Talk:One America News Network

Conspiracy theories

Is the term conspiracy theory neutral? It has a negative connotation in my experience. I think that people call something a conspiracy theory when they believe it is not true. If so then the term is a violation of the requirement to be neutral, correct? Sam Tomato (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The question is not whether we can or cannot label farfetched and extreme claims as conspiracy theories. The question is whether the claims have been unambiguously established by many independent sources as such. Conspiracy theory certainly is a loaded term, and where such claims are found to be conspiracy theories, it indeed is non-neutral to refer to them as anything but.

It stinks to have right-wing sources that have a poor record of credibility, considering that I am also right-wing. Of course, not all of them are like that, and we do need to remind ourselves that mainstream does not mean progressive. I would prefer that a well-known right-wing source also call out OAN, but sadly that is what polarization is. Based on my experience, the mainstream critics seem to be at least truthful in saying that OAN is not the best, and unfortunately for us, they are correct to label them as conspiracy theories. I do not deny that conspiracy theory is used in a slanderous way, but I do deny that we ought to avoid using it. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 04:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

NPOV issue?

It is quite obvious to any honest bystander that this page is being moderated by radical leftists and any moderate or consensus edit will not be permitted if it presents a balanced view of the channel. OAN is a traditional or conservative channel but they are not a "radical right" network portrayed in this page. They provide international news from reuters, AP and other well established news agencies. It would be nice if some real adults started treating this page with the same balance that other left wing news channels like CNN, MSNBC, WASHINGTON POST and The Young Turks get.

B575 (talk) 13:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Which part of the article do you believe is being "moderated by radical leftists"? We take bias very seriously, and no, we are not reverting edits that adhere to NPOV. OAN is known as Trump's favorite network, and for a good reason: he is treated almost perfectly. Trump has slammed Fox News for occasionally covering him negatively even when it reasonably should. At the same time, he is seen consistently praising OAN as delivering "fair coverage and brilliant reporting." It may very well be comparable to Breitbart, The Gateway Pundit, InfoWars, and numerous other THC-injected jibber-jabberish gobbledygook such as Occupy Democrats. On the other side of OAN, it does provide plenty of straight and neutral reporting. It is not uncommon for news stations to mirror stories published by others, including those that may damage the mirrorers' ideological causes. For that, I do agree that the network is not entirely bad, although I do strongly advise caution when proceeding to read some of its stories.

If you have concerns about the article, calling out other editors as being pretentious adults is not the way to do it. I also have concerns about the article myself, but it has more to do with how the contents are being presented and that they possibly violate WP:NOTNEWS. Some of it could also be trimmed down to the point where only the most notable examples are covered, as opposed to indiscriminately listing every one of them if the fact that the network often spouts out falsehoods will already cover all of them implicitly. By the way, MSNBC, The Young Turks, and columnist sections of some others such as CNN are described (appropriately) as being progressive. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 05:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Radical right description

The description radical right in the lead is not sourced. There are a large number of sources listed but none of them either contain the words radical right nor do they contain the description of radical right listed in the linked radical right Wikipedia page. If editors wish to label OAN as radical right that's fine but it needs to be sourced. Otherwise it needs to be reworded or deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:DC00:1580:E0FB:6B32:CF2C:C5AF (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I have looked through the sources cited and (unless I am missing something) you seem to be correct; none of the sources cited refer to or describe OAAN as "radical right". I will remove the description momentarily. SamHolt6 (talk) 04:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Because it's a somewhat objective report on something noteworthy (and not in a negative context) the station has done

— btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 05:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

POV Pushing

While OAN is certainly right wing, there is an obvious bias against OAN here. The several instances of excessive citations are overkill. More balance is definitely needed to safeguard Wikipedia's wp:npov policy. To improve balance, the article could describe their interview with Ukrainian prosecutor.— btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 19:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Reserving any judgement on NPOV, I'm a bit confused about how describing their interview with Shokin would countervail the perceived imbalance (?) --Replysixty (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Replysixty: Viktor Shokin? What do you mean by countervail the perceived imbalance? X1\ (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, user btphelps appears to suggest that describing OAN's interview with Shokin would "improve balance" against "obvious bias". My question is how would referencing or describing this interview address btphelps' bias concerns one way or another. --Replysixty (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

defined as Far-right in the U.S. / Radical right (United States) per multiple RSs

radical right wing

The Guardian newspaper describes OAN as "more right wing than Fox [News]"

X1\ (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Clearly editors WANT to label OAN radical-right at the same time the neutrality is in question. Another win for wikipediocracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B10C:3221:1CFD:DAA0:CDE4:3782 (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

We follow what the RSs show, not by wp:OR. X1\ (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The fact it's "far-right" is easily sourced. I'd appreciate it if anonymous IPs stopped edit warring on this article. Volunteer Marek 23:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: I agree it would it help to lock-out the short-term (single purpose) accounts and related IPs, to decrease "busy-work". X1\ (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Y X1\ (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

You're relying on the Guardian to label something biased? --2600:8805:A980:470:85F3:253A:694B:A41C (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

You're just pick picking out one RS, why? X1\ (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree with @SamHolt6, "radical right" is synthesis. In addition, it is possible evidence of POV pushing by @X1, who needs to be careful that they do not continue this pattern. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 05:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Btphelps: SamHolt6 isn't in this thread. Are you attempting to threaten me with your needs to be careful comment? X1\ (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Isn’t Nunes suing these purveyors of false reporting you site as sources to label a news source from across the aisle you prefer? Since the Russian collusion investigation resulted in zero evidence of any American citizen that worked in President Trump’s campaign colluding with Russians and just this week the DOJ dropped their case against Russians indicted for their troll farm activity can I assume correctly that I will find “promoters of “leftist conspiracy theories” anywhere in the wiki page of MSNBC, CNN or the NYT or WP? Ekimsnevets (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Excessive citations

As previously mentioned, per overkill, excessive citations are not appropriate and reduce article readability. "In controversial topics, sometimes editors will stack citations that do not add additional facts or really improve article reliability, in an attempt to "outweigh" an opposing view when the article covers multiple sides of an issue or there are competing claims." Editors need to select a few strong citations and remove the others. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 01:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

On contentious pages, it's better to have many citations rather than fewer so as to prevent tendentious editors from wasting everyone's time by disputing the accuracy or RS status of 2-3 citations, or making claims that something that is obviously DUE is UNDUE. It's better to create a cite bundle than to delete the citations. This is a page which is likely to features constant vandalism from new editors and IP editors, as well as tendentious editing from regular editors. Many citations save everyone a lot of trouble. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

The reason why there appears to be "excessive citations" is they used to be separately defining "right-wing[1][2] to radical right wing.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9]" The citations were combine even though, building upon what Snooganssnoogans has said, they were there for different reasons. X1\ (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The tag was added by Btphelps 19:47, 30 December 2019, after SamHolt6 incorrectly removed the multi-RS backed "radical right wing" 04:39, 30 December 2019. Also see above section. X1\ (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@X1\: I saw my name pinged. The issue is that none of the sources cited in the lead refer to the news network as being "Radical right" or part of the "Radical Right". Where is this description coming from? SamHolt6 (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@SamHolt6: as stated before, Far-right in the U.S. Far right in the United States and Radical right (United States) are used interchangeably. X1\ (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, see Far-right politics § United States. X1\ (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@X1\: the sources cited are all WP:RS, and as an encyclopedia we expect said sources have done their due diligence in reporting. We should not interpret or synthesize what the sources stated, and as such the label of "radical right" should stay removed as none of the sources use it, instead choosing to use terms like "far right". As others have said above, we avoid WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and should reflect the sources cited as closely as possible. SamHolt6 (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Makes no difference. X1\ (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@X1\, I have no desire to engage in a conflict with you about edits to this article. I can't find other examples of articles with three instances of excessive numbers of references in the same article. When I culled the large number of citations, I attempted to select relatively balanced reliable sources. You've restored them all, including obviously left-leaving sources like the Guardian and Buzzfeed. Not my opinion, just what I found when I look when I looked for third-party verification like that for the Guardian and Buzzfeed. I requested in the edit summary that anyone wishing to restore the excessive comments bring it here to the Talk page. You disregarded that. While you mention WP:BRD in this edit summary, you have not faithfully engaged in discussion about the number of excessive edits, merely insisted that "on contentious pages, it's better to have many citations rather than fewer so as to prevent tendentious editors." There doesn't need to be anything contentious about the OAN article. It's an obvious fact they are right-wing in their views. You are bringing the contention to the article by the nature of your edits. I believe you have shown evident POV pushing:

• You added the phrase "radical right-wing" to the article twice here and here without a supporting reliable source even after it was removed by other editors who discussed it with you on the talk page
• Your insistence on twice re-adding a "further" tag to an article about Donald Trump when his veracity is really not relevant to this article about OAN here and here.

I think your behavior is tilting towards an edit war. Please respond to these concerns. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 07:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Btphelps: regarding your I requested in the edit summary that anyone wishing to restore the excessive comments bring it here to the Talk page. You disregarded that by making a series of edits without discussing it here first, not me. X1\ (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Btphelps: you appear confused as Snooganssnoogans made the commment (fragment) on contentious pages, it's better to have many citations rather than fewer so as to prevent tendentious editors. X1\ (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Btphelps: if you want to discuss Veracity of statements by Donald Trump, create a separate thread for that tangent. X1\ (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Btphelps: attempting to rehash "far-right/radical right" is beating a dead horse as this has been repeatably shown in RSs as has been commented on this Talk page and in my ESs multiple times now. Drop the stick. X1\ (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

"The channel targets a conservative and right-of-center audience"

Concerning the lead sentence "The channel targets a conservative and right-of-center audience," I think it is fair to say that the channel no longer targets that demographic as it once had. The references are dated before Trump had announced his presidential bid and subsequently risen to fame, and it is sad because OAN used to be much more credible. The opinion shows were far from perfect, but the news reporting was at least satisfactory. Nowadays, I think we should drop that sentence and categorize the article with Far-right politics in the United States. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 11:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

"Citation needed". ValarianB (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this should be dropped. There's an abundance of more recent sourcing which clearly shows that the channel tries to outFox Fox News and attract the most far-right devoted Trumpist crowd. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Sounds right to me too, Snooganssnoogans and Gamingforfun365. X1\ (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Gamingforfun365, hard to disagree. Another casualty of the clustering effect of right-wing media as noted in Benkler's Network Propaganda. Guy (help!) 14:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Like so many Wikipedia pages that have anything that appeals to conservative Americans it is in much need of updating to remove what was called “conspiracy theories” 2-3 years ago that have since become indisputable fact by anyone that is not completely l left wing biased. Wiretapping of Trump for example everyone knows was an expression used by Preside t Trump to mean spying in his campaign. Is that any longer disputed? Didn’t Veritas capture audio and video of a prominent Planned Parenthood manager stating that abortions and sales of fetus body parts was high in their agenda or was that my lying ears? Wikipedia would have a lot more credibility if it wasn’t mostly authored by folks with an equally leftist bent as the conservative media sources they put their version of facts on then put their lock on. Why can’t they simply provide factual information such as who when where they are founded and that they are conservative or right wing and spare us the “known as promoters of conspiracy theories” and “alt right or white supremacist” connotations?

If there is some scandal or controversy that is undisputed based on a verdict or anything more substantial than opinion then its inclusion would also be worthwhile. Ekimsnevets (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Just what counts as "far right" these days?

The channel is classified as "far right" here, because (among other things):

"OAN is known for downplaying threats posed to the United States by Russia"

In what world is that a far-right position? NOT stoking up the fear about a foreign country is far-right? Let's say Russia is indeed threatening the USA: Such a position could be described as "naive peaceniks" or something, but "far right" is really something.

"In April 2018, while on an al-Assad regime-led tour of the area of the Douma chemical attack, an OAN correspondent claimed there was no evidence that a chemical attack had occurred."

Wait, wait, opposing meddling in the mid-east is far right nowadays?! Does that mean George W. Bush (Afghanistan, Iraq) and Fox-News during that time were actually far left? If not, what's the difference? Saddam was also dictator with blood on his hands (chemical attacks and all). Yet neither Saddam nor Assad have ever attacked the US.

Seriously, the people who bring up these points: How would you classify today the books of Chomsky and Vidal? They must be border-line fascists according to the new standards. 91.65.9.82 (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

We use reliable secondary sources, not our own opinions. O3000 (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

And? And I don't dispute that "reliable sources" reported that OAN sides with Assad's side of the story or whatever, the point is, just why the heck is a that a "far right" position all of sudden? It's not like these reliable sources actually wrote this wiki page. As I said, if such positions (non-interventionism in the mid-east apparently?) are "far-right" now, then Gore Vidal's "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace" should be considered as fascist now given this definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.9.82 (talk) 01:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Find reliable secondary sources for whatever you want changed. O3000 (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)