Before requesting any edits to this protected article, please familiarise yourself with reliable sourcing requirements. Before posting an edit request on this talk page, please read the reliable sourcing and original research policies. These policies require that information in Wikipedia articles be supported by citations from reliable independent sources, and disallow your personal views, observations, interpretations, analyses, or anecdotes from being used. Only content verified by subject experts and other reliable sources may be included, and uncited material may be removed without notice. If your complaint is about an assertion made in the article, check first to see if your proposed change is supported by reliable sources. If it is not, it is highly unlikely that your request will be granted. Checking the archives for previous discussions may provide more information. Requests which do not provide citations from reliable sources, or rely on unreliable sources, may be subject to closure without any other response.

view ·  Frequently asked questions Q: Should this article describe OANN as far-right? A: Yes, the "far-right" descriptor is amply and reliably sourced. A prior request for comment resulted in unambiguous consensus to support the "far-right" descriptor based on reliable, independent secondary sources.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the One America News Network article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

California Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Television: Stations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Television stations task force (assessed as Low-importance). Journalism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Television Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Low-importance). Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: Butler, Jack (August 10, 2020). "Don't Watch One America News Network: A report from someone who has, to his regret". National Review. 72 (14). E. Garrett Bewkes IV: 28–30. ISSN  0028-0038.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. Saad Ahmed2983 ( talk · contribs) has been paid by Unlinked Corp. See Special:Diff/878783570.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

It’s not far-right. 2600:1005:B11E:F984:5C0B:BC7E:7AC7:E5C0 ( talk) 22:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply

See the FAQ at the top of this page, as stated in a big box when you posted labeled: "Please read this before posting an edit request for this protected article". O3000, Ret. ( talk) 22:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Too much bias in this article. You're writing an encyclopedia entry not a fact supported opinion piece. 2600:1700:2191:7E3F:4CEC:4B29:8B6A:B0A5 ( talk) 19:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC) reply

What? Slatersteven ( talk) 09:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC) reply

This is a propaganda article with corroborating opinions, not a true and factual piece. 2600:4040:445D:C200:9852:55AA:BC87:3374 ( talk) 12:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

But based upon facts, the IP said so. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

If your definition of "fact" is "propaganda", then yes, it is based upon "facts". 2600:4040:445D:C200:924C:A8DF:576C:FAF7 ( talk) 13:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC) reply

I did not say it was, I said the IP said it was. I would sat it is based upon wp:v. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC) reply

WP:V!? Pfft! Verifiable facts are irrelevant. You're all clearly ignorant of The Truth™!… Article and sources are obviously wrong. Naturally, legal action may be the only solution to stop this Woke Menace. --  dsprc  ^[talk] 23:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC) reply

I thought that maybe I could propose a way to incorporate how the channel has been received into the lead. There already is a hint as to its reception with "The channel is known for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories", but I find it interesting that the channel was viewed differently before the late-2010s. It seems, in its short-lived heyday, its reporting was viewed positively, rather than negatively as it is viewed now. After that, the reporting went full Trump mode.

I will admit that the network came to enter the political sphere and widespread public consciousness only after it went full Trump mode, so it may be disproportionate to give a lot of coverage to its earlier reception. Nevertheless, I find it fascinating and sufficiently relevant to include in the lead to note the network's early journalistic U-turn. Therefore, I propose to add to the fourth paragraph the following:

While the channel was praised early on there was early praise for its terse and impartial reporting, with its right-wing talk shows attracting criticism, commentators and media pundits have since attacked it it has since been attacked for peddling falsehoods and conspiracy theories.

It probably conveys more information about how the public views the channel than just writing that it is "known" for conduct unbecoming a journalist. I would have added that sentence in right now, but I am not sure about whether this article's particular lead requires consensus for changes like this, given the level of scrutiny the article receives daily and the back-and-forth on this talk page over what the lead ought to be. Free Media Kid$ 01:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

I am not aware it began as a straight news outlet. Are their sources for that? soibangla ( talk) 01:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Come to think of it, it is not just the pundits, but news agencies and even a scientific journal (a prestigious one, that is) that either has attacked it or at least considers it (which would tacitly convey disapproval) to spearhead falsehoods based on its record of such. The proposed sentence has thus been modified. Now, there seems to be confusion over what my proposal was supposed to be precisely, either because of a misreading, or because I revealed something I did not intend to. In case it is the latter, I based my analysis strictly on the Reception section. If I had claimed that it started as a straight news outlet, I am sorry for misleading you. Perhaps it did at first dabble into falsehoods and conspiracies before progressing to true news in its reporting, only to then revert back to its old tactics. Perhaps the honest reporting was just a ploy to draw in audience, only to then subject its viewers to the kind of brash paranoia that, frankly, feels insulting to my intellect. I cannot prove one way or the other how the channel started, which makes the original intent of the network all the more interesting, so I shall leave it at that. As a matter of fact, of what Marty Kaplan and Don Kaplan said of OANN, which seems to be that the reporting was good, but not the talk shows, Marty actually changed his mind by 2020 and said, as this article articulates it, that "where once the talk shows were 'sand traps' in a 'large field of green', the network 'fairly quickly' became 'more like the Sahara'". I realize that early on could be construed to mean "initially", so I changed the sentence to use "early". Whatever the merits of the edit (which I am glad I brought to the talk page first), the critiques could not have turned sour and begun contradicting earlier praises for nothing. If there is anything else to discuss, from what I am proposing to the merits thereof, I am here to oblige you. Free Media Kid$ 06:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Some thoughts while I was away. When I made my edit suggestion, I acted with the understanding that the lead serves to summarize all aspects of the article contents. I should have understood it to summarize the most fundamental aspects, and so I thought that the article needed to summarize critical reception of the network, as opposed to just what it is infamous for.

I realize that my diction is flawed. For one, it may lend undue weight to past positive appraisals when it could just as well be shortened to Since 2017 or Since the late-2010s. Its reporting style, in the form of straight reporting, which has been noted and is (or was) true for non-political stories, could be written into the article body, and perhaps also the lead. Another flaw was my suggestion of attacked. The word is vague and could be understood as physical, rather than verbal or written. Criticized would do. Free Media Kid$ 07:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC) reply

How is "far right" defined, and where are the relevant cited sources? What constitutes as conspiracy theories OANN is claimed to propagate, and where are the relevant sources? Clearly opinionated content in this article poorly masquerading as factual. 2600:1009:B118:578D:4DC9:4B3E:E015:191E ( talk) 20:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC) reply

There are 194 citations in the article. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 20:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC) reply

See the 16 reliable sources cited at Special:Permalink/1187715773 § cite note-17 and the prior request for comment at Talk:One America News Network/Archive 2 § RFC on One America News Network - Application of bias descriptor for details. Neutrality on Wikipedia entails "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Reliable sources (including high-quality academic sources) agree that OANN is far-right, and this Wikipedia article reflects the same. —  Newslinger  talk 20:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC) reply