Talk:Breitbart News

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Breitbart News 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.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9: 30 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page

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.

Further information

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.

The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Why does Wikipedia say that Breitbart News is "far right"?

You can post a message on this page about your concern but please be aware that this issue has been discussed many times before. You are encouraged to review Wikipedia's policy on consensus-building and the following discussions before posting on this subject:

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Blogging (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Conservatism Mid‑importance

	Conservatism portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism

	Journalism portal 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Websites: Computing Mid‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance).

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Hanna Kozlowska (April 4, 2018). "Facebook has introduced another half-baked effort to fight fake news". Quartz. Archived from the original on April 4, 2018. Retrieved April 4, 2018. Wikipedia's entry for Breitbart News immediately informs readers that the right-wing outlet has in the past published falsehoods
Omer Benjakob (April 11, 2018). "Breitbart Declares War on Wikipedia as Encyclopedia Gets Drafted Into Facebook's 'Fake News' Battle". Haaretz. Retrieved April 11, 2018. In the past week, Breitbart's Wikipedia page has become the scene of an epic battle, with alt-right trolls descending en masse to change its content. After Breitbart ripped into Wikipedia, painting it as a bastion of the biased liberal elite, others followed suit. The Breitbart article saw a massive uptick in traffic, with more than 50,000 people visiting the Wikipedia page in recent weeks.
Samantha Cole (October 2, 2018). "Wikipedia Bans Right Wing Site Breitbart as a Source for Facts". Motherboard. Retrieved October 5, 2018. Alex Jones' InfoWars and the far-right media outlet Breitbart can't be used as a source of fact in Wikipedia articles anymore, "due to its unreliability."
Adam Smith (October 3, 2018). "Wikipedia Bans Breitbart as Source of Fact". PC Magazine. Retrieved October 5, 2018. The right-wing site will still be a source for opinion-related content, but all other citations will be removed. Wikipedia did the same with British newspaper The Daily Mail.
Marcus Gilmer (October 3, 2018). "Wikipedia demotes Breitbart to fake news". Mashable. Retrieved October 5, 2018. Wikipedia, the internet's crowd-sourced encyclopedia, has declared "fake news" on far-right site Breitbart, deeming the outlet an unreliable source for facts.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Andrew Breitbart was copied or moved into Breitbart.com. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

FAQ additions

DrFleischman added this talk page's FAQ on 27 June 2017. This was perhaps justifiable, there was a short mention on the talk page at the time about putting in a FAQ about the use of "far-right". But only about far-right. Subsequently JzG and Newslinger, without any discussion that I can see, added their opinions about what deprecation means and why Breitbart is blacklisted, etc. (Changes of transcluded pages don't appear in the main talk page history.) I have removed their additions but if there's agreement after discussion that their opinions deserve such positioning, fine, let them re-insert. Peter Gulutzan (talk)

The endless gaslighting about Breitbart is worrying. You know why nobody talks about the alt-right any more? They are no longer alt. Breitbart is a far-right propaganda outlet. Pretending otherwise does nobody any favours. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes and cites

In the article, "Five of the best examples of left-wing bias on Wikipedia in 2017" is a quote of a Breitbart headline. So per WP:RS/QUOTE it is "best" to cite breitbart.com/tech/2018/02/01/five-of-the-best-examples-of-left-wing-bias-on-wikipedia-in-2017/ and per WP:CITE "what matters most is that you provide enough information to identify the source". I intend to add that, but will wait to see whether there are objections based on a policy or guideline. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no objections, added. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter Gulutzan The link needs to be whitelisted. Isi96 (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going there, I believe the method I used is the best that can be done for now. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isi96: I see that despite this conversation you reverted my edit. Are you making an objection based on a policy or guideline, or are you accusing me of spreading spam as a JarlaxleArtemis sock? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter Gulutzan No, I tried requesting the link be whitelisted in the spam whitelist talk page, but did not get a response. Per this discussion, the link has to be whitelisted before it can be used. Isi96 (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isi96 Your unnecessary whitelist request, where you yourself said "it should be an acceptable use of the link", was archived without action. You're still not pointing to a policy or guideline or even an RfC result, just people commenting about citing Breitbart for a fact in another article. I have pointed to two guidelines, and this is about citing Breitbart for an opinion which is allowed according to the RfC, and this is not about whether the quote is due -- somebody else already decided that. Since this is a dispute between two editors, would you accept WP:DRN? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter Gulutzan I requested a whitelisting because the consensus for Breitbart mentions that links to the site should be whitelisted before it can be used: WP:BREITBART. I have no issue with the use of the link in this instance. Isi96 (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your suggestion sounds good to me. Isi96 (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're referring to an insertion in an essay by Newslinger who, I believe, as on an earlier occasion mentioned above, is giving orders without appropriate basis. Anyway, I'd like to interpret your words "I have no issue with the use of the link in this instance." as meaning you won't object if I put it back. But I could be misinterpreting your words (I made more than one suggestion), so I'll wait before doing so. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isi96 Were you affirming that my suggestion to reinstate the cite sounds good? Or were you affirming that my suggestion to go to WP:DRN sounds good? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The second one. Isi96 (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed at Dispute resolution noticeboard#Breitbart News and placed a notice on Isi96's talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this at DRN, where it shouldn't have been accepted (and I'm not sure why someone with 400 edits is trying to resolve DRN cases, however well-intentioned). This just needs a 3O. Here's one: I don't see what including that title really adds to the sentence. It doesn't actually illustrate the point any better than the rest of the sentence already does. Remove the headline and there's less of a reason to include the Breitbart link. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3O was not requested and now you've made it impossible by becoming a third editor in this thread. However, since WP:DRN failed, I guess we'll have to discuss yet more and perhaps eventually try an RfC. The reason I think your idea won't work is that there are a bunch more direct quotes of Breitbart in the article, and a bunch of indirect ones (which I think are covered by WP:RS/QUOTE, I'd need to see an official ruling). So either all of them (or at least the opinion ones) have to be removed, or the same incompatible-with-guideline problem has to be addressed for them. My solution is less disruptive than yours, because it involves changing no words of the text, and is not partly reverting the editors who put a quote in. By the way I asked an administrator whether JarlaxleArtemis is a current threat. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: After I received a reply, I posted on WP:ANI thread Breitbart Spam Blacklist. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3O was not requested and now you've made it impossible by becoming a third editor in this thread - Odd. By being the third opinion, I made a third opinion impossible? there are a bunch more direct quotes of Breitbart in the article - In this case, I don't see the addition of a quote being a net positive to the article, so the question is moot. However, where there are direct quotes, assuming there's consensus that including the direct quote improves the article as opposed to paraphrasing, then I have no problem including the Breitbart cite in addition to whatever source lent WP:WEIGHT to its inclusion. It seems like good practice to cite any source as directly as possible when using quotes. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This link should not be added. It was written by The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), so this inclusion would be proxying for a banned user. Even if the user were not banned, the fact that the article acknowledges that he has disputes with several of the people named clearly identifies it as score-settling. It's not "by Breitbart", it's by a banned user with a grudge. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support removal of the headline. The sentence is clear without it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clearer, if anything, and more respectable, since the sources give at least some credence to the idea that Wikipedia is hostile to conservatives (an idea I reject: we are hostile to bigots, but the fact that most bigots identify as conservative does not render movement conservatism as inherently bigoted; go back a few years to W or Poppy Bush and there was much less dehumanising rhetoric form the right about LGBTQ+ people, public health, climate change, and the rest. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JzG/Guy had already removed it. Oogh, I guess by pointing on WP:ANI to a thread started by Jytdog I was "proxying for a banned user" but I think I'll survive, I see no Wikipedia PAG. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on that, I did not see any reference to Jytdog when I dipped in. What I do know is that editors - banned or not - feeding content to the media to fact-wash their opinions is not exactly a new thing. Writing the content themselves? A rather obvious red flag, especially in extremist media. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re chopping off the tip of the iceberg, here are more quotes in the article.

"Huffington Post of the right" -- probably false that that was the initial concept, it apparently was said by Steve Bannon in 2012.

"to make light of a significant company event"

"war" -- judging from www.breitbart.com/the-media/2016/03/14/futures-markets-wrap-dow-continues-uncertain-climb that's probably misleading, Breitbart did use the word "war" but actually was accusing others of going to war against it

"has been our motto" -- I'm a bit dubious, why an MSNBC video? Anyway, MOS:LWQ should have been used

"Breitbart London" etc. -- if these are Breitbart's headings they should be cited to Breitbart, if not they're not quotes of anyone

"proof NAACP awards racism" www.breitbart.com/politics/2010/07/19/video-proof-the-naacp-awards-racism-2010/

"Secret Hagel Donor?: White House Spox Ducks Question on 'Friends of Hamas'." - Breitbart News noted that the two Lynches were different people by correcting and appending the original article -- but that's a fact so I won't point to it.

"advocated the narrative of 'birtherism'" -- didn't see the ultimate source for this one

"At New Year's Eve celebrations in Dortmund" -- again a fact statement so disallowed

Spanish police crack gang" -- fact statement

... And that's only the direct quotes. Much of the article is indirect quotes of Breitbart (uncited) followed by direct quotes of Breitbart critics (cited) Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I always support pruning of cruft. All the back-and-forth only serves to obscure what Breitbart is, and was designed to be: an echo chamber for the far-right. That Breitbart has largely succeeded in this goal is obvious from the fact that nobody talks about the alt-right any more, because they are no longer alt. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My request to WP:ANI re removing Breitbart from the spam blacklist has now been archived. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Breitbart is NOT far right. That is the truth of it and I hate you people who lie on here WHY? 104.244.132.17 (talk) 11:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this user's frustration. "Far X" is not a serious descriptor in common use by political scholars - it is a low-brow, pop-politics phrase used almost exclusively as a dismissal and a smear. Regardless of whether one could come to an objective, empirical understanding of whether or not Breitbart is "far right" or not, I find the use of the term in Wikivoice to be very troubling. I'd suggest attributing this statement to its authors, noting that sources W, X, Y, and Z have described Breitbart as "far right", rather than affirmatively stating it as an objective fact. Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

far-right does have a specific definition for wikipedia purposes. The question is whether or not Breitbart is described by the far-right page, not whether or not you disagree with the label. AstralNomad (talk) 23:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Repetition in Sources

I don't want to change anything like this without consulting others, first. However, in the lede we have a bundled ref of several sources that affirm Breitbart is far-right. This ref bundle is repeated later in the "Accuracy and ideology", but it is joined by two additional citations. So, I ask, should we remove the other two sources from this statement or should we just add them into the larger ref? Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]