If they say organization Y is right-wing, then we can say it's right-wing. Your analysis of Rebel Media's content is known as original research and is not permitted. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

McLean's uses "far right". Surely it is a reliable source. Newimpartial (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

It generally is, but check the source closely. It doesn't actually say RM is far-right. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure it does. It says that Ezra "saw a wide-open market for unadulterated, far-right conservatism in Canada; he’s chasing the same opportunity abroad." Since his entry into that market is Rebel media, it does indeed say that. Also, see the title. Newimpartial (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

This might sound like splitting hairs, but chasing a far-right market isn't the same thing as being far-right. The previous sentence makes clear that Levant wants to become a "far-right media mogul" but he isn't one yet. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's splitting hairs. But if I have to edit the phrase "far-right market" into the article, I can certainly do that. Newimpartial (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I also think the source content about "pro-Trump, pro-Le Pen, pro-Brexit anti-Muslim-immigration-everywhere" could be useful. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

From the Macleans article, "The website sits high in regard south of the border among those at the far-right edges of America’s conversation, for whom Fox News is too tepid..." It's pretty clear that The Rebel Media already appeals to this audience. 184.151.36.42 (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Being in high regard among the far-right doesn't mean you're far right. For instance, many in the far right hold Fox News in high regard; that doesn't mean we can describe Fox News as far right. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Except Fox isn't held in high regard by the far right. As 109.76.223.154 had stated, "right wing" and "far-right" are not mutually exclusive terms, and the sources currently listed don't focus on the outlet's editorial bias, whereas the sources in the far right edits centre on TRM's content and contributors. 76.68.48.217 (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting; now please stop edit warring before you're blocked. No, the sources you want added don't actually say that RM is far right. If they did then I for one would fully support using them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

You are being extraordinarily disingenuous. The NYT article labels TRM as a far-right that employs Posobiec. The HopeNotHate article lists the Rebel as a far-right outlet, and the Macleans source specifically talks about Levant as chasing a market for far right media. You've failed to make a recognizable distinction between the two, as clearly "chasing the market" entails publishing content with a far right slant. As Newimpartial has said, you are splitting hairs. 76.68.48.217 (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I had misread the NY Times article, my apologies. I had thought it said that Posobiec and not was far-right. The MacLeans article doesn't expressly say that RM is far-right, and Hope Not Hate is not a reliable source. However, in light of the Times article I now support using "far right" and will edit accordingly. Please do try to assume good faith. Nothing disingenuous here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Care to elaborate on how HOPE not hate, a respected research organization, isn't a reliable source? Additionally you are the only person arguing that the Macleans article doesn't call TRM "far-right". Users discussing the matter agreed that you are, in your own words, splitting hairs. 76.68.48.217 (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I would, but why does it matter? I agreed to keep far right--why do you care which sources are cited? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

HNH's research is seen as invaluable to professional media and academics studying extremism in Britain. I think for the sake of thoroughness we should resolve whether or not HNH should be treated as a reliable source. 76.68.48.217 (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

You are free to post something at WP:RSN then. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The sources for saying they're "far right" are left-wing newspapers.

So does that mean if right-wing outlets refer to something as "far left" (e.g. HuffPo) then I can edit those articles and describe them as far-left?

Or does Wikipedia have a left-wing bias, like I fully suspect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThebeOkonma (talk • contribs) 17:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

TRM's contributors sell white supremacist gear, post videos about what they hate about Jews, and spread "white genocide" fearmongeeing. If you wanted a leftist perspective, i'm sure they would sooner call TRM a "white supremacist" outlet. Wikipedia does not euphemize. If you want to confirm your bias, go frequent Metapedia instead. 184.151.36.144 (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Please review our verifiability policy. Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there is only one reliable source calling Rebel Media "far-right". However, you have at least three other reliable sources (including the same New York Times), calling it "right-wing":

The Guardian: "Brian Lilley of Rebel Media, an online news and right-wing opinion outlet..."

BBC: "...hosted by the right-wing Rebel media group."

The New York Times: "Lauren Southern, a host on the right-wing Canadian media site Rebel Media..."

::Three against one. If there's no answer about this point, I'm going to reinstate the "right-wing" label.--Pareshy Taimur (talk) 01:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

McLean's also uses far-right source. Also, it isn't a poll of the sources; it is an editorial decision which WP:RS label is more accurate. Newimpartial (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Rebel Media are not widely considered to be "far right" which is synonymous with fascism and nazism, they don't identify as such, their contributors are not widely considered to be far right. This smear needs to stop. If you need to add a section that talks about this contestation then so be it, but this is supposed to be a neutral page when the opening line is clearly ideologically-driven. There is absolutely not a consensus amongst mainstream reputable sources that this is a far right outlet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:2BC4:3100:14DE:398B:92DB:CF97 (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The New York Times, an extremely reliable source, calls RM "far right," and no other reliable source contradicts it. Further, "far right" is not at all "synonymous" with Fascism and Nazism. This is not a smear or anything ideologically driven. This is merely an effort to comply with our verifiability and neutrality policies and accurately describe the organization in light of the existing reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2017

Rebel is not far right. That is slander. Change 'far right' to conservative. 2607:FEA8:71F:FFFD:3CCB:2912:BD78:92AC (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Please obtain consensus before making this change. There is a discussion directly above concerning this very issue; please consider participating. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Tommy Robinson

Newimpartial, please stop repeatedly adding unsourced information about Tommy Robinson, in violation of our BLP policy. This information may be true, but it requires reliable sources to support it. I also have serious concerns about the neutrality of using descriptors that do not appear in the lead section of Tommy Robinson (activist). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Just so that we are on the same page, my edits to that section of the article are a restoration here [1] of material originally added and sourced by HungarianPhrasebook here [2] which I subsequently moderated in tone here [3]. I then restored the material when it had been deleted, here [4] responding to TheRationalist who argued that the Telegraph was not a reliable source (!), and after that section of the article had been stable for more than three weeks. Most recently, I restored the stable version again here [5] after it was modified by a brand new user. When the same user made the same edit less than 24 hours later, I did not revert.

Of all of those edits, only the last could be by any stretch be regarded as "adding unsourced information", although I had previously looked up the criminal record of the person mentioned in reliable sources and had discussed the same issue with HungarianPhrasebook. I do not feel any ownership of the language used to discuss Mr. Robinson in this article (and please note that my original edit to this passage was to tone down existing language, and edit that was stable for almost a month). I take BLP policy very seriously, and resent very much the false statement that I "repeatedly added unsourced information", which I most certainly did not. Newimpartial (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, if you are accusing me of socking as 184.151.36.87, that ain't me. Please clarify and/or withdraw the accusation. Newimpartial (talk) 04:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. You're on thin ice on the conduct front, but let's focus on content please. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Finally, about the term "convicted criminal" - while I neither introduced the term to this article nor did I add sources supporting it, I will point out that the linked article on Mr. Robinson makes note of - and provides sources for - at least four criminal convictions. Descriptions of his various offenses and their consequences take up a substantial portion (perhaps one-third?) of that article. "Criminal" is not a controversial discriptor in this case. It would, however, be easy enough to add sources if desired. Newimpartial (talk) 04:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Which article? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Tommy Robinson Newimpartial (talk) 04:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'm not saying the guy is not a convicted criminal. I'm saying you need to provide a citation to a reliable source in this article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Which I will be happy to do once the dust settles. But I hope you can recognize that I haven't reverted the text since this issue was constructively raised; Lewisdrummerboy36's original comment, "POV garbage", in lieu of a talk page comment, did not raise this issue in a way I could readily recognize. My only revert of that specific phrase was the R cycle of BRD, and now we are in D. :) Newimpartial (talk) 05:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Content added back with sources. Newimpartial (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)