This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Blogging C‑class (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Conservatism C‑class 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Journalism Unassessed 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Websites: Computing C‑class 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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. 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 is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ginnysomers (article contribs).

The opening statement has the last line saying "some of its content has been called..." This is a smear job. Why doesn't CNN, MSNBC, or NYT. Have this in their opening statement? Because some of their content has also been called bad things. Wikipedia is becoming a fascist "fact" site that promotes only good information about things and people that the editors agree with, while smearing and silencing any who dissent. Lktwnr08 (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First off, don't put spaces in front of your signature, or even sign on a new line: it's very ugly and makes it difficult to read your comments in a thread. Second, please read WP:N or possibly WP:ACNU. Wikipedia does not take sides. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say. Reliable sources do not call the content of CNN or MSNBC or NYT those things. Reliable sources DO call the content of Breitbart those things. If that is not to your liking, then you should go edit conservapedia, because here on WP we deal exclusively in verifiable, reliably sourced information. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Reliable sources' who just happen to be commercial rivals to Breitbart would never smear a competitor's site would they? The naivety of you leftist propagandists is beyond comprehension. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.253.26.23 (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you think CNN, MSNBC or the NYT are "rival" of the po-dunk, miniscule little website that is Breitbart, then you have no idea how business, money or competition works. Though I do love the irony of you complaining about the "naivety" of others while defending one of the worst offenders in fake news. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable media has been reporting on the conservative media for decades. The contention that these sorts of stories are magically rendered unreliable because they are "commercial rivals" is utter hogwash and completely contrary to our reliable sources guideline. CNN, MSNBC, and the NYT report on one another all the time and we cite those sources all over Wikipedia. But we can't cite their stories on Breitbart? Come on. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the phrase "has been called" violates WP:WEASEL. It should be changed.

Regardless of this, I recommend that the last two sentences of the first paragraph be moved further down in the intro. It creates the appearance of bias (and like in law, we should take even the appearance seriously), and it certainly isn't so important that we should note it before saying anything else. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'd rather not reopen a rather old can of worms, it would perhaps be good to replace the "far-right" designation. The connotation of the word makes it appear to fall under neo-nazi territory, which would (first off) be ironic considering its favorable treatment of Jewish and Israel-related topics. Perhaps "paleoconservative" would be a more appropriate term noting its viewpoint.--TZLNCTV (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Far-right and neo-Nazi are not synonymous, but there is some overlap. Yes, Breitbart has a far-right stance, even more so than when we had the RfC. No, we should not change it simply because Breitbart posted an article complaining about it.[1] - MrX 🖋 22:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This very point has been discussed over. and over. and over. again. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know that it has been debated a lot, and that far-right was the initial consensus. I am not debating that Breitbart isn't a far-right website, I'm merely stating that the connotations of the word "far-right" generally lead one to imagine Breitbart as a neo-nazist or fascist website, and using it is counterproductive when a more specific term is available. It's a bit like how in the Dolphin article, it lists the dolphin first as an aquatic mammal, not just a mammal.--TZLNCTV (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Addendum) Though that was undoubtedly a terrible comparison.--TZLNCTV (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Far right" has gradually evolved into a common euphemism for neo-Nazi or racist. Perhaps "hard right" would be a better term than using "far right". Rreagan007 (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that far-right connotes neo-Nazism, at lest in the context of an encyclopedia. In any case, we have to follow what reliable sources write and that's what we have done.- MrX 🖋

• At the very least, it's not a violation of WP:WEASEL, as the recently-added tag claims. Per WP:WEASEL: The examples given above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. The words in question both accurately reflect what the NYT says (But it remains an outsize source of controversy — for liberals and even many traditional conservatives — over material that has been called misogynist, xenophobic and racist.) The only issue is that we ought to have a corresponding section in the article itself that goes over these accusations in more detail. EDIT: Although thinking about it, for now we can just use "liberals and even many traditional conservatives" from the NYT source, since that's specifically what it says. But we still need to elaborate on it further down the article eventually. --Aquillion (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opening statement, midway through line 3, contains the phrase "Its journalists are ideologically driven", with a citation to an NY Times article (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/27/business/media/breitbart-news-presidential-race.html). The current implication in the wiki article, by way of phrasing, is that all the site's journalists are ideologically driven. By contrast, the phrasing in the NY Times article is "For Mrs. Clinton, it was a strategic attack that linked Mr. Trump to leading avatars of the hard-line right. But among Breitbart’s ideologically driven journalists, her remarks were taken as validation.", followed up by a quotation from site editor Alexander Marlow. This phrasing does not suggest that all Breitbart journalists are ideologically driven; rather, it implicates a defined subset (e.g. those who took her remarks as validation). Thus, this summary does not appear to accurately reflect the context within the cited article. I would suggest altering this phrase to read "Some of its journalists are ideologically driven" or, since that is a sufficiently weak statement that can be made of any major news outlet, strike the ideologically driven phrase entirely. Enough is said in the remainder of the wiki article to let the reader know BB is a right-wing site. Apologies in advance for any errors made here format-wise. First time posting.WeeSquirrel (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It definitely should be reworded, or at least attributed.- MrX 🖋 23:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I concur as well. The current article wording is a mischaracterization of the source material. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a secondary source summarizing that specific part of that Times article. It summarizes it the same way we do (Breitbart’s content has been called misogynist, xenophobic and racist and The New York Times has described its journalists as "ideologically driven”.). --Aquillion (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The description repeats several anti-Breitbart News obsessions popular in the corporate and left-wing media: that the site has “misogynistic, xenophobic, and racist content,” and a single throwaway comment from former Executive Chairman Steve Bannon describing the site as a “platform for the alt-right.” Breitbart News has consistently rejected the alt-right label, which has been applied to the site by the mainstream media.

The online encyclopedia publicly claims that “anyone” can edit it, yet in reality, this article has a lock on it and a gatekeeper.

Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbot Luigi (talk • contribs) 00:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It obviously hasn't "consistently" rejected the label if your position is that Bannon's comments were inconsistent.

It has a lock on it because people kept vandalizing it. The goal is to write an encyclopedia, not provide a battleground for edit warriors.

Regardless, Wikipedia is a tertiary source which, by design, has a what could be described as a mainstream bias. This is because articles are based on reliable sources, which have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. This implies some documented acknowledgement from academic and journalistic peers, which correlates with the "mainstream media" boogieman. Additionally, articles are expected to prioritize third party sources. Breitbart is neither reliable, nor third-party to Breitbart, so the article will reflect what other sources have to say. There is plenty of non-corporate media which also describes Breitbart as far-right and white nationalist, such as Democracy Now (among many others, to be sure). If you know of any reliable sources which dispute this description, let's see it. Grayfell (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the OP quotes (without attribution) from this Breitbart article, where the site whines how evil Facebook now links their articles to this "biased" article. Expect more pitchforks and torches in the next days.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the talk section of this wiki article, it would seem that there is no consensus at all. Why is it that a bunch of anti-Brietbart people can post a lengthy diatribe referencing less than credible sources and then require edits to have consensus?. frontier_teg (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You want to change consensus, you'll have to do more than just kvetch about people you don't agree with. What sources are you talking about? Why, exactly, aren't they credible? Because they're "left wing"? That doesn't make them less credible, as I'm sure you've noticed if you're reviewed the talk page's many archives. You see where this is going? We've already been over this countless times, so if you have real questions, ask them, and if you have actionable proposals that haven't already been discussed to death, make them. Grayfell (talk) 00:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't read through the talk page archives. There are links near the top of this page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is NO consensus on this article. This article, as published, violates the rules of wikipedia and has gone off the rails due to the political bias of the gatekeepers locking the article. For Shame. Abbot Luigi (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The very fact that you have labeled the sources politically "left wing", or accused me of doing it, has proved the point. This is not an unbiased article, nor does it comply with the rules of wikipedia. Release the lock on the article and let the 'consensus' develop over time. Abbot Luigi (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word consensus, or how it applies to Wikipedia content. Please read WP:CONSENSUS and our other policies and guidelines so that you don't disrupt the talk page with further complaining. This is WP:NOTAFORUM.- MrX 🖋 16:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this topic is one that is quite political. The purpose of Wikipedia is to keep as neutral a point of view as possible, and when it is applied to politics, of course things get a bit odd.

No. This article, as published, violates the rules of wikipedia and has gone off the rails due to the political bias of the gatekeepers locking the article. For Shame. Abbot Luigi (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But, for everyone's sake, please stop accusing editors of "left-wing bias". Remember:

• Wikipedia runs on consensus. Not just of the Wikipedia community, but of the sources seen front and center everywhere. Wikipedia will have a mainstream bias as long as the bias is mainstream.
• The article is locked for a reason. It may seem that it is for gatekeeping against you, but remember that with the subject of the article being so contested, if it weren't, the far-left would be constantly calling Breitbart a terrorist group and the far-right would be calling it the word of God.

If you want to contest the consensus, my best recommendation would be to do some digging. Find as many articles about bias and lack of credibility in mainstream news as you can, but especially look for ones printed by the mainstream news. If you don't believe the currently used sources are reliable, then, please, prove it. The currently used reliable sources will not change unless they can be proven to be unreliable. --TZLNCTV (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, this is absurd. The intro is one massive derogatory editorial. It is a mockery of our standards and it is hugely destructive. If criticism is needed in the article to reflect all sides of an ongoing debate, it can not be such a prominent part of the opening.

And, thanks guys, you have dragged us into the war between Facebook and its conservative critics. Facebook, of all things! Facebook is using us as Character Witness A to assert that Breitbart can not be trusted. According to a current Breitbart article, "Facebook is displaying a link to Wikipedia’s (...)description of Breitbart News next to all Breitbart articles shared on the site." I deeply resent that position. I don not want to be the ministry of truth, that Facebook uses to judge its customer's content. I do not want to provide the edict that makes a Facebook user loose his account or have his posts deleted. I do not want for us to be that site! Frankly, we are not good enough for that, we are not true enough, we are not balanced enough. We are not even remotely wise enough! We make far too many mistakes, we are far too biased, far too inconsistent.

So I beg you - keep us out of this. Please, lets remain humble. Lets stick to our principles that have served us so well in the past, follow NPOV and UNDUE and OR and all those other policies that are designed to keep our site on the very careful side of truth! Please, clean up that intro, comb the criticisms further back in the article with a very fine comb and only keep in what can be reliably and fairly said on the subject. And, yes, that means it is ultimately the article itself that demands and needs a good degree of consensus, not just the changes to it! Right now, this consensus is nowhere to be seen! Wefa (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should summarize the body, and the body should summarize reliable sources. These are the "principles that have served us so well in the past". If those sources are critical, the article will reflect that, which is appropriate. Facebook's half-assed attempt at damage control is what it is. We should not downplay our principles for this particular article just because of heightened attention. It doesn't matter whether you want this or not. Grayfell (talk) 03:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section actually contains no criticism. It's all verifiable facts. Breitbart has published a number of falsehoods and conspiracy theories? Verifiable fact. It aligned with the alt-right? Verifiable fact. Solicited ideas from neo-Nazis and white supremacists? Verifiable fact. These facts may not reflect well on Breitbart, but they are all verifiable and highly significant. NPOV, UNDUE, and OR concerns have been raised and addressed. If you have your own specific concerns, by all means raise them. But saying that the lead is "one massive derogatory editorial" without any specific detail isn't helpful. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bias is plainly obvious, as the intro consists almost entirely of negative viewpoints of the organization. Whether justified or not, it's hardly a summary and more a front-loaded attack, much of which should be detailed in sections below. It'd be like dumping all the Clinton sex scandals and impeachment proceedings at the very top of the Bill Clinton page. The concerns isn't whether they're valid, it's whether they're appropriate as a summation. Nor is it a consensus, considering it cherrypicks the criticisms from more left-leaning media, both niche and mainstream. The Wallstreet Journal for example, does not call it alt-right (predictably, neither does Fox News), and it was Mother Jones--a left-leaning site--that said it aligned with the alt-right. It's different for media to be alt-right, and for the media to be supported by alt-right; in NYT magazine feature's own words, "maybe the difference between these things is slight," which detailed a Harvard study that concluded Breitbart wasn't "alt-right," and it's a label Breitbart's own editors disagree with. Rather pertinent details that aren't included.

In other words, it's overly simplistic to apply such labels, and requires more detail that cannot be succinctly expressed at the top--again it should be elaborated more below. I do suggest changes to make it more neutral, because the treatment should be more nuanced in interest of neutrality. Sugaki (talk) 08:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article's intro violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, as well as MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH. Of all places to add the info about "falsehoods" and "-isms", it's in the very first paragraph of the intro for some reason, as if it's the most important thing possible to know about Breitbart. Those sentences actually look out of place when read along with the rest of the intro, and they give the article the appearance of bias (and like in law, the appearance of bias is important). --1990'sguy (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Briebart produces facts that left wing people hate and therefore deem it fake. Democrats and liberals hate facts and will do anything to suppress them. Wikipedia it's self is the fake site. Dkoller1769 (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

•  Not done -- especially since there's nothing the editor asks to be done... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Refuses to be done Because the political bias and the substitution of myth for facts is carefully guarded by the small group of gatekeepers preventing a consensus being reached on the article. It is a violation of wikipedia standards.

Compare it to what you see about buzzfeed or Huffpost on this wikiBold text

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HuffPost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BuzzFeed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccampbell15 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the permalinks of this article vs. HuffPost and BuzzFeed, for future reference. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have never read such a biased article in my life. As usual it has been made by the same group of people who usually makes smear articles about the people who don't want immigration or opposes the identitarian left. I belive these people are organized and perhaps paid (suspects are Soros, Saudi Arabia, China etc.). They should be banned from wikipedia. One of the worst ones are mrx.

89.10.163.97 (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be too pedantic, but either you red Breibart or not. In the first case, yes, you have read much more biased articles than this one. In the second, how would you know if this one is biased? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know that this article is biased? Because there is a lock on it to prevent any changes toward consensus. This article is the result of a very small politically biased set of authors who have decided to prevent consensus on this article. Abbot Luigi (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's crazy seeing blatant political attacks on Wikipedia. I won't bother trying to edit, I don't contribute enough to feel like it's my place to do so, but I also will have a hard time trusting Wikipedia in the future. Mods, you're bias is clear as day here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:702:8002:64CF:750F:D783:1FA1:7048 (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For Shame Wikipedia. For Shame.