Talk:Breitbart News

Alt right sentence

The sentence in the lead says:

"Breitbart News later aligned with the European populist right and American alt-right under the management of former executive chairman Steve Bannon."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/16/magazine/breitbart-alt-right-steve-bannon.html?mtrref=undefined

We have a reliable source here saying Breitbart is not alt-right itself:

"The last thing Yochai Benkler noted before I left his office at Harvard was that his team had performed a textual analysis of all the stories in their database, and they found a surprising result. ‘‘One thing that came out very clearly from our study is that Breitbart is not talking about these issues in the same way you would find on the extreme right,’’ he said. ‘‘They don’t use the same language you find on sites like VDARE and The Daily Stormer’’ — two sites connected to the white-nationalist alt-right movement. He paused for a moment, then added: ‘‘Breitbart is not the alt-right.’’

It does say, however, that "Shapiro’s story suggests a more complicated view of Breitbart’s relationship to the extreme right: not an exponent of all the most incendiary rhetoric but its willing conduit. Under Bannon, the site seemed content to welcome its alt-right base."

In other words, Breitbart is not alt right itself, but under Bannon, became sort of a conduit.

Therefore, I think the sentence should be changed simply to "Breitbart News later aligned with the populist right under the management of former executive chairman Steve Bannon." as right wing populism fits its nationalist anti-globalist position without out-right describing it as alt right, which is inaccurate according to the New York Times and the cited professor. This can be further elaborated in the following paragraph using the above New York Times profile to clarify its ideology. Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, first off, thanks for highlighting the issue. Second, the Times did not adopt Benkler's statement, so the question isn't whether the Times article is a reliable source, but rather whether Benkler's comment is reliable under WP:SPS. I'm not an expert at SPS, but I believe the answer is no, since Benkler did not publish it himself, and as far as I can tell this is not his area of expertise (though I could be mistaken). Finally, even if Benkler's statement is a reliable source, our neutrality policy dictates that we should describe the disagreement among the sources, not remove it entirely. Moreover, I don't believe your "seemed content" language is supported by the sources. All that said, even if Benkler's conclusion isn't reliable, it may be worthy of inclusion in the body with in-text attribution. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

(Personally, I think Benkler's analysis is completely bogus. Breitbart's language isn't what you find on VDARE and The Daily Stormer, ergo, it's not alt-right? By that logic,Richard B. Spencer, the claimed leader of the alt-right, isn't alt-right. Come on.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The second sentence I cited is the Times, not Benkler. Second, VDARE and Daily Stormer were given as examples, not as the only representation of the alt right. Spencer IS a white nationalist and does align with the language used in VDARE and Daily Stormer. Breitbart, while certainly right wing populist, is not white nationalist.

Also, I would say Benkler is a RS as he is a credited academic at Harvard who is studying this issue.

As for the source, the current cited New York Times article for that sentence does not outright say that Breitbart is alt-right either, but uses similar language to the NYT article I linked above that described it as "a willing conduit". Changing the sentence to simply "Breitbart News later aligned with the populist right under the management of former executive chairman Steve Bannon." does not outright *exclude* the possibility of it being alt right either, and its role in the alt right movement can be discussed in more nuanced terms based on the sources cited. The current statement lacks nuance and does not represent what the sources are saying. Marquis de Faux (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that the source you're citing doesn't contradict the current lede. The sentence you want to change doesn't accuse Breitbart of being part of the alt-right, but of "aligning itself" with the alt-right, a state which is never described as "joining", "becoming a part of" or indeed, given any permanence. Given that Breitbart itself said it was the "platform for the alt-right", it's going to take a lot more than one source to change this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Bannon said it was the platform for the alt right when the term first started coming up and wasn't really defined as it is now. The current editors say they have nothing to do with the alt right. Marquis de Faux (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

And we cite three more reliable sources that say that Breitbart is alt-right. There may be more. The question here isn't whether there are reliable sources calling Breitbart reliable sources; the question is whether the Benkler comment creates a dispute among the reliable sources that requires us to give due weight to both viewpoints. Marquis de Faux, has Benkler's work in this field been published by reliable third-party publications? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

And yes, Benkler's work "in this field" is published in various publications from Columbia Journalism Review to NPR to New York Times. https://www.cjr.org/analysis/breitbart-media-trump-harvard-study.php http://www.npr.org/2017/03/14/520087884/researchers-examine-breitbart-s-influence-on-misleading-information Marquis de Faux (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The NPR piece is an interview, not published work. The CJR piece is a good example, however. Given that Benkler is a professor of Entrepreneurial Legal Studies I don't think a singe cite establishes much, however it's far from clear that he's not an expert per WP:SELFPUB. I'm fairly certain that one could dig up enough evidence to reasonably claim him to be an expert on Breitbart's political stance.

But again, the problem is that Benkler's comments don't contradict the claim "Breitbart aligned itself with the alt-right and others under the control of Bannon." Indeed, it doesn't really even address that claim. With a rebuttal from Breitbart to charges of being part of the alt-right already in the lede, I'm not sure why you want to change anything. I'm going to refrain from assuming that you're engaged in attempted white-washing, but I have to be honest: it looks that way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the CJR source gives Benkler "expert status" under WP:SPS. It is not self-published and it's in the relevant field. I also believe that Marquis de Faux is commenting in good faith and not trying to whitewash anything. I would support some appropriately nuanced summary of Benkler's conclusions (beyond simply saying that Breitbart is "not alt-right"). That said, I think Mjolnir is right--I don't see any language in our article that needs changing. We don't actually say that Breitbart is alt-right, we say it's aligned with the alt-right--and that appears to be quite consistent with Benkler's analysis. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)]]

The problem with the current wording is "aligned with the alt right" may lead some readers may make the conclusion that Breitbart itself is alt-right. Therefore, for the sake of clarity and nuance, I believe Benkler's sentence should be added in addition to the current wording. Marquis de Faux (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I also believe that Marquis de Faux is commenting in good faith and not trying to whitewash anything. I agree; In case I wasn't clear enough, know that I was playing devil's advocate in the last line of my previous comment. I'm sure Marquis is working in good faith, just giving them a heads up so they aren't surprised if someone else shows up and starts shouting about POV pushing. This looks to me like good faith discussion, but I know a lot of editors who would not see it that way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it's because of my profession, or my native language, but the quote in question is "Breitbart is not the alt-right" (my emphasis), which is different from "Breitbart is not alt-right". The first says it is not identical to the alt-right, which I would interpret more loosely as "does not represent the whole spectrum of the alt-right movement". The second one uses "alt-right" as an adjective, and would be equivalent to "is not part of the alt-right spectrum", a very different meaning. For me, the first (in the looser sense) is obviously right, and the second is obviously wrong. I would expect an academic like Benkler to make just such a distinction. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Fake photo of DACA recipients

I have removed the recently added "Fake photo of DACA recipients" section here as undue. The only thing close to a RS found for it was Think Progress, I also found a Media Matters blog on the subject. With just those covering it, it is not notable enough for it's own section. PackMecEng (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

If there's firm coverage of the blatantly obvious bullshittery of this Breitbart story (seriously: that number looks impressive until you realize that it's only about 0.26% of DACA recipients. Wouldn't life be grand of only 0.26% of the general population were criminals?), then I'd be okay with adding that. But complaining about the photo? Ffs, the use of stock photos, sometimes without description or attribution, sometimes in misleading ways is common practice is yellow journalism and is about as remarkable as breathing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support reinstatement — properly sourced. Argument holds no sway. Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Argument holds no sway. Oh, the irony. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

So a whole section based on, what I can find as only one source, saying that a stock photo was used incorrectly and then removed has enough weight for the article? WP:WEIGHT has not been established for this trivia, especially given the source used. PackMecEng (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

There are at least 5 more sources. Carl Fredrik ^talk 20:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Where are those? PackMecEng (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The thing is, it's the second time in a relatively short period of time this has happened. See the Podolski photo. Volunteer Marek  17:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd be willing to bet good money that any journalist who looked into it would find that it happens with some regularity at Breitbart. If/when said journalist writes a story about it in a major publication, then the question of mentioning this should be revisited. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• Tentatively support exclusion for now. I would like to see better sourcing, and I'm surprised other outlets haven't picked this up yet. I've always had misgivings about relying on ThinkProgress and MMfA. I could be mistaken but I believe there's no consensus either way on their reliability. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

If this was just MMfA I'd agree. But I think TP is a bit better. Anyway, I'll let consensus decide. Volunteer Marek  17:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

TP is the closest thing to a left-wing Fox News I can think of. They're reliable enough for most of their reporting, but they're also reliably biased, and you need to check the fine print for corrections. That being said, the issue here seems more one of weight. This is just one criticism among a flood, and it's one that hasn't stirred up any appreciable fecal weather phenomenon as of yet. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support reinstatement Seems to fit a pattern looking at the other issues that have come up on their site, the Lukas Podolski is just one of those for example. Also other sources have popped up. is just one of many when searching Breitbart using a fake photo now with some of their past issues mixed also. ContentEditman (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@ContentEditman:if you can find some better sourcing than what was used above, I don't think reinstating this content would be a problem. I've pointed out that the criticisms were unremarkable and others have pointed out both that there's very little coverage of it (see WP:DUE) and that the sourcing is questionable. But if there's additional sourcing of a higher quality, that would overcome all of the objections, mine included. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

EA Worldview is a self-published blog and as such is probably unreliable. I agree that we need something better. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Here are 3 others I found by Photo search Those are just some filed under News at google using the Photo search. ContentEditman (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@ContentEditman: those are all blogs. They are not usable as sources for this content. Please read WP:RS and WP:IRS, pay special attention to WP:SELFPUB. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Biased

Non-WP:TPO discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is a joke. Undermines my trust in the whole of Wikipedia. Just in the opening paragraph: "far-right", "falsehoods", "conspiracy theories", "intentionally misleading stories", "alt-right." Not going to try to edit it because it's probably going to be useless, just let you know it does undermine the trustworthiness of the whole Wikipedia project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.9.77.220 (talk) 06:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC) Thanks for your feedback. What brings a Cambodian with perfect English to this article, if I might ask? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Alexa US rankings

Is it necessary to put the Alexa ranking for the US in the infobox? This causes problems with consistency between the rankings, because Alexa does not show whether the US one has increased or decreased, at least for people like me who don't have a paid account. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 06:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I think, for websites that it's an important bit of information. That being said, I agree with your edit to it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Forbes

Uh, why exactly it's suppose to be non-reliable?  Volunteer Marek  08:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Opinion source. Source link here. "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

That does not make it unreliable. See here for example. Regardless, the lede does not need inline citations if the text it's summarizing is well sourced in the main body. Which it is. I've also added buzzfeed (which you yourself added to main text) so... problem solved?  Volunteer Marek  06:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Forbes content problem solved, thanks. I didn't really add Buzzfeed as much as I simply extended the use of the existing Buzzfeed source; as I mentioned in my edit summary, I have lingering doubts about the reliability of that Buzzfeed source, but that's a separate matter. (And just to be clear, I am not waiving my AE report, so to speak, as we should have had this discussion before you reinstated the Forbes source, not after.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Buzzfeed

Why is the far-left extremist propaganda site Buzzfeed being cited? Buzzfeed constantly claims President Trump is racist without any evidence and actively promotes the deranged "transgender" ideology. In fact, it is a hate site that engages in unrepentant racism and sexism against white men in the name of the far-left buzzword "diversity."[1] It also promotes racist black supremacist feminist intersectional propaganda, claiming that white people have "white privilege." Buzzfeed is clearly not a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.77.186.210 (talk) 09:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Our WP:SPA probably doesn't believe the rest of our article on Buzzfeed, but it might help other readers understand why we use it. Doug Weller talk 16:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)