Talk:Breitbart News/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Right-wing

This LA Times article [1] doesn't anywhere contains the words "right wing," so it's a bit hard to imagine that it could verify the opinion that the website is "right wing." The idea proposed in an edit summary that "LATimes is obviously using "right" to mean "right wing" is one editor's opinion, but we can't possibly know what the author meant, so must go with what he wrote. The Daily Beast source does call the website right-wing. But based on my research, 98% of other sources call the website conservative (I can provide the articles if asked, and many of them are already used as sources here, describing the website as conservative). And while it's an interesting philosophical conversation, figuring out the difference or similarities between conservative and right-wing seems pretty off topic for this page. My understanding is that we should base our descriptions of an article's subject on the preponderance of reliable sources. Would you agree that most sources describe the website as conservative? That seems non-controversial to me, as I think many people, including myself, view the terms right-wing and left-wing to be needlessly inflammatory. Relatedly, another editor recently added that the website was libertarian. There wasn't a source for that, and I've never seen that description used for the site. Maybe, like right-wing, it's used now and then to describe the website, but I imagine we can all agree that in the vast majority of cases, reliable sources describe this website as a conservative one. Aeropedia (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion to me because I was recently involved in a similar discussion at a different page (Media Matters). I learned that even if there are WP:RS descriptions of a group characterizing it in a certain way, the preferred description of a group is, as you said, based on the perceived "preponderance of reliable sources." I would agree with you that most sources call Breitbart conservative rather than right-wing. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

No one has questioned the "conservative" description, so we're agreed on using that one.

The question is whether "right" or "right-wing" are used by RS, and the sources show that to be true. That should end this discussion, because counting which is used more would be forbidden WP:OR. Whether it's an accurate description is also irrelevant, unless Breitbart has denied it. They haven't, as far as I know, and in fact they use the term "right" to describe themselves, and that they mean "right-wing" is obvious.

In English-language politics the terms "conservative", "right", and "left" refer to political positions, there is no other possibility, unless the context means something more mundane, like "right hand" or "right direction". Adding the word "wing" is not OR, and wikilinking would use Right-wing (politics) for the word "right", just as we use Conservatism in the United States for the word "conservative".

Here's how our two sources use the terms (emphasis added):

• Freedlander: Title: "...Right-Wing Press..."; "the right-wing website Breitbart.com"; "ideological conservative website"

• Rainey: "Breitbart.com sets a feverish pace to be the go-to spot for the right"; "one of the fiercest voices of the right"; "We are going to be the Huffington Post of the right," "sites on both the left and right" (page 2) "ruling the conservative conversation"; "to make the site the go-to destination for conservatives"

They both use both terms, since there is a huge overlap in those positions. People who consider themselves "right-wing" or "conservative" will tend to favor the views at Breitbart, although moderates will see it as a radical fringe website, a la Drudge Report and WND. I see no problem with using both terms, especially since the wikilinks lead to different articles which explain the differences between "right-wing" and "conservative". Using only one term cheats our readers of the added information. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 23:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

References

References

Thank you for a thoughtful reply. Here are a few thoughts.

1) "That should end this discussion, because counting which is used more would be forbidden WP:OR." I don't agree: WP:ONUS states that "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article." WP:WEIGHT states that information in articles should be presented in "...proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." It's not WP:OR to determine that proportionality based on the slate of available sourcing. Breitbart is much more frequently referred to as conservative than as right-wing.

2) "and in fact they use the term 'right' to describe themselves, and that they mean 'right-wing' is obvious." Where are you getting this self-published description? I could not find an "About Us" type page on their website. If they do indeed refer to themselves as "right," it's not at all obvious that they mean "right-wing." If that's what they meant, I'm sure they'd say it. We shouldn't be reading into their intentions/meaning.

3) "Adding the word 'wing' is not OR" I would have to disagree with this. We really shouldn't be adding anything to what the sources say--that's editorializing. Many people in the U.S. describe themselves as "on the right" or "on the left," but I've literally never heard someone say "I'm right-wing" or "I'm left-wing." IMO, the use of these terms usually says more about the ideological views of the journalist than the ideological positioning of whoever/whatever the journalist is describing.

4) "I see no problem with using both terms, especially since the wikilinks lead to different articles which explain the differences between 'right-wing' and 'conservative'." The goal of this article should be to give an encyclopedic overview of the article's subject, not to help our readers understand the nuances of various political positions. WP:MOSLEAD makes no mention of the usefulness of explanatory wikilinks as a reason to include information in article leads. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I need some type of information so I can explain this to you. Are you an American? Are you an adult? Do you have any experience dealing with politics? Do you know where you are on the political spectrum? Some answers might help here, because I can only go by what you have been writing, and that puts all those questions in doubt. I don't want to waste my time. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 04:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Safehaven86, you write: "Many people in the U.S. describe themselves as "on the right" or "on the left," but I've literally never heard someone say "I'm right-wing" or "I'm left-wing." You haven't been around very much or very long then. That's just shorthand for right-wing and left-wing. Nothing more nor less. I happen to be on the left, IOW I'm left-wing, but in conversation I might just say "left". It has no other meaning in this context, and when you hear someone say they are "on the right" or "on the left", now you know what they mean. You can now consider yourself better informed, because spouting off your ignorance is pitiful. You say that you know that people "describe themselves as "on the right" or "on the left"". What did you think they meant, if not right-wing or left-wing? Seriously, tell us what you thought they meant. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 05:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Not that it's particularly relevant, but I (and some of the sources you listed below) use "on the right" to mean "right of center" which IMO is a much less POV description than "right-wing." I think "right wing" and "left wing" are usually used as scare terms, connoting perceived extremism. I'm totally fine with describing this website as "right-of-center," except there's no value in doing so, as it is already described as "conservative," which indicates that it is right-of-center. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

We don't decide which sources to use based on whether they are "more" or "less" POV. Right-wing and left-wing are just descriptions. I don't understand why you think they are POV. Are you embarrassed by them? RS use the terms "conservative", "right", and "right-wing" as accurate descriptions of Breitbart, Bannon, and BNN. According to my searches below, "right" and "right-wing" are used just as much, if not more, than "conservative". -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 17:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Safehaven86, per your point 2:

• "We are going to be the Huffington Post of the right," said Steve Bannon, executive chairman of Breitbart News Network. "That is our focus every day."" Los Angeles Times
• "For Steve Bannon, the successful executive chairman of the right-wing publication Breitbart News,..." The Week
• "Consumers of Breitbart ... its audience is decidedly conservative: 79% have political values that are right-of-center...." Pew Research Center
• "Right-Wing Blog Mogul Andrew Breitbart Flips Out..."
• "right-wing journalist Andrew Breitbart's 'coroner' dies..."

Is that good enough? -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 05:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Since you seem to wish to do some counting, then let's do some simple searches:

• Right: "breitbart news network" breitbart right - 85,800 results

• "Right wing": "breitbart news network" breitbart "right wing" - 8,710 results

• Conservative: "breitbart news network" breitbart conservative - 50,700 results

The results are unsurprising, at least to me. Maybe you weren't aware that so many also used the term right or right-wing to describe him or the website.

Of course we already have the obvious RS description: "This Man Is the Most Dangerous Political Operative in America. Steve Bannon runs the new vast right-wing conspiracy—and he wants to take down both Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush." (emphasis added) That's certainly from a very notable and expert RS. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 05:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

There's no need to get vitriolic. I'll ignore your personal attacks and just say that you haven't answered my questions. Our article needs to reflect what the sources actually say, not what you think they mean. You also haven't shown that Breitbart refers to themselves as being right or right-wing. You've just provided sources where journalists are using the terms, sometimes not even in relation to Breitbart.com. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Safehaven86, you haven't answered my questions. At least say whether you are American, or whether you are from somewhere else and aren't familiar with American political terminology, because "right" and "left" always mean "right-wing" and "left-wing" in this context.

Your lack of reading comprehension also worries me, so please try actually reading what has been written before you reply. I provided a nice quote from Bannon himself: "We are going to be the Huffington Post of the right," said Steve Bannon, executive chairman of Breitbart News Network. "That is our focus every day.""

Then we depend on other reliable sources for their descriptions, which use "conservative", "right", and "right wing". "Right" would still be wikilinked right, so we may as well just say it: right-wing. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 17:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I will ask you against to please stop your string of personal attacks against me. You really needn't insult my reading comprehension. My age, nationality, or any other identifying information about me is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Please focus on content. Bannon said "of the right" not "right wing." You may think those terms mean the same thing, but that is your opinion. "Right wing" is much more needlessly inflammatory than "on the right." Why not just add "it's a conservative, right-of-center website" or "Breitbart.com has a perspective that is conservative and on the right." The meaning is the same, and we avoid "right wing" which is much more poorly sourced than any of the alternatives. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty normal to use words/terms with substantially equivalent meaning, instead of (or in addition to) words/terms used in the source. It's called paraphrasing. In the situation we're discussing, the paraphrase in question is fine. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I see no benefit to adding right-wing. We already have conservative. The vast majority of sources use conservative. It seems to be cherrypicking to find a few that say right-wing, when most clearly say conservative. We should go with how the source is typically described by reliable sources, and I don't think there's any question that would be conservative. Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Champaign Supernova, according to my searches above, "right" and "right-wing" are used just as much, if not more, than "conservative", and since they are not exactly synonymous terms, we should include both descriptions: "right-wing conservative".[2] -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 17:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

While it's clear that "right" and "right wing" refer to the same thing (generally inhabiting the right side of the political spectrum), words matter, and staying true to sourcing matters, too. I don't think it's accurate to lump sources that say Breitbart is "on the right" with sources that say "right wing." Right wing is more strident. Personally, I don't see the value in differentiating between conservative and "right" or "right wing." Conservative seems to get the point across. But if you think there's something different and uniquely important about including another "right" description, I thought SafeHaven's suggestions here [3] made sense. Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Champaign Supernova, you are very right. Unlike SafeHaven, you understand the meanings of these terms. Words do matter, and we should be accurate. Because those on the fringes (in any field) tend to portray themselves as being closer to center than they are (and they may really believe themselves), outside observers are better sources for evaluating where they really stand. BNN admits they are "right" of center, and outside sources clearly label them as "right" and "right-wing".

The nonpartisan Pew Research Center has a great website, and their statistics show 79% of "Consumers of Breitbart" at the far right of the spectrum, and not even close to the center. We don't have to say "far right", but saying "right-wing" is certainly accurate and not derogatory. It has so much elastic as to allow interpreting BNN as being 1% (!!!) to the right of center, which would be absurd. They are actually 79% conservatives (31% are "mostly conservative" and 48% are "consistently conservative"), with only 14% mixed and 7% liberal. Simply saying "conservative" doesn't indicate anything about their placement on the right, and there are left-wingers who are conservative in some ways.

That's why the terms "liberal" and "conservative" don't exactly equate to "left-wing" and "right-wing" respectively. The terms "conservative" and "right" are not exactly synonymous, which explains why we have two articles. There is a "mixed" group where left wingers are somewhat conservative, and right wingers are somewhat liberal. It's when one gets a bit further from center on both sides that one can equate left with liberal and right with conservative. Breitbart is clearly consistently conservative and right-wing. That's why 79% of their audience identify as conservatives. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 19:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I sense this discussion has the capacity to devolve into a meta discussion/debate on political philosophy, so I will just offer a couple of suggestions for how to move forward that I hope will work for all editors.

Proposed options for lede:

1. "Breitbart is a conservative, right-of-center news and opinion website founded in 2007 by Andrew Breitbart." [4]

2. "Breitbart is a website founded in 2007 by Andrew Breitbart. It publishes news and opinion from a conservative, right-of-center perspective." [5]

3. "Breitbart is a conservative news and opinion website founded in 2007 by Andrew Breitbart. It identifies itself as on the political right." [6]

In addition, I propose that somewhere in the body of the article, we include something to this effect:

4. "According to the Pew Research Center, 79% of Breitbart.com's consumers report having political values that are right-of-center." [7]

Champaign Supernova (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Champaign Supernova, those are excellent suggestions! (I hope you don't mind that I changed the indentations and added numbers to ease discussion, all per WP:REFACTOR. If I screwed up something, don't hesitate to fix it.)

They all have their merits. I probably favor number 3 the most, and that would look like this, with all the formatting, wikilinks, and refs in place (using the original refs, plus yours):

• Breitbart News Network (known simply as Breitbart News, Breitbart, or Breitbart.com) is a conservative news and opinion website founded in 2007 by Andrew Breitbart. It identifies itself as on the political right.

Regarding number 4, here it is, with the ref formatted:

• According to the Pew Research Center, 79% of Breitbart.com's consumers report having political values that are right-of-center.

How does that look? -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 02:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me. And thank you for your formatting work! I don't have any favorites among the proposed lede changes, so I'll defer to what other editors think. For the sentence on Pew, does anyone have any ideas on where that would best fit into the flow of the article? Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The only good spot seems to be at the top of the Reception and influence section, right in the first paragraphs, not in the following subsections. If that sounds like a good spot to you, go ahead and add it. Then we can see if it fits right.

It seems to me that the subsections need a whole different main heading, such as "Coverage of various issues", "Controversies", or something like that. Any ideas? -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 05:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it would work at the beginning of the reception and influence section. The only other place I could see it potentially working is at the end of the "History" section, after "The redesign was launched shortly after his death in March 2012..." I think the subsections have fine titles now, and that we're doing a good job of following WP:CSECTION by giving subsections descriptive titles rather than naming them "X controversy." Champaign Supernova (talk) 05:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I didn't hear any objections so I've implemented the edits. Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Good work! -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 15:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks, Champaign Supernova. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

References

References

2016 US Election

@Loginnigol: - coverage about a website's particular way on how it covers news topics is not news, it's just normal content in a Wikipedia article about a news site. By that definition, almost everything on Wikipedia would be WP:NOTNEWS. Notnews has to do primarily with breaking news, and routine coverage. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Not News means not news - not just "primarily breaking news" whatever that means (that is your original interpretation). WP/NOTNEWS specifically says wikipedia is not a willy nilly dump of current events - adding that and even imposing a whole paragraph of it with a headline and what not into a short history section is simply uncalled for and clearly trounces WP:NOTNEWS (there is no significance historical or other relationship that justifies this prominent imposition. The current event item by the way (the GOP primary) is something that basically will be over and done with in June/July and in the mean time not set in stone (for example this weekend Breitbart's editor in chief Ben Shapiro came out advocating to never vote for Trump. So this clearly shows it is a fluid current event & nothing more, certainly not a history section item all by itself. Loginnigol (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not a "current event." It's content that is reliably sourced about a particular news organizations activities. That is what Wikipedia is all about. Are you aware of pages like Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016 and United States presidential election, 2016? Do you think those entire pages should be deleted? FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

From WP:NOTNEWS: "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." By convention, the threshold for inclusion in an article is WP:DUEWEIGHT. In other words, if several sources report about the same current event, or if the reporting spans multiple news cycles, then it's reasonable to include it. Overall, there are not that many sources that bother to cover Breitbart, so when they do, it's a good idea to take notice. All that said, I don't have much of an opinion either way with regard to this content, other than to say that it is pretty weakly sourced. It may be better to wait for mainstream sources report on it.- MrX 14:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The sources provided were Politico, Buzzfeed, and the Daily Beast. I'm not sure how familiar you are with American politics, but those are three of the most reliable sources available on these topics. All three have field reporters covering campaigns, have editors, and transparent editorial standards. They are certainly mainstream websites, and are highly reliable. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Should it still be described in the lead as "conservative"?

It seems to have changed its policies since that source was published in 2012. This MTV article[8] says "Founded by the late Andrew Breitbart, Breitbart Media was once a far-right alternative to established outlets like National Review o rThe Weekly Standard. Since Trump’s campaign began, however, the site has leaned into outright nationalism and racially-tinged anti-immigration rhetoric.* Doug Weller talk 13:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

"outright nationalism and racially-tinged anti-immigration rhetoric" -- isn't that mainly what passes for conservatism in the USA these days? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The vast majority of WP:RS refer to it as conservative, which to Nomoskedasticity's point, is good shorthand as opposed to "Breitbart is an outright nationalistic and racially tinged anti-immigration website..." Safehaven86 (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Like Safehaven86 said, the vast majority of reliable sources I've seen refer to it as conservative (there was some discussion about Breitbart being an "alt-right" site, but I have issues with that terminology). I wouldn't consider MTV News to be the most reliable arbiter on the site's editorial views. FuriouslySerene (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

"Conservative" is the safe bet, or possibly "far right". They do seem to be moving toward more extreme op ed content. They are somewhere between The Federalist and Free Republic as far as I can tell. No telling where they go from here with Ben Shapiro and others leaving, and the surrounding controversy.- MrX 14:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• I think this has come up before (although that was before the split over Trump). My feeling is that "conservative" is a broad term and covers a wide range of views; one or two opinion pieces mentioning in passing that it's gone against conventional conservative dogma in America probably isn't enough to justify changing the label given that the site's core goal of serving as a centralized conservative news outlet is well-sourced. I'd at least want a more politics-oriented source than MTV, or one focused on Breitbart's politics specifically (since the sources we have to describe its politics right now tend to be ones describing it directly rather than just passing mentions.) --Aquillion (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, too early to see if its politics is actually changing. Maybe we'll see something in say National Review. Or we could drop conservative. I note that it does mention the Alt-right a lot but too early to call it that and some mentions are critical. Doug Weller talk 17:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
    • It seems a bit odd that after this discussion an edit, with a fairly detailed edit summary, remove " right-wing" with no mention. Doug Weller talk 06:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Michelle Fields

According to this, Trump's campaign manager recently physically assaulted a Breitbart reporter, Michelle Fields. Though some of the sources we have here speculate that Breitbart's reporting is "pro-Trump," it seems like just that, speculation. It certainly would seem odd that a "pro-Trump" reporter would be physically assaulted by a Trump campaign staffer if they were in some sort of cahoots. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that should be added to the article as well, it's certainly notable and it's from a reliable source. I don't think that invalidates the previous reporting on their editorial slant though, unless you have a reliable source saying otherwise. FuriouslySerene (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

My point was that it appears to be a rapidly evolving situation, so in the interest of staying encyclopedic rather than in attempting to report a fast-changing news story, we should hold off on making additions until there are reliably sourced retrospectives rather than speculation. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding it being odd that Breitbart reporter would be assaulted, Daily Beast reported that Trump aide said he did not realize the reporter was from Breitbart (that should indicate a particular slant there...). | MK17b | (talk) 08:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It is not a "fast changing story." The Politico article is from 8 months ago. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article include the information that after the Breitbart organization dismissed her allegation, Fields and three other Breitbart employees quit in protest, per NBC News? The article said the others included "editor-at-large Ben Shapiro, national security reporter Jordan Schachtel and Jarrett Stepman, an editor." Schactel was quoted ""Breitbart News is no longer a journalistic enterprise, but instead, in my opinion, something resembling an unaffiliated media Super PAC for the Trump campaign.. "The resignations were given significant coverage by mainstream media. Any objection to including it? Edison (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Not from me. Doug Weller talk 07:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

No objection, it should be included. Though article already does say that Fields, Shapiro, and Bardella resigned. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it should be in there, but this recent edit may be somewhat duplicative of what you're proposing. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead

I've attempted to include some additional info in the lead about various notable stories Breitbart has broken which are mentioned in the article. My concern is that mentioning that they were 'broken' without explaining that some of them were later partly or completely debunked would be misleading and overly promotional. As I see it, the only reason to mention any specific stories covered by a news outlet is if their coverage itself received coverage, otherwise it's just a directory of Breitbart's stories. If we are going to mention these stories at all, we should explain the lasting consequences of the stories, which is well supported by sources. The Firing of Shirley Sherrod was a debacle that absolutely doesn't count as "breaking a story". Breitbart created the story, which prompted a lawsuit from Sherrod, and apologies from Vilsack, the Obama administration, and the NAACP for having accepted the story. Just saying they broke the story is flat-out wrong. ACORN and "Friends of Hamas" are arguably less straightforward but similarly misleading. Grayfell (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

How about "Notable events in Breitbart's history have included the ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy, the firing of Shirley Sherrod, the Anthony Weiner sexting scandals, the "Friends of Hamas" story, the Nancy Pelosi/Miley Cyrus ad campaign, and the Misidentification of Loretta Lynch." This would equally feature everything currently covered in the "notable stories" sub-section, so I think it would meet WP:LEAD in terms of giving an overview of the article's main points, but also remain neutral and avoid an unecessary rehashing of the article's body in the lead. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

That would be an acceptable compromise while we figure this out. Since the lead is a summary, I don't see anything too bad about rehashing the body a bit, and mentioning these stories without at least acknowledging the controversies seems very strange. Figuring out how much context to give here is open to debate, but just listing these stories without any at all seems like a weakness in the article. Grayfell (talk) 02:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Great. I think you are right that there's room to give context in the lead. My concern was with mentioning specific stories in the lead while failing to mention other stories that are covered with equal weight in the article's body. It struck me as subjective selection unless we mentioned all of the stories. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Alt-right and Breitbart

A news search shows several Breitbart articles about the Alt-right, and the SPLC suggests it's their main media arm.[9] National Review had a review of an article last month in Breitbart about the Alt-right.[10] Doug Weller talk 14:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

It's increasing. Breitbart's Anti-Semitic Attack on Bill Kristol and Soul-searching for the left, the right both make Breitbart's support explicit. Doug Weller talk 18:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Doug Weller (talk · contribs): how about a section titled "Ideological alignment" or "Relationship with alt-right" (or something to that effect) with the following content:

Breitbart has been described as belonging to the alt-right, a segment of right-wing ideologies in the United States presented as an alternative to mainstream conservatism in its national politics. The alt-right has mobilized behind the presidential bid of Donald Trump. The Southern Poverty Law Center described Breitbart as the media arm of the alt-right, writing that Breitbart "has undergone a noticeable shift toward embracing ideas on the extremist fringe of the conservative right", including opposition to multiculturalism and a belief that white identity is under attack. The National Review wrote that the alt-right has emerged as a "racist and anti-Semitic online presence." Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic noted Breitbart's description of William Kristol as a "renegade Jew" as an anti-Semitic attack characterized by Breitbart's alt-right orientation. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The National Review line doesn't specifically connect Breitbart to the alt-right, so it seems like it's skipping an important step when connecting Breitbart to antisemitism. Other than that, this seems like a good suggestion. Grayfell (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Reception and influence section talks about Andrew Breitbart, not Breitbart News Network

Shouldn't that stuff go on Andrew Breitbart's wiki page, rather than Breitbart News Network's?Marquis de Faux (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed the section. I was originally going to integrate it into the history section, but on review, there was almost nothing specifically about the news site. Several of the comments were as much about his role in Huffington Post and Drudge as they were about Breitbart.com, so this didn't really belong here as far as I could tell. Grayfell (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 7 June 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 08:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Breitbart News Network → Breitbart News – Breitbart is most often referred to as "Breitbart News" in sources. [11] [12] Mark Schierbecker (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support as WP:COMMONNAME. SSTflyer 05:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Nonsense in the lead section

"Notable events in Breitbart's history have included the ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy, the firing of Shirley Sherrod, the Anthony Weiner sexting scandals, the "Friends of Hamas" story,[clarification needed] the Nancy Pelosi/Miley Cyrus ad campaign, [clarification needed] and the misidentification of Loretta Lynch.[clarification needed]"

Clarification is needed because without it, these items don't make any sense at all. What was the "friends of Hamas" story? It needs to be explained. The lead has to summarise the article, and it fails to do so with these three things. 5.151.178.168 (talk) 23:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

It references this: Breitbart_News#.22Friends_of_Hamas.22_story. It's not perfect, but the tags do nothing to solve the actual problem. This was already discussed. See Talk:Breitbart_News/Archive_2#Lead. Grayfell (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The tags indicate that more explanation is needed before the lead is useful. There is not enough information in it. What is it that you object to so much about tags? They are very common on Wikipedia. 5.151.178.168 (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Multiple identical tags applied to routine information in the lead acts as "badges of shame" which undermine the entire article. If you want to help figure out how to improve the lead, please do, but adding ambiguous tags without any additional explanation isn't productive, and is "driveby tagging". It undermines the hard work others have put into the article based on a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's guidelines, such as MOS:LEAD. Grayfell (talk) 23:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you can grasp the point with a bit more illustration. "the "Friends of Hamas" story" basically means nothing. There is no information there. It doesn't do the job a lead section should do. Something like "A story alleging that Senator Chuck Hagel had been paid to speak at an event sponsored by "Friends of Hamas"" actually tells us something. Do you want the lead section to make sense to a generally educated reader, or just readers who already know all about this news network? I assume that people who frequent this page know what its contents are better than I do, so I tagged assuming someone would be able to spare the 2-3 minutes necessary to properly describe these things. I did not expect vitriolic attacks against the very concept of tagging deficient articles! 5.151.178.168 (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Tags are indeed a badge of shame. So fix the article and remove them! It's not difficult! There was nothing ambiguous about the tags. Did you read my edit summary? And your insulting "drive by" nonsense is getting boring. Trying to improve an article in no way undermines the work that already went into it. If you think so, you don't "get" Wikipedia at all. 5.151.178.168 (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the rest of the article. Not only that, but each of the notable events that you demanded clarification for is linked to an entire article. Two very experienced editors are telling you that your WP:TAGBOMBING is unhelpful. I suggest listening and engaging in article improvement in a more constructive fashion.- MrX 23:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

1. It should be a summary! But it is failing to summarise adequately!
2. None of the things I sought clarification of link to an article! Did you read the edit?
3. Were you editing Wikipedia in 2002? I was. Don't talk to me about experience. And don't insult my earnest effort to improve this article. Do you think your behaviour has been constructive? 5.151.178.168 (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'll accept some blame for this getting too heated, but you should've started a talk page discussion instead of reverting multiple times. Edit warring doesn't improve articles, either. If it's not difficult, why didn't you do it yourself or at least also post a talk page discussion about it? Just because it's not ambiguous to you, don't mean it's obvious to everybody else. Article readers don't see edit summaries, so that's not the place to try and discuss nuanced issues, and multiple, identical tags for the same problem just interrupt the article without adding any new info. Someone who does know the content better than you reverted you, because I didn't find your summary informative or helpful, and as past talk page discussions have pointed out, it's not that simple anyway. That's why "driveby tagging" is aggravating. Sometimes it's not as simple as it looks, because if it was that simple, it would've been fixed already. Grayfell (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

You may accept all the blame; your aggression in response to attempts to improve the article was surprising and offensive, and you continue to demonstrate bad faith by deleting my posts on your talk page while leaving foolish templates on mine. I am not going to read or respond to any further comments that you make. 5.151.178.168 (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's a shame, but I get it. Your talk page posts were also aggressive, and suggested that you thought you were entitled to my response. Why would you post on my talk page to tell me I was naive and that my input was no longer welcome? What was that supposed to accomplish? I think it's clear we both handled this poorly. Grayfell (talk) 00:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Mention of Milo Yiannopoulos Twitter squabble

I do not think the mention of Breitbart journalist Milo Yiannopoulos's Twitter squabble with actor Leslie Jones is worth mentioning in this article's "Breitbart Tech" section.

Tons of journalists have been in conflicts before, are we really going to mention every single incident involving a NYTimes reporter on the main NYTimes article? How are the personal conflicts of a reporter relevant to the main news organization? The fact that the report identifies who he is as a Breitbart journalist doesn't make it relevant to this article. Marquis de Faux (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Two sentences seems appropriate. He's not just a journalist, he's the editor of the section, and a major figure with the site. Twitter reflects on tech journalism, also. Breitbart interviewed him in response to this incident (per the Guardian source), where he claims this is about not just himself, but all conservatives on Twitter. There are other sources covering this incident as a reflection of the site, also. These could be added if necessary. Grayfell (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it's a WP:COAT and probably WP:POV, and should be removed. It seems fairly plainly there to say "these guys hire racists". Compare the complete lack of coverage of the firing of Roger Ailes on Fox News. The minutiae and drama of individuals is simply not relevant to an encyclopedic coverage of an organization. TimothyJosephWood 21:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm really surprised that's not mentioned at Fox News, since Ailes is absolutely central to that station's identity and history. Far more so than Yiannopoulos is to Breitbart. That seems like something that should be addressed at Fox News Channel, and the comparison doesn't clearly show a weakness in this article. Grayfell (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

It's in the lead on Roger Ailes. And how is this Milo fellow even close to fulfilling the role that Ailes did at Fox? Seems a lot like he's just a guy in middle management. TimothyJosephWood 01:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, he's not, isn't that what I just said? Yiannopoulos is not as important to Breitbart as Ailes is to Fox (although trying to compare Breitbart to Fox is dicey), but he is a prominent, popular face of the site. His activity on Twitter is significant to both his personal notability, and, I think, to his status as technology editor of the site. Anything more than this would probably be too much, but I don't see a problem with a couple of sentences. On the other hand, this may be a case of recentism, but the sources do make the connection. Grayfell (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I was sortof pointing out how you were making my argument for me. I think if you follow the reasoning to its logical conclusion, than if two sentences for this person's twitter spat are WP:DUE, then so should be two sentences for their apparent involvement in Gamergate, and so should a few sentences on Brandon Darby's FBI involvement, and Greg Gutfeld's remarks on Canadians and the Ground Zero Mosque, and...

Well, you see where this goes. BB is a controversial outlet, that hires controversial people, who are involved in controversies. That's kindof their brand. A body can probably dig up a controversy for nearly everyone named, and include a few sentences per your argument, and the article would become an unreadable bloat of unrelated content. If we agree that that's not appropriate, then I see no reason to make exception for this person.

This of course wouldn't be the case if an argument could be made that this individual is somehow centrally important to the org (as Ailes arguably may have been), but that doesn't seem to be the case. I'm not really seeing any argument for inclusion that, consistently applied, doesn't destroy the article. TimothyJosephWood 13:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The sources plainly illustrate the relevance to Breitbart. Including a couple of sentences in this article seems reasonable to me. Even Breitbart considers it WP:DUE [13] [14].- MrX 14:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

And they've also published Gutfeld's sentiments about a ground zero Mosque. So we should include that also? TimothyJosephWood 14:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I think we can and should judge these on a case-by-case basis, and in practice, that's what always seems to happen, anyway. If Darby had been an informant while also being a Breitbart editor, that would almost certainly have gotten coverage specifically in relation to Breitbart. As for Gutfeild, his comments haven't even reached Fox News Channel controversies which says more about Fox than Gutfeild, but again we would judge based on sources. Grayfell (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh well. I gave it a try. I still think it's a WP:COAT and WP:POV, but I don't care enough about BB to argue it at length or go to RfC. That's probably where some of the supposed WP bias comes from: no one who lasts long enough to make a difference cares enough about these articles. All the best. TimothyJosephWood 20:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you're wrong, I just see it as a matter of degree. Sometimes Patience - Apathy = Consensus. It's not a great way to get there, but it's still consensus. Grayfell (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The passage is about a person who is not the subject of the article, therefore it should go in the article about the person, and not the article about which the person is not. That's the beginning and end of my argument as it pertains to policy. If that's not convincing then there's no point pursuing if further. I'm not sure there's really a grey area where you can agree with me and still want to include it. There's not a lot of nuance required. TimothyJosephWood 20:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

This is a minor detail which arguably relates to Breitbart as a topic. It is arguable. I see what your saying, and agree that restraint is called for. I would be willing to explain further why I still side with including it here, but it doesn't seem like either of us really wants to bother dragging this on any longer. That's fine, but don't make it personal. These kinds of arguments are frustrating, but I'm not sure what the point of implying in passing that the editors you don't agree with are being biased. We don't agree on this. So what? Grayfell (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't mean to imply that you in particular are biased. But I do think that if similar content were to be debated on a non-horse-shit bile-spewing ethnocentric propagandizing pulp-impersonation-of-a-news organization, that it would be fairly uncontroversial. TimothyJosephWood 21:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Well... maybe so, I dunno. Non-horse-shit news sites hold their representatives to higher standards, though, which is why they're non-horse-shit. Maybe this is just more gossip, but when these things happen at more reliable sites, they are handled very differently by those sites, like Vox suspending Emmett Rensin. Breitbart ignores or actively embraces this kind of behavior which seems kind of noteworthy. Maybe that's too WP:OR-ish, but when there are so many incidents like this it becomes frustrating to have an article that doesn't at least attempt to reflect this larger picture. As you say, they appear to deliberately hire controversial people. It's not a coincidence. Yiannopoulos and his activity with Breitbart have been very controversial, but all this article says is that he's technology editor. That's accurate, but it seems almost euphemistic. I don't know how to include this, which is why I say I see where you're coming from, but I still think this helps fill-in a gap in the article. Grayfell (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's WP:OR at all, I just think that the WP:DUE weight is questionable given that everyone involved is a propagandist involved in some sort of controversy. TimothyJosephWood 00:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I was just reverted by MrX because I reduced the couple of sentences he advocated to one sentence. The due weight standards of a news site (and I use that term loosely) are very different from those of an encyclopedia. Reporters ask themselves "will the following be significant a week from now?" We ask ourselves "will the following be significant 10 years from now?" If you want to make all sections in this article have miniature biographies of their editors, then go right ahead. But as it stands, the fact looks completely cherry-picked. I agree with Timothyjosephwood's sentiment that it's only an issue here because the people with a strict view of Wikipedia policy tend to stay away from articles about shitty sites. Connor Behan (talk) 02:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Eh. RfC is always an option I guess. Or request third party opinions. TimothyJosephWood 10:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

My main objection to Connor Behan's edit is that it removed too much context. Doing so leaves readers in the dark. We should either explain what the controversy is about, or remove it altogether. I note that the controversy received quite a bit of coverage, and Breitbart can't seem to stop talking about it.- MrX 12:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

This is an instance where I would say BB isn't a reliable source, even about themselves. They have a clear interest in drumming up controversy and making themselves look like they're relevant and waging some kind of cultural battle. Same way I would say that Fox isn't a reliable source on the recent sex scandal, the Megan Kelly spat, or wars on nouns. TimothyJosephWood 12:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 24 September 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Keeping the current WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT setup. — JFG ^talk 15:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

---

Breitbart News → Breitbart – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Most sources call the website "Breitbart" and not "Breitbart News". Consensus that the news website is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Breitbart" has been established at Talk:Breitbart (surname). SSTflyer 13:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Per nominator. Meatsgains (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. The site's official accounts use "Breitbart News", as do its profiles on sites like Politico. On Google News, they're listed until "Breitbart News". Articles about them mostly use "Breitbart News" upon first mention. I don't think it should be shortened; dropping "News" is mostly a colloquialism. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Echoing what Nohomersryan said. The vast majority of reliable sources use Breitbart News at first reference, as does the website itself. For example, some recent articles: [15], [16], [17]. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support - 'Breitbart' commonly refers to the news website/organization and is prominently the brand in their masthead and copyright notice. It's concise, sufficiently precise, natural and recognizable. Mainstream media routinely refers to the website/organization as just "Breitbart" in their headlines [18] [19] [20] [21] [22].- MrX 17:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• Headlines are generally pithier because of space constraints. Headlines also typically use only last names (e.g., "Obama did X"), but I don't think that should mean we should only use last names as titles for articles. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. I believe "Breitbart" should continue to exist as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, but titling the article "Breitbart" is less recognizable and precise for a shaky WP:COMMONNAME claim. As said above, the site itself is mainly identified as "Breitbart News" at first reference. The company's own Twitter handle is "Breitbart News" [23] and their editorial articles are frequently credited to Breitbart News. In addition, they have a feature called "Breitbart News Daily". So, the WP:COMMONNAME usage here is questionable. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 04:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Breitbart should remain a redirect. For example, Fox News Channel is more commonly known as Fox News, and yet the name of that page is "Fox News Channel". Yoshiman6464 (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Potential WP:Undue with "curiosity of the fringe right wing" in lead

The lead reads, "The New York Times describes Breitbart News as a "curiosity of the fringe right wing", with "ideologically driven journalists", that is a source of controversy "over material that has been called misogynist, xenophobic and racist", and is now a "potent voice" for Donald J. Trump's presidential campaign."

While personally I think that that is certainly a valid description and should be included somewhere in the article, having a direct line that calls it a source of controversy "over material that has been called misogynist, xenophobic and racist" seems very POV. Numerous outlets have been "called" many things by critics, and while they should be considered, their criticisms ought not to be displayed so prominently in the lead which would be WP:Undue. I am in favor of creating a section entitled, "Editorial perspective and criticism" devoted specifically to this topic in the body. Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe. A 'perspectives and criticism' section is really tempting, but that's got many, many potential problems. It could be done, though. I don't get the impression that anyone is 100% happy with how the article is organized (I'm not, at least) but preserving NPOV is the priority, and the NYT line is helpful for that.

Since it's hardly a novel position, the NYT's take seems as good as any summary. Leads should summarize the body, and if this is worth including there in any depth, and it is, it's worth mentioning in the lead. Separate WP:CSECTIONs risk ghettoizing critical commentary, and in this case, it would be misleading, since this is more-or-less the position held by the majority of reputable analysts of journalism. It's not just one source saying this, it's one of the world's major news outlets echoing countless other sources, so I don't think it's undue in this case.

CSECTIONS also attract weak sources like a magnet, and tend to get overstuffed with every semi-notable blogger's comments, or worse, a tit-for-tat game of "liberal says this, but conservative says that" which is non-productive. That's not necessarily an argument against the idea, but if it's going to be done it needs to be done well to prevent that junk. Grayfell (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Faux. Most news organisations have probably been called what is stated, although not supporters of Trump. 37.253.215.83 (talk) 06:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't recall any actual news organizations being described that way. The NYT description of Breitbart does appear to be a rather tame summary reflecting the general consensus regarding the website's content and positions. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I have heard people say such things about the new york times personally. I dubt you can say there are a consensus on what insults you can call a news site. And yes these claims are insults, not factual statements. 37.253.242.210 (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by verifiable sources, not personal anecdotes. The professional opinions of reputable journalists and other experts should be considered regardless of whether or not they're perceived as insulting. Grayfell (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Then verify that their claim are true. And by this I mean, show that actual racist, sexist etc. things has been written. And be sure that the defenition you use are correct. I did not write percived to be insulting, Grayfell, I wrote that it were meant as insults, by these so-called journalists. 37.253.210.216 (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Breitbart News. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150702002145/http://www.nationaljournal.com/the-man-behind-weiner-s-resignation-20110616 to http://www.nationaljournal.com/the-man-behind-weiner-s-resignation-20110616

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The "propaganda" label in the lead

1. The first source quotes accusations from former staffers. A quote from a former staffer calling it "propaganda" does not make it Wikipedia's official voice. 2. The word "propaganda" has a specifically negative and NPOV connotation. The article makes Breitbart's political ideology very clear and describes it at several different places. Citing a source linking it to an ideology does not merit its description as propaganda. Any partisan news outlet can be described as "propaganda" under this logic. Nearly all MSM sources, for example, describe The Huffington Post as a liberal news outlet, with journalism professor Jon Bekken calling it an "advocacy newspaper." Should the Wikipedia article on The Huffington Post describe it as a "propaganda website" citing those sources? Are the Daily Kos, Daily Caller, Fox News, and MSNBC all "propaganda outlets", since it would be easy to find sources describing them as having a political ideology? This is an extremely POV description that can be applied to every single media outlet with sources linking it to a political ideology. I understand that many Wikipedia editors have an extreme disgust for the right-wing populist ideology embraced by Breitbart, and I in many ways can understand why they may feel that way. However for the sake of maintaining the integrity of this project please put aside your feelings and maintain neutrality. There is zero precedent at all for this kind of characterization, and not even state-run government outlets like People's Daiy or PressTV are described as such. Marquis de Faux (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Propaganda is fairly synonymous with Breitbart now, especially since in the past year after they abandoned any pretense of being a news site and decided to pimp for Trump. There may be a less emotionally charged word that we should be using such as "advocacy", but the substantive point is that they have little objectivity and are obviously trying to increase ad revenue by furthering an ideological agenda.[24] (BTW, Huffington Post is not far behind them). Here's what some sources say:

"In the most visible sign of the New World Order, the Trump-loving Breitbart News Network—which operated as a propaganda conduit and outrage engine for the reality show billionaire’s angry-populist juggernaut—announced"
— 'Daily Beast'

""In the regular conservative movement, Breitbart is a laughing stock," said Shapiro. "It's all spin. It's a propaganda outfit." " (n.b. Shapiro worked for Breitbart)
— 'CNN Money'

"The full fruits of this effort can be seen daily on Fox News and Breitbart, the leading propaganda organs of the Trump campaign." (Eric Chenoweth is co-director of the Institute for Democracy in Eastern Europe)
— 'The Washington Post'

"Over the past year however, the outlet has undergone a noticeable shift toward embracing ideas on the extremist fringe of the conservative right. Racist ideas. Anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant ideas –– all key tenets making up an emerging racist ideology known as the “Alt-Right.”"
— 'SPLC'

"But Bannon had been on Team Trump for months before that as the power behind Breitbart News, the Web network whose unabashed advocacy for Trump (and disparagement of Trump's allies) helped reinforce Trump's campaign messaging through the spring and summer."
— 'The Washington Post'

We should discount Shapiro's opinion, but not completely dismiss it. I think we also have to acknowledge in the article that Breitbart's recent increase in traffic and popularity is due, at least in part, to them facilitating overt racism. - MrX 19:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the description paragraph "Breitbart is aligned with the alt-right,[9] and Bannon declared the site "the platform for the alt-right" in 2016.[10] The New York Times describes Breitbart News as a "curiosity of the fringe right wing", with "ideologically driven journalists", that is a source of controversy "over material that has been called misogynist, xenophobic and racist", and is now a "potent voice" for Donald Trump's presidential campaign.[11]" is sufficient enough to convey your points that it is unabashedly pro-Trump and ideological. I would not be opposed to adding criticism or expansion in the History section or somewhere else in the body but the straight-out "propaganda" label in the lead would violate WP:NPOV standards. The current article does a good job of making clear its agenda. Marquis de Faux (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough.- MrX 23:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Marquis.

Regarding the two concerns you've outlined:

• (1) You are correct that the "propaganda" description is presently conveyed by sources that quote Breitbart employees. If the description is indeed factual, then reliable sources conveying it as factual need to be cited, otherwise the description needs to be attributed to the actual sources (and possibly removed from the lead as merely opinion). This concern can be easily remedied by citing sources which affirmatively describe it as a propaganda outlet. For example, this source which not only makes an affirmative description, but also includes analysis from media experts:

But there is a line between a single endorsement—which explains a publication’s preference publicly—and a steady flow of propaganda. The latter peddles fallacies and promotes a certain political cause through the use of selective facts over time in order to make it impossible for people to make an informed decision. Throughout this election cycle, Breitbart’s coverage has often crossed that line, even going so far as to censor the experiences of its own journalists in order to protect Trump’s reputation. But those ties to Trump had been implicit. Now they’re explicit, and that, communications researchers say, is wholly unprecedented.
— 'Wired Magazine'

• (2) The word "propaganda" can indeed have a negative connotation, but that has nothing to do with Wikipedia's NPOV Editing Policy. Neutral editing means accurately conveying the information from reliable sources, regardless if that information is negative or positive, flattering or unflattering. A serial killer may be described as a "murderer"; an earthquake may be described as "devastating"; a carrion flower may be described as "stinking". "Neutral" editing does not mean never using negative descriptions when they are factual and properly sourced. As for your personal ideology, I'm not sure why you bring that up -- you should not let that factor into your editing. As for other Wikipedia articles such as HuffPo, Daily Caller, et al., I can't answer your question as to how they should be described without thoroughly reviewing the reliable sources; but please remember that the existence of other poorly written articles is not a license to edit this one poorly.

There is zero precedent at all for this kind of characterization, and not even state-run government outlets like People's Daiy or PressTV are described as such. --Marquis de Faux

Incorrect. There are many outlets similar to Breitbart which are prominently described as "propaganda" outlets in the lead section of their articles. Not because they have a "political ideology", as you say, but because our reliable sources have so described them. Russian Life, Korea Today, Amerika Magazine, etc., come to mind, and even your example Press TV is listed in a propaganda category, so there is certainly precedent. Are you aware of any reliable sources that have examined and refuted the "propaganda" description of Breitbart?

...the straight-out "propaganda" label in the lead would violate WP:NPOV standards. --Marquis de Faux

I would be interested in hearing your rational as to why you feel it would violate WP:NPOV. If it is applicable according to reliable sources, and it is covered in the body of the article, then it would be a violation of WP:NPOV to reject putting it in the lead. I suppose an argument could be made that adding "propaganda" may be redundant to the already existing lead content, which would test the "undue" emphasis part of the policy, but I'm not sure how strong that argument would be. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

If someone is a convicted murderer, that is an objective fact that cannot be disputed or argued with. "Propaganda" is used as a derisive term for "biased news outlet". Using "propaganda" in this case is like describing someone as a "scumbag" in an article about a serial rapist and murderer. While arguably true, and you won't find any sources disputing it, that is bringing in a negatively charged-word to describe something that is already described in neutral terms and violative of WP:NPOV standards.

Critics of a publication who label it as "propaganda" are still making an assertion based on their opinion. The fact that they publish that opinion does not make them their characterization the *objective* truth. The only objective statement about Breitbart is that it is a right-wing news, opinion, and commentary outlet. A quick Google search for "Fox News propaganda" can bring up several articles from various authors calling it "propaganda" yet that does not make their assertion an objective fact. I do concede that there is precedent for labelling sources "propaganda" but only for government-run sources promoting a state agenda, which is appropriate usage. There is no question that Breitbart is biased, and they fully admit their biases. "Propaganda" is simply used as a derisive way of describing it as biased and promoting of an ideology. The article already states it is a politically conservative news publication with alt-right views, which is a neutral characterization of its purpose. No need to bring in a word with a negatively charged connotation when it is already wholly characterized with neutral terminology. Marquis de Faux (talk) 05:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources and WP:UNDUE

I object to adding material based solely on primary sources, for example this. It violates WP:NPOV by giving undue prominence to a singular viewpoint. As is widespread practice on Wikipedia, we should mostly be using secondary sources published by organizations with a established reputation for fact checking.- MrX 02:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Zionist Organization of America is a well-established third party source commenting on the subject in the article. Its perspective should be included, as should ADL's. Marquis de Faux (talk) 05:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ZOA's press release is a primary source. If you want to include it find a secondary RS that quotes them. NPalgan2 (talk) 11:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Misleading description of far right site as "politically conservative"

The description of the site in the opening sentence as "politically conservative" is highly misleading; virtually all sources agree that it is positioned to the right of "conservatism in the United States" (which itself would be considered an extreme-right ideology in Europe, markedly to the right of mainstream conservatism as it is found in Europe). The site itself emphasizes its (far right) opposition to "conservatism in the United States". Reuters calls Breitbart News "a forum for the "alt-right," a loose online group of neo-Nazis, white supremacists and anti-Semites." When did "neo-Nazis, white supremacists and anti-Semites" become just "conservatives"? I suggest that we describe it as a far-right white supremacist site. --Tataral (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I think Breitbart was politically conservative for many years after its founding, which is why that sentence in the lead has three sources. But I agree, I think the website is no longer conservative and a different description is probably called for. I would support changing it to something else. The question is what to change it to. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I think "a politically far-right American news, opinion and commentary website" would be adequate as an opening sentence, with more details on the "alt-right" phenomenon below in the lead, as far-right is the broad term for the political current to the right of right-wing politics in the mainstream sense. --Tataral (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Read the article on far-right. Far-right refers to national socialism and fascism, and not even Breitbart is at that level yet. Most mainstream sources still call Breitbart "conservative". Arguably, Breitbart is paleoconservative, which still falls under the conservative umbrella even if it is not mainstream conservative. Marquis de Faux (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

No, far-right doesn't refer only to national socialism and fascism, that's just two specific ideologies of just two countries within the much broader political spectrum known as the far right. Far right simply means all ideologies to the right of mainstream right-wing/conservative ideologies (as the article on far-right politics puts it, "far-right politics are right-wing politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right"). Clearly a website which has declared itself the platform of what the ADL calls "neo-Nazis, white supremacists and anti-Semites" is far right. Describing it as "conservative" is ridiculous and an insult to conservatives, and sources usually don't describe it in such a way, at least not today (it may have been different when the site had a somewhat less extremist platform some years ago). And no, neo-Nazism, white supremacism and extremism is not "paleoconservative" either. --Tataral (talk) 07:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Far right encompasses far more political positions than national-socialism and fascism. Claiming otherwise is a disservice to political science. I am puzzled by the necessity to state that.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The alt-right is a loosely defined segment and there are certainly neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and anti-semites in it. However there is no evidence that Breitbart itself is a neo-Nazi or anti-semetic publication. Opposition to immigration, free trade, and "globalism" IS paleoconservative. Marquis de Faux (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Reuters did not make this statement about Breitbart. They *reported* that the ADL made this statement. This is the same ADL that tried to stop the muslim community center from being built near ground zero, right? Not exactly a mainstream organization. I am not a WP editor -- just a reader who came here to understand all the commotion surrounding Bannon's nomination. I genuinely knew nothing about him or Breitbart before arriving here, and I have to tell you this article reads like a hit piece. I fundamentally question the value of trying to arrive at some sort of a "consensus view" on public opinion when that view appears to be based on literally no facts whatsoever. You're just regurgitating a bunch of pundit/opinion pieces, which I thought was the domain of Fox news and their ilk, not WP. Where are the facts??? This is not intended as a defense of Breitbart / Bannon -- again I came here for info and socially I lean left so I'd be open to this kind of criticism if it were written in a way that seemed remotely encyclopedic. But the front page of Breitbart at this very moment doesn't contain any "Nazi" or "anti-Semitic" material whatsoever as far as I can see. In fact, it links to a story quoting Mark Levin as saying that while he has “strong disagreements” with Bannon’s support of the “nationalist/populist movement,” charges of anti-Semitism against him are “absolutely outrageous.” Normally in an encyclopedia, these differences of opinions are illuminated by finding sources which contains FACTS ("Breitbart published XYZ on such and such date") and not just more opinions / appeal to authority ("ADL doesn't like them"). This article needs a ton of work and much, much better sources. 148.87.23.18 (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Reuters did not report that the ADL made this statement. If you would click the link posted by Tataral, you'd see it's not attributed to any organization. The article does not even mention the ADL, so I am not sure why you brought that organization up. Also, nowhere in this article does it say Bannon is antisemitic. The rest of your criticisms are without merit. I would suggest you read WP:V which describes Wikipedia's core policy on verifiability, or see WP:ANALYSIS for acceptable secondary sources. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The Reuters piece paraphrases a widely reported comment, opposing Bannon's appointment, which the ADL did in fact make. See for instance: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/11/15/anti-defamation-league Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2016

The description needs to be changed from far-right to right-wing.

Reason Bot (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - This is being discussed upthread.- MrX 23:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Update alexa ranking and change that downward arrow sing to an up arrow

See http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/breitbart.com

It's 711, not 719 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiberalTearz (talk • contribs) 16:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Updated. The arrows correctly point down and are green to show that as the number move lower, the rank improves. See Template:DecreasePositive.- MrX 13:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I see it as 682. 151.229.53.102 (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Self identification as alt-right

In a recent article published, editor Joel Pollak wrote that, "But Breitbart is not an alt-right publication, and the daily news content of the website speaks for itself. Moreover, there are no “white nationalists and unabashed anti-Semites and racists” working at, or published by, Breitbart."

The lead, with the statement from Bannon makes it seem like the site self-identifies with the alt-right. It is clear that the site has either backed away from that characterization or Bannon made a rogue statement. The article should make this clear in the lead.

Marquis de Faux (talk) 04:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

No, it is not clear. In fact, it lacks any credibility whatsoever. This is why such claims needs to come from independent sources, not the subject themselves. See WP:ABOUTSELF.- MrX 22:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

How the heck does releasing a statement about yourself "lack credibility"? It would lack credibility to say that Breitbart is not alt-right based off of that statement, but it definitely does not lack credibility to say that Breitbart does not SELF-IDENTIFY as alt-right. At the very least the statement should be mentioned in the body. It would be extremely one-sided to not allow a subject to give a statement in response to accusations. Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

According to this article, Bannon is the website's supreme authority and executive chairman of the company publishing it, and he has said this very year that the website is "the platform for the alt-right". It couldn't be clearer. Hence, it doesn't matter if a junior employee might disagree with his own boss (if there is a sufficiently notable controversy over this disagreement, it could be mentioned as such below in the article body, as part of a discussion of a struggle over the editorial stance between the management and other employees). --Tataral (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

One is an article published on the website. That is official. The other is a statement that a MotherJones reporter said that Bannon made to him. The LA Times also quotes Solov, who is a higher rank than Bannon in the company. Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The leaders of Breitbart deny their website has any connection to the alt-right. (Bannon is also on-leave at the site according to the company's statement to investors). Breitbart News, fiery conservative outlet buoyed by Trump victory, aims to go global Avaya1 (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Random removal of well-sourced content with no reason

Prior to the page protection, User:Itzeug removed the following well sourced content required to provide the proper context and provide a fair overview with no reason or explanation whatsover:

Bannon has denied all allegations of racism and has stated that he rejected the "ethno-nationalist" tendencies of the alt-right movement. The owners of Breitbart deny their website has any connection to the alt-right.

If User:HJ Mitchell or another admin sees this I ask them to please restore this content. Marquis de Faux (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

References

I think it should be left out. The first sentence is about Bannon's view of the some members of the alt-right movement; it's not about Breitbart.

The second sentence grossly misrepresents the source, which says:

"As its popularity grew, many condemned its rhetoric as extremist, xenophobic, sexist and a platform for hate speech — accusations its leaders have denied. Others laughed it off as a journalistic lightweight catering to a far-right fringe known as the alt-right."

There's nothing there about "Breitbart deny[ing] their website has any connection to the alt-right."

- MrX 15:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The first sentence is relevant because the article quotes Bannon as saying Breitbart is a platform for the alt-right. it is important to note what Bannon's definition of alt-right is if you're going to quote that. The second article specifically says, "But company leaders deny they are actually part of the alt-right. “We have done a number of articles on the alt-right, but that doesn’t make us alt-right,” Solov said." Marquis de Faux (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The leaders of Breitbart deny their website has any connection to the alt-right. ( Breitbart News, fiery conservative outlet buoyed by Trump victory, aims to go global Avaya1 (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:About self

I just want to remind people, such as NPalgan2, when it comes to edits like this, Breitbart can be used to make claims about itself or its members, as long as the addition follows what WP:About self states. Such additions are not WP:Fringe. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but (when we've complied with BLP in the article body with sentences like "However, the owners of Breitbart deny their website has any connection to the alt-right") we need to decide in what proportion criticism vs praise of Breitbart should be in the article lead by using WP:WEIGHT of RSs. Defenses of Breitbart published in Breitbart should not be in the article lead with equal proportion to criticism of Breitbart when most coverage of Breitbart in RSs is negative. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)