This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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)
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):
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)
{{u|
BullRangifer}} {
Talk}
04:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
{{u|
BullRangifer}} {
Talk}
05:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
{{u|
BullRangifer}} {
Talk}
17:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC){{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:
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)
{{u|
BullRangifer}} {
Talk}
17:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC){{u|
BullRangifer}} {
Talk}
17:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
{{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:
In addition, I propose that somewhere in the body of the article, we include something to this effect:
Champaign Supernova ( talk) 23:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
{{u|
BullRangifer}} {
Talk}
02:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC){{u|
BullRangifer}} {
Talk}
05:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC){{u|
BullRangifer}} {
Talk}
15:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
References
{{
citation}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
Just 3% of respondents get news from Breitbart in a typical week, and its audience is decidedly conservative: 79% have political values that are right-of-center ...." (31% are "mostly conservative" and 48% are "consistently conservative")
{{
citation}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
References
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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). SST flyer 13:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
[1] 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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
"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'
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'
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.- Mr X 02:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
This
edit request to
Breitbart News has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The description needs to be changed from far-right to right-wing.
Reason Bot ( talk) 22:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. [2] The owners of Breitbart deny their website has any connection to the alt-right. [3]
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 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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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)
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):
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)
{{u|
BullRangifer}} {
Talk}
04:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
{{u|
BullRangifer}} {
Talk}
05:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
{{u|
BullRangifer}} {
Talk}
17:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC){{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:
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)
{{u|
BullRangifer}} {
Talk}
17:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC){{u|
BullRangifer}} {
Talk}
17:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
{{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:
In addition, I propose that somewhere in the body of the article, we include something to this effect:
Champaign Supernova ( talk) 23:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
{{u|
BullRangifer}} {
Talk}
02:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC){{u|
BullRangifer}} {
Talk}
05:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC){{u|
BullRangifer}} {
Talk}
15:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
References
{{
citation}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
Just 3% of respondents get news from Breitbart in a typical week, and its audience is decidedly conservative: 79% have political values that are right-of-center ...." (31% are "mostly conservative" and 48% are "consistently conservative")
{{
citation}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
References
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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). SST flyer 13:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
[1] 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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
"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'
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'
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.- Mr X 02:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
This
edit request to
Breitbart News has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The description needs to be changed from far-right to right-wing.
Reason Bot ( talk) 22:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. [2] The owners of Breitbart deny their website has any connection to the alt-right. [3]
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 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)