Talk:Breitbart News

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Breitbart.com)
Jump to: navigation, search
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
This section is here to provide answers to some questions
that have been previously discussed on this talk page.
Note: This FAQ is only here to let people know that these points have previously
been addressed, not to prevent any further discussion of these issues.


Information.svg To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

BuzzFeed[edit]

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 Wellerf talk 16:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps the derangement the OP perceives in transgender comes from personal terror found inside male supremacists? After all, transgender ideas completely undermine their whole agenda. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
What is that supposed to mean, Epipelagic? Are you accusing me of being a white supremacist even though I am Jewish and hate white supremacists? (Personal attack removed) Buzzfeed actively promotes such nonsense. Therefore, Buzzfeed is an unreliable conspiracy theory source that denies science and reality and should not be used on Wikipedia for anything, least of all for attacking it's pro-reality and pro-Jewish (leftists hate Jews) enemy Breitbart. -- 110.77.186.210 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.228.252.106 (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
While the OP's comments are a non-starter, I have my doubts about the reliability of the recent Jared Bernstein expose. Why isn't this 4-day-old bombshell of a news story being picked up by the mainstream media? The closest I can find are Vox and Business Insider. (I'm excluding a couple of stories about Mitchell Sunderland, which is really a spinoff.) Direct ties between Breitbart and neo-Nazis certainly seems like broadsheet, network, and CNN-type material, yet none of those outlets have covered it, so something smells fishy here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Why isn't this 4-day-old bombshell of a news story being picked up by the mainstream media? I do not think this characterization is correct. I see several outlets who have commented on this story (apart from the couple you mentioned). Just a small sample:
Kingsindian   03:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
It's disingenous to suggest that that's a list of coverage by the mainstream media. The Boston Globe source isn't about Breitbart; it's about a Boston-area local who was quoted in the story. It no different from the stories about Sunderstein. Moreover while the Globe source describes BuzzFeed's conclusions, it does not cite them approvingly (typically down in news stories with laaguage like "According to BuzzFeed..."). The bottom line is that apparently not a single U.S. broadsheet, network, CNN, NPR, or similar caliber source has adopted BuzzFeed's conclusions, despite this being extremely newsworthy material. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
The New York Daily News isn't exactly a scion of professionalism, but notice how they handled the story. They accept the e-mails uncovered by BuzzFeed as true and conclude that Yiannopoulosbut did indeed cavort with neo-nazis, but they do not draw the same exceptional conclusions that BuzzFeed did about Breitbart. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand what your point is. What text in the article do you think should be changed? If there's no change you'd like in particular, why are we even having this discussion? Kingsindian   16:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I haven't decided, but I'm considering whether we should remove this content--whether because the Buzzfeed source isn't reliable for the conclusions we're citing it for about Breitbart, or because the conclusions fall into WP:EXCEPTIONAL and the sourcing isn't robust enough. I wonder what other editors think about this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I support removing the quotation that begins, According to Buzzfeed, "These new emails and documents…clearly show." If another WP:RS were to draw such an inference, we should consider including it. But to reproduce Buzzfeed's damning conclusion based solely on its own exposé is unjustified. As to the sentences preceding According to Buzzfeed, however, I oppose deleting them. Buzzfeed's story represents a milestone in the history of Breitbart News and deserves to be noted. KalHolmann (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
It's a direct quote from Buzzfeed which summarizes what the story's about.Vox summarizes the story in very similar terms: "A scoop from BuzzFeed News’s Joseph Bernstein, based on internal documents from Breitbart, shows how the far-right site gave white nationalists and neo-Nazis a media platform while simultaneously courting reporters at the very liberal outlets that frequently criticized it." and "But one big takeaway is that despite Breitbart’s public insistence that it is not a “hate site,” its editors and writers were well aware they were offering white nationalists and neo-Nazis a platform." Volunteer Marek  00:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Except that was it really Breitbart that solicited the stories from neo-Nazis, or was it just Yiannopoulos? That's where the Buzzfeed story seems to make some exceptional and questionable inferences (which were not picked up by the NY Daily News). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
The text does not claim that Breitbart solicited the stories from neo-Nazis. Not sure what that would entail since Breitbart is not actually a sentient being - obviously it had to be SOMEONE AT BREITBART that did the soliciting. That someone was Milo with the blessing of both Bannon and Marlow and some help from Bokhari. What exactly are the "exceptional and questionable inferences" made by Buzzfeed?  Volunteer Marek  00:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with KalHolmann's proposal, with the additional provision that the statement in the lead that the group implicated with the leaked emails was "Breitbart's management, together with writer Milo Yiannopoulos" should be modified to read "the writer Milo Yiannopoulos, together with other Breitbart employees". --Epipelagic (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Dr. Fleischman asks "was it really Breitbart that solicited the stories from neo-Nazis, or was it just Yiannopoulos?" According to Wikipedia, Milo served as editor of Breitbart Tech from October 2015 through February 2017. According to BuzzFeed, Milo—preparing an ambitious article ("my big feature on the alt right") for Breitbart—solicited input from Andrew "Weev" Auernheimer, Curtis Yarvin and Devin Saucier on March 9, 2016. Breitbart published Milo's "An Establishment Conservative's Guide to the Alt-Right," on March 29, 2016. To suggest that Milo was acting strictly on his own in this, and not as a high-profile Breitbart editor, is inconsistent with the emails reported by BuzzFeed. KalHolmann (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Ok so I'm seriously at a loss as to why this story hasn't been picked up by the mainstream media. Any ideas? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Dr. Fleischman, I submit that this story, as other editors have pointed out here, has been picked up by the mainstream sufficient media.
These may not meet our gold standard of The New York Times or The Washington Post, but each of these outlets has its own Wikipedia page and is regularly cited by our editors as a reliable source. KalHolmann (talk) 03:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Dr. Fleischman, as an afterthought, if there is a Wikipedia policy or guideline advising editors to not cite a news story unless it has been picked up by the mainstream media, it would be helpful if you could point that out to us. Thank you. KalHolmann (talk) 06:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
The relevant policy would be WP:EXCEPTIONAL. But check out the sources you linked to. Almost none of them adopt the same conclusions as Buzzfeed about Breitbart. I'm not necessarily saying we should remove the content, but it's bizarre. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
It also got play in Politico although succinctly - they also repeat the same quote we have here. Volunteer Marek  13:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, good find. The fact that Politico quoted Bernstein might be read as an indication that it considers Bernstein's conclusion to be opinion content. Also, that's a news digest, not an article. I'm puzzled as to why Politico wouldn't consider the story worthy of its own article. I guess newsroom editors think this just isn't that big a deal? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE
Dr. Fleischman, at this point you seem preoccupied with second-guessing the editorial judgment of various media outlets without actually proposing a specific change to improve the article at hand. That is not constructive. KalHolmann (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure we're allowed to have a good faith, open-ended discussion about something that could impact whether the material stays or goes. There's no requirement that every discussion propose a specific change. This isn't an RfC. If you want to discuss your WP:NOTFORUM concerns further, I'm happy to do so at user talk. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Dr. Fleischman, the first sentences of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines state: "The purpose of an article's talk page…is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or WikiProject. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." Please, what am I missing here? KalHolmann (talk) 18:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
What you are missing is that whether or not to use a source is absolutely a proper discussion subject for a talk page, even of there's no proposed addition. In fact, there's a very concrete proposed removal of material being discussed here. Furthermore, I don't see a single instance of Fleishmann airing their personal views on the subject, so you seem to be missing that the entirety of discouraged conduct in your quote is completely inapplicable. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
MPants at work, the editor in question did not propose removing material. To the contrary, he wrote, "I'm not necessarily saying we should remove the content." Nor did he say keep the content. He made no concrete proposal of any kind to improve the article. Instead, he expressed personal opinions such as "something smells fishy here" and "it's bizarre." I challenged him on that and he responded. End of story. KalHolmann (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There is a recent op-ed on the matter in the NY Times by Lindy West, one of the people mentioned in the Buzzfeed story. Kingsindian   13:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

It's an op-ed, but notice how it doesn't any anything about Breitbart. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Sure it does: "Yiannopoulos, working under the orders of the man who would become the president’s chief strategist, was soliciting ideological guidance from overt white supremacists including Andrew Auernheimer, known as Weev, of the neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer. " What do you think that is talking about?  Volunteer Marek  19:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I understand the connection--I'm not daft. The question is why folks are talking about Yiannopoulos and not Breitbart. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Bannon was the head of Breitbart then, and he is the head of Breitbart now. In one of emails Milo told one of his subordinates (I am paraphrasing): "you don't need to link the honchos in an email thread showing how the sausage is made. They know how the sausage is made, but don't need to be reminded of the details all the time". Hence the title of the NYT op-ed: America loves plausible deniability. That is why people are talking about Milo and Breitbart together. Kingsindian   01:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
No, they are not talking about Breitbart. Not in this op-ed, and not in most of the sources that are covering the Buzzfeed expose. That's a fact. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 October 2017[edit]

The article starts with "Breitbart News Network (known commonly as Breitbart News, Breitbart or Breitbart.com) is a far-right[6] American news, opinion and commentary[7][8] website founded in 2007 by conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart."

Using "far-right" to describe the website is in itself inflammatory and subjective. Additionally, the cited sources do nothing to support use of this adjective. Recommend changing to "conservative-leaning" as described in source #92. Joeimp (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done - There is currently consensus to describe Breitbart as far-right based on numerous sources. Please see archived discussions. - MrX 14:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Delingpole[edit]

There are several sentences in a section about writing by James Delingpole.

The first is: "In November 2016, Breitbart published an article by James Delingpole that falsely claimed that global temperatures were falling rather than rising, and accused "alarmists" in news media and scientists of a cover-up."

On October 10 I changed with the edit summary "Quote of Delingpole article should cite Delingpole article and not add Wikipedia-editor judgment of it". User:Nomoskedasticity quickly reverted with the edit summary "nonononono -- we'll use the secondary source...."). Nomoskedasticity was wrong because:

(a) Delingpole actually said land temperatures fell during a short period in late 2016, which is far different from "global temperatures were falling" and which is not refuted by the cites
(b) WP:IRS says "To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted."
(c) WP:USINGPRIMARY says "Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation."
(d) Delingpole didn't say "cover-up"
(e) The source that Nomoskedasticity prefers does not even contain the particular Delingpole statements that Wikipedia now refers to.

But it gets worse. The Wikipedia article goes on about the same Delingpole article: "It featured an unrelated video made by and for Weather.com about the El Niño cooling period that did not support the article's claims, which had already had been debunked after the Daily Mail article ..." and "Weather.com condemned the Breitbart story in an article titled "Note to Breitbart: Earth Is Not Cooling, Climate Change Is Real and Please Stop Using Our Video to Mislead Americans"." But weather.com is wrong. We have Wayback snapshots from the day of the breitbart.com publication and the day of the weather.com complaint. No video, no mention of weather.com. A chart that might be from a video was in an article that Delingpole referred to from The Mail On Sunday, which might have caused the confusion.

Then there are two sentences about another Delingpole article, which once again go against WP:IRS and WP:USINGPRIMARY, choosing instead to cite a blog critizing it.

I believe the appropriate thing to do with such material about a BLP is: remove. I'll hold off, though, to see whether there is a consensus to insert it despite it being false. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan, thanks for raising this issue. Since reading your points, I've made a couple of edits pertaining to Delingpole. However, I'd like to correct your final sentence, which erroneously identifies Wikipedia's page Breitbart News as a WP:BLP; its subject is an organization, not a person. As for the confusion about whether or not breitbart.com published a video by weather.com, I don't think we're going to resolve that with dueling URLs from Internet Archive. Certainly, weather.com claimed that breitbart.com published their video, so we probably ought to leave it at that. Removing weather.com's condemnation of the Breitbart story is unwarranted. KalHolmann (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
You are wrong, I never said the Breitbart News page is a BLP, I said the material I'd described is about a BLP -- WP:BLP says "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia ..." and Delingpole is alive. As for the idea that weather.com's claims should go in with Wikipedia's voice despite the evidence they were mistaken, well, not much I can do about such ideas. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
No, Nomoscedasticity was right here. a) While he may have said they fell in late 2016, the whole tone of the Breitbart article is written to suggest otherwise. NY Times correctly summarized and paraphrased it. b) That only applies to direct quotes, it's not an issue here. c) "Sometimes" does not mean "this particular time". And again, this applies to direct quotes, which is not the issue here. d) So what? The implication in the Breitbart article is pretty clear. e) The NY Times summarizes the Delingpole article. Volunteer Marek  21:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
a) You are saying what what you think is Delingpole's "tone" is more important than what he actually said, I don't know what Wikipedia policy allows that; b) WP:IRS does not say direct quoted material it says quoted material; c) WP:USINGPRIMARY applies for "alarmists" which is inside quote marks in the Wikipedia article; d) I'll take that as an admission that you realize he didn't say it and you don't care; e) the New York Times does not contain the statements that the Wikipedia article citing the New York Times claims that Delingpole said, it doesn't even contain the word "Delingpole". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the consensus here. There;s nothing wrong with the New York Times' coverage of what happened. In the absence of secondary sources that contradict it, it is better to rely on this reliable secondary source than to go back to the primary source material. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I did say that I'd wait to see whether there is a consensus to insert the material despite it being false, and I will believe there is such a consensus if nobody else pipes up. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
On review of the sources, I'm inclined to agree with Peter Gulutzan on all points; particularly that some of our article content is not in the sourced references. I'll also add that in this editor's engvar, "falsely claimed" implies an intent to deceive; that is a strong claim for which we have no sourcing. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Add to the above concerns. We state: The article summarized a previous story in the UK tabloid Daily Mail,[195][196] which had already had been debunked by scientists who called it "a textbook case of cherry picking".[197] The Climate Feedback source at 197 was published 2 Dec 16, 2 days after the Breitbart article (30 Nov 16); 5 days after the Daily Mail (27 Nov 16). - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
On closer examination, I do see some problems. Neither the NY Times source nor the underlying Breitbart source accuse anyone of engaging in a cover-up. The closest you can come is the accusation that Buzzfeed and "climate alarmists" ignored the cherry-picked information. And I don't think "debunked" is the appropriate word either. Too strong and not supported by secondary sources, should be replaced with "described." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Ryk72, thank you for piping up. Do you agree that all sentences about what Delingpole said should be removed, or do you have a different suggestion? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I made a couple of changes that I believe get us closer to where we need to be. Personally I don't have a problem with "falsely claimed," as the New York Times source says that the report was "debunked." Debunked means proven to be false. "Falsely claimed" doesn't imply any intent to deceive. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Ryk72, you're mistaken on the chronology. The Climate Feedback source is dated November 26, after the Daily News and before Breitbart. You may have been confused with the New York Times source, which was published on December 2. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
DrFleischman, Please check again. The Climate Feedback source here is dated as published Dec 2 (at the bottom of the page). It is an analysis of the original Daily Mail article, which was published on Nov 26; it is to the DM article that the CF's use of the Nov 26 date relates. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
So true. It's a confusing page, thanks for walking me through it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Update: DrFleischmann has removed "activists" and "cover-up" so my objections (c) and (d) are handled, but nothing else. I continue to favour removal, but Ryk72 has not replied so I don't gauge there's enough support for that for now. I don't care whether the "pov-section" tag remains in the article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


CPAC?[edit]

In the Steven Bannon image caption, what is "CPAC" supposed tp stand for? That should be explained if you ask me. Kind regards--Herfrid (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

A quick Google search brought up the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) which Bannon attended, which is possibly where the image was taken or sourced from. Yes, it should be explained better. -- Longhair\talk 14:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality of opening[edit]

One of Wikipedia's policies for articles is a "neutral point of view" yet the article for Breitbart News is anything but. It's not possible to write a more over-the-top introduction that would be praised by Breitbart's most hateful opponents. If those are issues with Breitbart, why wouldn't they be included in other common Wikipedia sections, such as "criticisms" or "controversies." Even then, accusations of misogyny and racism are hardly neutral. Instead, the clear intention of the article's opening is to simply smear Breitbart, its audience, or anyone even thinking about reading the publication. How is that a "neutral point of view?" 65.95.135.126 (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. The lead could use a bit of trimming in my view, but by and large it appears to be reflective of what the reliable sources say. Like it or not, the news coverage of Breitbart by independent media has been overwhelmingly negative. It is not our job to counteract that coverage by creating an article that reflects neither negatively or positively on Breitbart; that would create a false equivalence, contrary to our neutrality policy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Ideology of Drudge Report[edit]

You are invited to participate in the RfC at Talk:Drudge Report#RfC: Should the article say that Drudge Report has been described as far-right?. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2017[edit]

This sentence repeats the word "had" in "which had already had": The article summarized a previous story in the UK tabloid Daily Mail,[195][196] which had already had been described by climate change scientists as a "textbook case of cherry picking".

Should be changed to: The article summarized a previous story in the UK tabloid Daily Mail,[195][196] which had already been described by climate change scientists as a "textbook case of cherry picking". LaPlancha (talk) 02:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Done SkyWarrior 03:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)