Talk:Breitbart News - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TheTimesAreAChanging (talk | contribs) at 09:59, 8 October 2017 (Undid revision 804339392 by TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) Nevermind. As long as BuzzFeed is also cited, I don't really care.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 09:59, 8 October 2017 by TheTimesAreAChanging (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 804339392 by TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) Nevermind. As long as BuzzFeed is also cited, I don't really care.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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 Misplaced Pages? 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, 9Auto-archiving period: 30 days

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.

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.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Why does Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages's policy on consensus-building and the following discussions before posting on this subject:

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages, 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!

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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).

Alt right sentence

The sentence in the lead says:

"Breitbart News later aligned with the European populist right and American alt-right under the management of former executive chairman Steve Bannon."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/16/magazine/breitbart-alt-right-steve-bannon.html?mtrref=undefined

We have a reliable source here saying Breitbart is not alt-right itself:

"The last thing Yochai Benkler noted before I left his office at Harvard was that his team had performed a textual analysis of all the stories in their database, and they found a surprising result. ‘‘One thing that came out very clearly from our study is that Breitbart is not talking about these issues in the same way you would find on the extreme right,’’ he said. ‘‘They don’t use the same language you find on sites like VDARE and The Daily Stormer’’ — two sites connected to the white-nationalist alt-right movement. He paused for a moment, then added: ‘‘Breitbart is not the alt-right.’’

It does say, however, that "Shapiro’s story suggests a more complicated view of Breitbart’s relationship to the extreme right: not an exponent of all the most incendiary rhetoric but its willing conduit. Under Bannon, the site seemed content to welcome its alt-right base."

In other words, Breitbart is not alt right itself, but under Bannon, became sort of a conduit.

Therefore, I think the sentence should be changed simply to "Breitbart News later aligned with the populist right under the management of former executive chairman Steve Bannon." as right wing populism fits its nationalist anti-globalist position without out-right describing it as alt right, which is inaccurate according to the New York Times and the cited professor. This can be further elaborated in the following paragraph using the above New York Times profile to clarify its ideology. Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, first off, thanks for highlighting the issue. Second, the Times did not adopt Benkler's statement, so the question isn't whether the Times article is a reliable source, but rather whether Benkler's comment is reliable under WP:SPS. I'm not an expert at SPS, but I believe the answer is no, since Benkler did not publish it himself, and as far as I can tell this is not his area of expertise (though I could be mistaken). Finally, even if Benkler's statement is a reliable source, our neutrality policy dictates that we should describe the disagreement among the sources, not remove it entirely. Moreover, I don't believe your "seemed content" language is supported by the sources. All that said, even if Benkler's conclusion isn't reliable, it may be worthy of inclusion in the body with in-text attribution. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

(Personally, I think Benkler's analysis is completely bogus. Breitbart's language isn't what you find on VDARE and The Daily Stormer, ergo, it's not alt-right? By that logic,Richard B. Spencer, the claimed leader of the alt-right, isn't alt-right. Come on.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The second sentence I cited is the Times, not Benkler. Second, VDARE and Daily Stormer were given as examples, not as the only representation of the alt right. Spencer IS a white nationalist and does align with the language used in VDARE and Daily Stormer. Breitbart, while certainly right wing populist, is not white nationalist.

Also, I would say Benkler is a RS as he is a credited academic at Harvard who is studying this issue.

As for the source, the current cited New York Times article for that sentence does not outright say that Breitbart is alt-right either, but uses similar language to the NYT article I linked above that described it as "a willing conduit". Changing the sentence to simply "Breitbart News later aligned with the populist right under the management of former executive chairman Steve Bannon." does not outright *exclude* the possibility of it being alt right either, and its role in the alt right movement can be discussed in more nuanced terms based on the sources cited. The current statement lacks nuance and does not represent what the sources are saying. Marquis de Faux (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that the source you're citing doesn't contradict the current lede. The sentence you want to change doesn't accuse Breitbart of being part of the alt-right, but of "aligning itself" with the alt-right, a state which is never described as "joining", "becoming a part of" or indeed, given any permanence. Given that Breitbart itself said it was the "platform for the alt-right", it's going to take a lot more than one source to change this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Bannon said it was the platform for the alt right when the term first started coming up and wasn't really defined as it is now. The current editors say they have nothing to do with the alt right. Marquis de Faux (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

And we cite three more reliable sources that say that Breitbart is alt-right. There may be more. The question here isn't whether there are reliable sources calling Breitbart reliable sources; the question is whether the Benkler comment creates a dispute among the reliable sources that requires us to give due weight to both viewpoints. Marquis de Faux, has Benkler's work in this field been published by reliable third-party publications? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

And yes, Benkler's work "in this field" is published in various publications from Columbia Journalism Review to NPR to New York Times. https://www.cjr.org/analysis/breitbart-media-trump-harvard-study.php http://www.npr.org/2017/03/14/520087884/researchers-examine-breitbart-s-influence-on-misleading-information Marquis de Faux (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The NPR piece is an interview, not published work. The CJR piece is a good example, however. Given that Benkler is a professor of Entrepreneurial Legal Studies I don't think a singe cite establishes much, however it's far from clear that he's not an expert per WP:SELFPUB. I'm fairly certain that one could dig up enough evidence to reasonably claim him to be an expert on Breitbart's political stance.

But again, the problem is that Benkler's comments don't contradict the claim "Breitbart aligned itself with the alt-right and others under the control of Bannon." Indeed, it doesn't really even address that claim. With a rebuttal from Breitbart to charges of being part of the alt-right already in the lede, I'm not sure why you want to change anything. I'm going to refrain from assuming that you're engaged in attempted white-washing, but I have to be honest: it looks that way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the CJR source gives Benkler "expert status" under WP:SPS. It is not self-published and it's in the relevant field. I also believe that Marquis de Faux is commenting in good faith and not trying to whitewash anything. I would support some appropriately nuanced summary of Benkler's conclusions (beyond simply saying that Breitbart is "not alt-right"). That said, I think Mjolnir is right--I don't see any language in our article that needs changing. We don't actually say that Breitbart is alt-right, we say it's aligned with the alt-right--and that appears to be quite consistent with Benkler's analysis. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)]]

The problem with the current wording is "aligned with the alt right" may lead some readers may make the conclusion that Breitbart itself is alt-right. Therefore, for the sake of clarity and nuance, I believe Benkler's sentence should be added in addition to the current wording. Marquis de Faux (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I also believe that Marquis de Faux is commenting in good faith and not trying to whitewash anything. I agree; In case I wasn't clear enough, know that I was playing devil's advocate in the last line of my previous comment. I'm sure Marquis is working in good faith, just giving them a heads up so they aren't surprised if someone else shows up and starts shouting about POV pushing. This looks to me like good faith discussion, but I know a lot of editors who would not see it that way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it's because of my profession, or my native language, but the quote in question is "Breitbart is not the alt-right" (my emphasis), which is different from "Breitbart is not alt-right". The first says it is not identical to the alt-right, which I would interpret more loosely as "does not represent the whole spectrum of the alt-right movement". The second one uses "alt-right" as an adjective, and would be equivalent to "is not part of the alt-right spectrum", a very different meaning. For me, the first (in the looser sense) is obviously right, and the second is obviously wrong. I would expect an academic like Benkler to make just such a distinction. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

NOAA data vs Breitbart claim

@DrFleischman: you recently reverted an edit by @Redxiv: which contrasted data from the NOAA with the claims of Breitbart. You classified the claim as WP:OR, but Redvix did give a source, which directly supports the added text. It looks to me as if you are suggesting that the NOAA data isn't useable for the claim because the claim contradicts Breitbart, in the context of Breitbart. The problem with that is that SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition. Care to discuss? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is original research (specifically WP:SYNTH). The juxtaposition is obviously intended to refute Breitbart's claim. The cited source makes no mention of Breitbart and should not be used in this way.- Mr X 15:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

It is a factual statement that provides context to the subject of discussion. The conclusions drawn by the segment were:

Breitbart published a story claiming that the past three years were cooling. (Verifiable in the source)
Breitbart was incorrect. (Verifiable in the source)
Those years were actually the warmest on record. (Verifiable in the source)

If your objection is that the juxtaposition concludes that Breitbart was incorrect: that was explicitly stated in the other source. SYNTH is when two or more sources are used to draw a conclusion that is not stated explicitly in either. There's no such conclusion in this edit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :What Mr. X said. It's not exactly clear what material in the the given source was being cited. If it was intended to be used for its annual global temperature data, then it reads as if a Misplaced Pages editor dug through the primary source data to undercut a contention made by Breitbart. That would be textbook OR and non-neutral to boot. If the cited material was the "past three years" language, then it fails verification, as that paragraph is specifically about Europe. It doesn't work either way. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Mjolnir, I think you misread the source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Or maybe I did. There is a table showing that 2014-2016 were the three warmest years for global temperatures. I need to think about this a bit more. Surely there's a secondary source pointing out Breitbart's...error? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The NYT source points out Breitbart's error.

"Scientists on Friday debunked a widely circulated news media report suggesting that recent record-high global temperatures were unrelated to climate change." – New York Times

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

There you go, let's use that. And I noticed the story has been covered by many other reliable sources, including Politico, USA Today, NPR, CBS, etc. etc. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think those will all be necessary, but feel free to add them in (apologies for the notification you're about to get, but one click is the easiest way). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Mjolnir, you might have misunderstood. There isn't consensus to restore the content with the NOAA source, so technically you're violating the "consensus required" arbitration rule. Please re-write and cite one or more of the news sources listed above. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The only objections to it have been addressed, as you yourself acknowledged. If you think it need re-writing, I'm certainly open to that. I don't really tnink it needs further sourcing, but I have no objections to further sourcing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The NOAA report does not say anything equivalent to "Those "last three years" at the time of the article's publication were the three warmest years on record." That would be original research of a primary source. It's not allowed.- Mr X 19:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The NOAA report directly lists those three years as the three hottest on record. See the chart under the heading "Twelve Warmest Years (1880–2016)". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

That's not in dispute. The NOAA report says nothing about "at the time of the article's publication". Let's just use secondary sources that directly discuss Breitbart's claims.- Mr X 20:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Then let's change the wording. The reason I like this content is because is helps contextualize the subject (the Breitbart story). It's certainly relevant, it's verifiable, it's not undue, it's not OR, and the SYNTH issue boils down to wording. If the sentence were to be re-written as "The NOAA released a report which indicated the three years in question (2014, 2015 and 2016) were the hottest recorded at the time of that report." that would pretty clearly address every problem that's been raised with it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Meh. I'm falling on the side of OR on this one. Specifically, if no reliable source has combined the material in this way then it shouldn't be in the article. If they have, then we should be citing those who do, and not citing NOAA. TimothyJosephWood 19:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The NY Times source directly contradicts the Breitbart narrative already. It would be OR if we sourced the Breitbart content to show that the story was published, then sourced the NOAA content to show that the Breitbart story was wrong, no question. But we already have a source stating definitively that the the Breitbart story was wrong. This sentence doesn't introduce anything new to the list of conclusions that isn't explicitly stated in the NOAA source (provided we word it right). The sentence you quoted from SYNTH is taken from an example that draws a novel conclusion from two sources. That isn't being done here. We're drawing three conclusions, each of which is explicitly stated in the source. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem here is the writing, not the sourcing. The cited sources should be enough to say that Breitbart was wrong. Instead, it has a whole paragraph on the Breitbart claims (probably too much), and then relegates the media response to a second paragraph. In that second paragraph, it merely says that the House committee report was "criticized" and that Weather.com "condemned" the Breitbart article. This is not neutral treatment. As Mjolnir points out, the Breitbart story was debunked by scientists, not criticized by the lamestream media. And if we're going to say something was criticized, then we should describe the criticism; otherwise the criticizers come off as crybabies. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Maybe I'm just slow today, but can you help me understand why the NOAA source is needed at all? The New York Times seems to cover the subject well. Besides, the real story is not that the last three years were the warmest on record, but that Breitbart "cited incomplete data and drew incorrect conclusions" and that the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology foolishly parroted it. - Mr X 23:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I see it as a good addition because there's a huge gulf between "Breitbart said these years were cooling, but they're not," and "Breitbart said these years were cooling, but they're not. They were the warmest years on record." The former relates the paper publishing a partisan article, whereas the latter relates the paper publishing an article that was incredibly -and intentionally- deceptive. I'm sure you've all seen me mention my rule of thumb about WP:DUE before; if it changes the narrative and it's verifiable, it's due. Well, this information certainly changes the narrative. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Then use the NYT source. That avoids OR. TimothyJosephWood 23:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The NYT source doesn't mention that the years were the warmest on record, that's from the NOAA source. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm feeling a certain amount of bark-like texture on my palms right about now and I'm wondering if it's time to let go. So I'm hoping I can get a quick yes/no answer from the three of you. I'll go with the majority here.

Do you feel like the mere fact of including the NOAA source and its claim (that 2014, 2015 and 2016 were the hottest years on record) is OR?

If two of you say "Yes", I think that's a clear enough consensus for me to give it up. If the "No"s win out, then I think we should probably discuss what we can do to fix it. I agree with much of DrFleischman's criticisms of that section above, so a re-write might be in order. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

For this purpose, yes. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@MrX and Timothyjosephwood: Just want to make sure you guys see my question above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Umm... I think this is probably getting more into the area of independent investigative journalism. We're not really the ones that are supposed to reach up and out and find the larger context for readers. We're just kindof supposed to dumbly mimic the people who do. Using this source makes it look like NOAA read BB and felt like they needed to set the record straight, when really all they did was dump a big pile of "here's the facts boys", which happened to contradict the otherwise unrelated assertions BB made. TimothyJosephWood 10:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's original research. - Mr X 12:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Fake photo of DACA recipients

I have removed the recently added "Fake photo of DACA recipients" section here as undue. The only thing close to a RS found for it was Think Progress, I also found a Media Matters blog on the subject. With just those covering it, it is not notable enough for it's own section. PackMecEng (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

If there's firm coverage of the blatantly obvious bullshittery of this Breitbart story (seriously: that number looks impressive until you realize that it's only about 0.26% of DACA recipients. Wouldn't life be grand of only 0.26% of the general population were criminals?), then I'd be okay with adding that. But complaining about the photo? Ffs, the use of stock photos, sometimes without description or attribution, sometimes in misleading ways is common practice is yellow journalism and is about as remarkable as breathing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Support reinstatement — properly sourced. Argument holds no sway. Carl Fredrik 16:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Argument holds no sway. Oh, the irony. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

So a whole section based on, what I can find as only one source, saying that a stock photo was used incorrectly and then removed has enough weight for the article? WP:WEIGHT has not been established for this trivia, especially given the source used. PackMecEng (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

There are at least 5 more sources. Carl Fredrik 20:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Where are those? PackMecEng (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The thing is, it's the second time in a relatively short period of time this has happened. See the Podolski photo. Volunteer Marek 17:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd be willing to bet good money that any journalist who looked into it would find that it happens with some regularity at Breitbart. If/when said journalist writes a story about it in a major publication, then the question of mentioning this should be revisited. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Tentatively support exclusion for now. I would like to see better sourcing, and I'm surprised other outlets haven't picked this up yet. I've always had misgivings about relying on ThinkProgress and MMfA. I could be mistaken but I believe there's no consensus either way on their reliability. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

If this was just MMfA I'd agree. But I think TP is a bit better. Anyway, I'll let consensus decide. Volunteer Marek 17:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

TP is the closest thing to a left-wing Fox News I can think of. They're reliable enough for most of their reporting, but they're also reliably biased, and you need to check the fine print for corrections. That being said, the issue here seems more one of weight. This is just one criticism among a flood, and it's one that hasn't stirred up any appreciable fecal weather phenomenon as of yet. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Support reinstatement Seems to fit a pattern looking at the other issues that have come up on their site, the Lukas Podolski is just one of those for example. Also other sources have popped up. is just one of many when searching Breitbart using a fake photo now with some of their past issues mixed also. ContentEditman (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@ContentEditman:if you can find some better sourcing than what was used above, I don't think reinstating this content would be a problem. I've pointed out that the criticisms were unremarkable and others have pointed out both that there's very little coverage of it (see WP:DUE) and that the sourcing is questionable. But if there's additional sourcing of a higher quality, that would overcome all of the objections, mine included. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

EA Worldview is a self-published blog and as such is probably unreliable. I agree that we need something better. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Here are 3 others I found by Photo search Those are just some filed under News at google using the Photo search. ContentEditman (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@ContentEditman: those are all blogs. They are not usable as sources for this content. Please read WP:RS and WP:IRS, pay special attention to WP:SELFPUB. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Biased

Non-WP:TPO discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
This article is a joke. Undermines my trust in the whole of Misplaced Pages. Just in the opening paragraph: "far-right", "falsehoods", "conspiracy theories", "intentionally misleading stories", "alt-right." Not going to try to edit it because it's probably going to be useless, just let you know it does undermine the trustworthiness of the whole Misplaced Pages project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.9.77.220 (talk) 06:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC) Thanks for your feedback. What brings a Cambodian with perfect English to this article, if I might ask? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Non-WP:TPO discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is a joke. Undermines my trust in the whole of Misplaced Pages. Just in the opening paragraph: "far-right", "falsehoods", "conspiracy theories", "intentionally misleading stories", "alt-right." Not going to try to edit it because it's probably going to be useless, just let you know it does undermine the trustworthiness of the whole Misplaced Pages project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.9.77.220 (talk) 06:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. What brings a Cambodian with perfect English to this article, if I might ask? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Alexa US rankings

Is it necessary to put the Alexa ranking for the US in the infobox? This causes problems with consistency between the rankings, because Alexa does not show whether the US one has increased or decreased, at least for people like me who don't have a paid account. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 06:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I think, for websites that it's an important bit of information. That being said, I agree with your edit to it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Forbes

Uh, why exactly it's suppose to be non-reliable? Volunteer Marek 08:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Buzzfeed

Why is the far-left extremist propaganda site Buzzfeed being cited? Buzzfeed constantly claims President Trump is racist without any evidence and actively promotes the deranged "transgender" ideology. In fact, it is a hate site that engages in unrepentant racism and sexism against white men in the name of the far-left buzzword "diversity." It also promotes racist black supremacist feminist intersectional propaganda, claiming that white people have "white privilege." Buzzfeed is clearly not a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.77.186.210 (talk) 09:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Categories: