Talk:Breitbart News/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Domain name redirects

I removed external links to Breitbart.tv, BigHollywood.com, BigGovernment.com, BigJournalism.com, BigPeace.com, and breitbart.com/breitbart-sports as they appear to be non-notable domain name registrations by Breitbart that simply redirect to Breitbart.com. The removal was reverted without explanation by 173.79.167.126. Please explain why these external links are appropriate under the relevant guideline. Thanks. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Colbert Report is not WP:RS

Kindly note that the "Colbert Report" is not a "reliable source" for claims of fact on Wikipedia. Really. Nor can we make editorial claims as to why Breitbart did anything - we can only report what the reliable sources actually state - which is that two people have the name "Loretta Lynch." Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@Collect: Just so you're aware it is unlikely that NorthBySouthBaranof is going to participate in a talk page discussion on this edit conflict. He is currently on a crusade to paint Breitbart as an unreliable source for Wikipedia to solve an edit dispute with another editor and prevent its use on another article space. Weedwacker (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

If he opts to refuse to discuss issues here, then others may revert his edits pretty much at will - seems remarkably short-sighted on his part to refuse to abide by WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and WP:RS all at once, no? Collect (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Describing me as "refusing to discuss" an issue that we just discussed extensively in another venue that you opened strikes me as disingenuous in the extreme. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

NorthbySouthBaranof, I believe you're acting in good faith here. The problem is you are starting to show a pattern of WP:DE... HessmixD (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I note the Colbert Report source has now been replaced. That part of the issue would seem to be resolved. In terms of what the sources do actually state - they state a lot more than two people having the name "Loretta Lynch". If it was simply the case that two people had the same name, the story wouldn't have been reported. Indeed, I think an argument can be made that the current wording is actually too soft on Breibart - we have a report from the Washington Post headlined "Breibart News attacked the wrong Loretta Lynch" and a New York Times piece which says "The appended correction didn’t really do justice to the scope of the misidentification.". It's clear that the sources cited believe this to be a major error and it should be reflected as such here.

In terms of the other comments on this thread, could someone explain to me the Wikipedia policy that states "If [someone] opts to refuse to discuss issues here, then others may revert his edits pretty much at will"? Surely all edits need to be made in line with WP policy regardless of whether someone has participated in a discussion? I also fail to see how WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and WP:RS have been violated here. In fact, it seems WP:CIV is the rule most in danger of being flouted in this discussion. Megajeffzilla (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I've gotta be honest, there's not much here aside from unprovoked hostility and baseless accusations. I'm having a hard time seeing this as anything more than a smear campaign. Please convince me otherwise. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The Colbert Report was a comedy programme. I find it hard to use part of a comedy monologue as being much of anything. Collect (talk) 22:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The Colbert Report was indeed a comedy programme. Is there a particular WP rule that states we should ignore all comedy programmes when sourcing articles? Indeed, I think that a globally recognised comedy programme took it upon itself to mock the Breibart error is in itself noteworthy. While perhaps it's not ideal for an article to directly cite a comedy programme, as previously noted that source has now been replaced. Given the title of this section was "Colbert Report is not WP:RS" and that issue has been resolved, I don't think there's any need to pursue this topic. Megajeffzilla (talk) 01:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

We do not use The Onion as a source either. Nor Cracked. Comedy sources are expected to have satire,homour, overstatement and other elements of comedy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted Collect's undiscussed removal of significant reliable sources which discussed the Lynch misidentification, including The New York Times and PolitiFact. Please discuss any plans you have to remove reliable sources from the article, as your initial concerns here have been addressed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Fully discussed - I left your title, but claims by a comedian affecting a living person fail WP:BLP. Also I removed blatant SYNTH. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, that explains removing the sources related to Colbert. I can live with that. It doesn't explain why you removed The New York Times and PolitiFact. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll try and start the discussion based on my attempts at reading the revert summary: 1. Colbert No. 2. "claimed at length" - no 3. corrections are always "at the bottom" pet NYT MOS, 3. SYNTH is against policy 4. WP:BLP applies since Huston is living.

1) The Colbert quotes were not in the article, but if you insist, we'll remove the two sources that talk about it. 2) OK, we'll just say "falsely claimed," because, well, yes, it was a false claim. Also tightens the wording. 3) Sure. 4) Not seeing the SYNTH here, please explain. 5) Not seeing the BLP issue here, please explain — all statements are reliably sourced. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

"Falsely claimed" is using a "word to avoid" and makes a claim in Wikipedia's voice about a living person. It violates WP:BLP. And the use of SYNTH is repeatedly used - let's stick to facts here, please. And "overcitation" is silly - it benefits no one once a sufficient reliable source is given. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Really? You're going to go there? Because this is utterly silly — there is no BLP issue in stating that something is false, which is absolutely 100% provably factually incontrovertibly false. We can use "stated" if you'd prefer something other than "claimed", but it's obviously false. You need to explain what SYNTH claim you believe exists. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Assertion that a person "falsely claimed" something is a contentious claim. Suppose one wrote "George Gnarph falsely claimed he was innocent of raping 200 women" in an article. I would use "said" without the value judgment in Wikipedia's voice of "falsely" which is what I had there in the first place. Huston is a living person and must therefore fall under WP:BLP. And all the ", Breitbart initially did not withdraw the story, but rather posted a correction " is SYNTH - the fact is they did post a correction, and the "initially did not withdraw the story" is SYNTH as one can not post a correction to a story after one has deleted the story with a straight face. This correction was widely mocked by media critics and mainstream journalists, after which Breitbart deleted the story from its website is SYNTH in spades, and the bit about "widely mocked" is gratuitous when we are trying to write an actual fact-based article. Cheers. This ignorance and deliberate flouting of MOS and policy is getting very old very quickly. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Given the statement in the article is false, I don't see why saying "falsely stated" is an issue. I disagree that "Breitbart initially did not withdraw the story, but rather posted a correction" is SYNTH, but I think it could be worded better. "Breitbart initially posted a correction that was widely mocked by media critics and mainstream journalists. It then deleted the story from its website." would be my suggestion. In terms of the use of the phrase "widely mocked", the fact is it was widely mocked. I think that the mistake was so large and so badly handled that it attracted the attention of the Colbert Report is significant. You may not like the fact Beirbart was mocked, but the fact it was is plain to see in the sources and provided. The article should reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megajeffzilla (talk • contribs) 14:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

That Colbert would mock a conservative is hardly relevant. That has been his stich from almost day one. He is(was) a comedy act, I don't know why that is so difficult to accept. Arzel (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm incredulous that you believe it's a "value judgment" to state that it is factually false that the two people are the same people. It's the most absurd argument I've ever seen on Wikipedia. The statement in question is literally, provably, 110%, irrefutably factually false. The two women are not the same woman. How are you even arguing this? It's false. The site even admitted as much. This is not a disputed claim, it's just wrong, the end. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Errors occur even on the NYT. See my User Talk page for just a couple of their gems from 2013, including

An article last Sunday about the documentary maker Morgan Spurlock, who has a new film out on the boy band One Direction, misstated the subject of his 2012 movie “Mansome.” It is about male grooming, not Charles Manson. The article also misspelled the name of the production company of Simon Cowell, on whose “X Factor” talent competition show One Direction was created. The company is Syco, not Psycho.

Cheers -- this NYT one seems to quite top the simple confusing of two people with the same name. Collect (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The New York Times does not describe this case as "confusing," rather it describes it as "The appended correction didn’t really do justice to the scope of the misidentification." PolitiFact describes it as "false," as do other sources. Because it is false. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Collect, no offense but this isn't one of your finest moments. The Breitbart article was verifiably false. That's really all there is to it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It was wrong - but do you believe Huston deliberately made a "false claim" or do you think he made a simple error? If you feel he deliberately made a "false claim" that is one thing - if you think it might have been an actual mistake, than saying "false claim" pushes the envelope. FWIW, my user talk page has a couple of corrections from the NYT in 2013 which might prove amusing. Collect (talk) 12:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here has claimed whether the error was intentional. The author's intent is irrelevant to whether the story was false. (Which is was.) Mistakes happen, as you've rightly pointed out. However, this was an attack piece based on a false premise - one that would have been identified with the most cursory of checks. In terms of whether the errors you mention above are bigger than the one we're dealing with here - that's entirely irrelevant. This thread appears to be drifting into a forum discussion. Megajeffzilla (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

This article already notes that there was a specific error, that a correction was made, and the initial story deleted. See WP:UNDUE while you are at it. The current wording neutrally states the facts, as well as the NYT opinion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The wording which Megajeffzilla inserted seems to be impeccably sourced and absolutely true. I support it as a reasonable compromise between your desires and mine. It is neither "undue" nor "non-neutral" to state that the story was false or untrue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

1. It is SYNTH by inserting a specific implication that a living person deliberately wrote an untruthful artile. 2. Because it refers to a specific living person it must absolutely comply with WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no statement nor is there an implication that the untruth was deliberate. But there was an untruth, and that is indisputable. Your repeated invocation of BLP here is not on point. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Huston is alive - claims relating to him must conform to WP:BLP whether or not you like it. Might you proffer wording making clear that we make no implication of intent about the writer? Collect (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The wording ion?is now "erroneously reported" as per the AJR source on the matter. Megajeffzilla (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Is there some reason why editors keep removing "written by Warner Todd Huston" in the Loretta Lynch section? When this was taken to BLP/N there was concurrence that this section doesn't violate WP:BLP.- MrX 02:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The writer is not notable, and is pretty useless as a factoid here, other than to make it essential to recognize that if he is mentioned, the claims relating to him must meet WP:BLP. Do you find the writer notable? Of importance to readers? The offer as a rational compromise was made and, I thought, something which no one would quarrel with. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

All of this is trivia. The first source shows NPR with 2 corrections per day and NY Times having the same issue with names. There is nothing significant about the Loretta Lynch story that isn't repeated by everything single news source at some time. It is entirely inappropriate to imply the editor, writer or publisher was aware of the error at the time of printing. --DHeyward (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I can't agree less. First, his notability comes from writing an article with a glaring error and being called for it by multiple sources. Second, notability is not required for content. Third, attributing the error to the journalist who made it would seem to be very important to readers who would probably want to know that fact. I can fathom how it would be better to omit this information.

If you wish to advance a theory that there is a BLP violation, you need to be specific about what part of the policy has been violated. Since you already failed to do that at WP:BLP/N, I don't expect that you will be able to. By the way, when you revert someone, that's not a compromise; that's edit warring.- MrX 02:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@DHeyward: It would be trivial in the article about Bill Clinton, but here it stands as a fairly significant mistake which relates directly to the reliability of Breitbart. There is nothing implied or stated that the mistake was intentional. If you disagree, please explain what words specifically imply intention.- MrX 03:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Scare quotes around "erroneously reported" is an obvious one. Any narrative should always favor discovery in the past tense as opposed to intentional, with malice or without due care. It's a fairly trivial mistake and made often by news outlets. The first source notes same name errors by many sources. We also have no information about exactly how much of the article was background filler and how much was by the by lined author. Article titles, for example, are never written by the author. The editor titles them. The AP infamously has incorrect and conflicting titles for the same story published in different papers. The AP doesn't provide the headline though so attributing the headline to the by-line reporter is incorrect. --DHeyward (talk) 03:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

As noted when the change was made, quotation marks were used as it was a direct quote. No one is attributing the headline to the by-line reporter, they are attributing the article to him. Megajeffzilla (talk) 09:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the quotes were intended to quote a source rather than scare, but I didn't add them, so I don't know for sure.- MrX 03:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

It appears that these very minor events are trying to be used to prove that Breitbart is unreliable. As noted, errors are made on a daily basis on pretty much all sources. As it stands this article has all the appearances of an attack page. Arzel (talk) 14:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The event is well documented by reliable sources which are quoted in the article. Megajeffzilla (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Krugman

The Krugman "hoax" is simply not a controversy. The Washington Post (from the source) has been duped by the same source as well, and that article has no mention of similar "dupes". Hell, the primary source of Boston.com does not even mention this in its article, and it is far more relevant there as they were first in line. It is undue weight for inclusion here and makes the article look like an attack page. Arzel (talk) 14:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It's debatable whether it's a controversy, and irrelevant whether other publications made the same mistake. Given the sources for this content, I think it's appropriately criticism of Breitbart. So does Paul Krugman, The Atlantic and MSNBC.- MrX 15:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree that replicating another journals error is not notable. It happens all the time. Wikipedia would top the list for false, published information but we don't take the blame when it's cited somewhere else. MSNBC is part of the group that installed rocket motors on gas tanks to show that certain cars "explode" when they couldn't get those cars to ignite by themselves. --DHeyward (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It appears to only be controversial to them because of the site. If Krugman really cared he would have made a big deal about boston.com as well. One of your sources also points to the non-controversy (on WP at least) of the Washington Post. I must ask, is this really a controversy or simply a way to "prove" a belief about Breitbart? Arzel (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

All that matters is that several independent sources took note. It is controversial for a news and commentary website to repeat a story about a Nobel laureate economist filing bankruptcy, without checking the veracity of the story.- MrX 01:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Undue. The secondary sources are picking on britbart, who wqs just copying a story from other reliable sources. Even a small mentino would be vastly undue compared to the rest of the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Would you like to buy a vowel? - MrX 02:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

As much as this contributes to Breitbart's reputation for poor fact checking, this instance isn't good evidence, since others fell for it too. It's best to leave this one alone and not use it. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

But the question of whether or not the secondary sources are 'picking' on Breitbart is irrelevant. What matters is that several such reliable sources have covered it and connected it to the publication's history; given that it was covered by several such sources (in specific relation to Breitbart and its history), I think it belongs here. Saying that we can't include it because we don't personally agree that it is such a big deal or because we feel that these sites are picking on them or whatever is delving into original research -- we can quote other sources saying that it's not such a big deal because so-and-so was also fooled, but we shouldn't just make that decision ourselves when there are several reliable sources saying otherwise. --Aquillion (talk) 06:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Nope. "Automatically reposted" is more indicative of boston.com failing to be RS for fact checking than it is of anything wrong with Breitbart here. The one that was "fooled" is boston.com-- which is generally used on Wikipedia as a reliable source. And we do not simply parrot every source which says it does not like Breitbart - we need to not use ones which do so on every possible issue and stick to ones which appear to be actual valid issues. The boston.com "automatic reposting" is, in fact,precisely the sort of "controversy" which negatively impacts Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect. Boston.com was neither "fooled" (in fact, they didn't review it at all), nor did they "fail to be RS for fact checking" (it wasn't their content, and it was bylined to a blog, and only linked to by Boston.com from within a shell). There were no reliable sources checking and publishing the story before Breitbart posted it, so the "other reliable sources fell for it too" justification doesn't hold up. Your concern about the use of "automatic reposting" mechanisms like that used by Boston.com is very valid, however, and deserves encyclopedic coverage somewhere, but is not a factor in this weight discussion - unless the Breitbart site is also claiming its Krugman story was posted "automatically" without editorial oversight. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

This content has been in the article for nearly two years. It conforms to our content and policy guidelines with room to spare. If editors, as a matter of editorial discretion, wish to have this content removed, they should respect WP:STATUSQUO and initiate an RfC to answer the question of whether the section should be removed.- MrX 15:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

An RfC is not required for collaborative editing. The content is undue weight. The same situation occured with the WaPo and I don't see editors running to that article to add it there. A simple explanation of how this is not undue weight should be sufficient. And arguing it fills part of a pattern against Breitbart (which appears to be the main argument for inclusion) is original research. The point of this article is not to prove that Breitbart is bad (attack page). Arzel (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It's true that an RfC is not required, but since there is no consensus to remove this material, it seems like a good way forward. You say it's WP:UNDUE; I say it's not. The argument for inclusion is that it's on topic because there has been significant coverage in reliable sources. From WP:DUE:"Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."- MrX 16:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of such material likely requires a positive WP:CONSENSUS to which end an RfC is placed below. I trust th wording of that RfC is infinitely neutral. Collect (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The RfC wording seems a bit leading. Wouldn't it be much simpler, and more neutral, to simply ask: "Should the article include content about the Paul Krugman Bankruptcy hoax?" - MrX 20:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

So, Arzel. as the first sentence of (attack page) notes "An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material which is entirely negative in tone and unsourced." The primary purpose of this page is to describe Breitbart, which it does. All adverse claims relating to the publication are thoroughly sourced.Megajeffzilla (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

NPOV

I rather object to editors making POV edits to what have been fairly stable sections at this point. If one wishes to make such edits, I commend him or her to post the proposed changes here first, and try to establish WP:CONSENSUS. Collect (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I also object to making POV edits, regardless of how long the content has survived in a Wikipedia article. If I understand Wikipedia policy correctly, one can not "establish consensus" to make POV edits - they simply aren't allowed, so I am surprised that you would suggest it.

Regarding your recent edit: Please note that you have, with that single blanket revert, undone numerous individual edits, corrections and improvements, without explanation. I would appreciate it if you would convey your concerns here so that they may be addressed. If you'd like, we can step through every individual change and address each to your satisfaction. To begin, here is the first couple changes in order of appearance in our article:

• Old text: Breitbart later posted the full 40-minute video of the speech. Corrected text: The NAACP later posted the longer 43-minute video of the speech.

Please review the sources cited at the end of that sentence. You'll note the sources indicate the longer video came from the NAACP, not Breitbart. You'll also note they say the longer version is 43 minutes, and might still not be the "full" version. Let me know your concerns about this, if any, and then we can move on to the next edits. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Collect: There's no requirement for seeking approval before making edits, nor is there any such thing as "fairly stable sections" on a wiki. Building this encyclopedia is an incremental process. You reverted six edits. What specifically do you object to? I read Xenophrenic's edits and they seem to add a little more detail to the article, but I didn't find them at lacking in neutral POV.- MrX 22:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Compare:

In fact, the two Lynches are different people. After this mistake was pointed out by several news outlets, Breitbart did note that the two Lynches were different people, but "buried its correction at the end of the article without bothering to fix the mistake in the story itself." This generated further criticism; The New York Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal noted, "The appended correction didn’t really do justice to the scope of the misidentification." Other media watchdogs noted "that Breitbart had let the mistaken fact stand in the headline and the article itself", and even published a second story containing the incorrect information on November 9. By November 10, the initial story had been deleted from Breitbart.com.

With the NPOV

In fact, the two Lynches are different people. After this mistake was discovered, Breitbart posted a correction which noted that the two Lynches were different people. This correction was criticized by several media outlets.

And

Clark Hoyt, the The New York Times public editor, wrote, "The videos were heavily edited. The sequence of some conversations was changed. Some workers seemed concerned for Giles, one advising her to get legal help. In two cities, Acorn workers called the police. But the most damning words match the transcripts and the audio, and do not seem out of context", but notes a former Attorney General hired to investigate the matter found no pattern of illegal conduct by the ACORN employees and said the news media should have been far more skeptical, demanding the raw video from which the edited versions were produced

with

Clark Hoyt]], the The New York Times public editor, wrote that although the videos were heavily edited, "the most damning words match the transcripts and the audio, and do not seem out of context."

And note that "but" appears to be a word to avoid. And "Harshbarger’s report to Acorn found no “pattern of illegal conduct” by its employees. But, he told me: “They said what they said. There’s no way to make this look good.” also from Hoyt was removed in the past by some editor. And unfortunately for those promoting this POV edit, Hoyt does not say "Attorney General" it is "Massachusetts Attorney General" and is thus misleading at best,especially when his quote about "they said what they said" appears to be a tad important in Hoyt's column. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Your stale declaration that one construction is "NPOV" and the other isn't, is unconvincing at best. It is true and verifiable that Breitbart initially only posted a "correction" footnote on an article that was wholly false, rather than retracting the entire article, and that that decision was heavily criticized. It's unclear as to why that phrasing is "POV." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

As it is normal MOS to place corrections at the bottom, and is done by the NYT, WaPo and essentially every source around, why is it important to stress that Breitbart did what all of them do - place corrections at the bottom? Or did you not note that this was made clear previously? Can you show me any major source which places corrections at the top of articles as a matter of style? Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

If an entire article is incorrect (such as an article which is entirely about the false claim that a person did something, when it was actually an entirely different person with the same name), it's generally journalistic practice to retract the entire article, not merely append a correction to it. The "correction" at issue, as discussed by reliable sources, "did not really do justice to the scope of the misidentification." That is a notable opinion about a notable fact. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree that the shorter versions are more neutral. The detail that was added clarifies the content and is appropriate WP:WEIGHT given the amount of coverage in sources. I have added Massachusetts in front of Attorney General as suggested by Collect.- MrX 01:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The first "compare" example has the older version appearing shorter than it actually is, because some relevant text was left out (like the "deleted from Breitbart.com" content) -- but your point, MrX, is still very valid. NPOV editing means conveying what the source(s) convey, not just the shorter part one may prefer. As for the assertion that "it is normal MOS to place corrections at the bottom", that is incorrect. Corrections are normally done wherever the error(s) exist in the article, and then a notation is appended to the bottom of the corrected article to state that a correction has been made. Breitbart.com didn't correct the article; it merely noted that the article contained errors. It was asked above, "Why is it important to stress that Breitbart did what all of them do?" But we're not doing that; because Breitbart didn't do what reputable news sources do, which would have been to fix the mistake. And that is what is stressed in the NPOV edit.

It has been correctly noted above that the "they said what they said" text isn't present. But also not present in our article is the fact that Hoyt (and Harshbarger) admitted that they had to work from only the recordings provided by Breitbart (Hoyt even links to Breitbart.com as his only source for the videos). Those assessments were made by Hoyt and Harshbarger before California's Attorney General granted immunity to O'Keefe in return for raw, unedited videos, and then published investigation findings describing the real context behind "what they said" that didn't "look good". Xenophrenic (talk) 10:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

An interesting claim as Hoyt and Harshbarger both apparently said they had full transcripts and audio, which is how they could state that sequences were changed -- where in Hoyt's article does he say he only got to see the edited transcripts? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

No. They did not say they had "full transcripts". What did they really say? Harshbarger said, "The unedited videos have never been made public." and "note that the videographers have posted what they allege are the complete transcripts at www.biggovernment.com." (See pgs. 11-12 of their final report.) Hoyt said, "and what are represented on a conservative Web site as the full transcripts and audio of his visits to the Acorn offices." (Underline emphasis is mine, for your benefit.)

There is a difference between having verified "full" versions, and having only what one party will allow you to see, and both Hoyt and Harshbarger took special care to tell the reader what they were working with. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I daresay "never been made public" should not be interpreted to mean "never made available to appropriate persons" -- JFK's autopsy photos have "never been made public" - "public" means "to everyone". And I also suggest "complete" is a generally accepted synonym for "full." Clearly you demur. Collect (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

No. I agree that "full" and "complete" mean much the same thing. But then we both know that has nothing to do with our disagreement here. Hoyt and Harshbarger never say simply "full" or "complete"; instead, they make clear in their reports that the recordings they reviewed were merely alleged as "full" or "complete" by Breitbart. Do you disagree? As for the "interpreted" words exercise, I find that reading them in context proves very helpful in avoiding that kind of confusion. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

What you appear to say is that you "know" the transcripts were not complete and so far I can not find a cite for your claim. Now it is wonderful that you have such specific knowledge here, but Wikipedia policies do not allow us to cite what we "know to be the truth" but require that we specifically use only what the sources state. Cheers - might you give your basis for your absolute "knowledge" here? Collect (talk) 06:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what it is you are asking. For what text, specifically, are you asking a citation? Since I don't have any personal involvement or experience with the subjects of this article, I only "know" what reliable sources have conveyed to me. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 08:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Collect appears to be desirous of a source for the fact that the transcripts are (merely) alleged and represented to be "full". What luck! -- you have provided the sources for this fact above, in your post at 19:29 yesterday, citing Hoyt and Harshbarger. It will be a relief to move on, now that this point is settled. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Um -- Read what I wrote. Are you stating that it is your own specific knowledge that the transcripts were not complete for the material presented? What is needed is a source saying they were not full and complete covering the incidents taped. Snark does not make what you "know" become what we state in Wikipedia's voice. Cheers. By the way, when discussing posts, it is rarely a great idea to engage in excessive snark mentioning editors by name. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

That was my interpretation, too, Nomos. If he is now asking you to provide for him a source for something he wants to say, I can't assist you with that, as that is the reverse of how I edit. I start with reliable sources first, then convey what those sources say. Once someone says they "need a source saying xxx", it just opens up a can of undesirable worms. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Coatrack - Undue - POV

This article flies in the face of NPOV and UNDUE. The criticism sections have been given far too much weight, and the passages do not satisfy the requirements of WP:NPOV. What purpose does that serve? The obvious answer = WP:COATRACK. And who has been criticizing the loudest? Breitbart's competition = partisanship = non-compliance with WP:NPOV. Read New York Times so you can see the proper way to handle criticism. Can we please collaborate to make this article better? Atsme☯^Consult 13:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, let's collaborate. There is still quite a lot of content that can be added about Brietbart's history, it's impact on social news, politics, media, etc. Since we have entire (notable) articles on various subjects like ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy, Resignation of Shirley Sherrod, and Anthony Weiner sexting scandal, then certainly mentioning Breitbart's role would be required by WP:WEIGHT. May I ask, how you came to the conclusion that the article is WP:UNDUE? Did you tally sources, or find that that there's content in the article that has too few sources? - MrX 14:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Certainly you may ask, MrX. I came to the conclusion of UNDUE as soon as I read the article. Proportionately, the criticism weighs heavily, and in some instances could be tilted a little more toward neutral so it doesn't look so much like a coatrack where critics hang their hats. I also see a few areas where readers could use a bit more information. Keeping in mind that most of Breitbart's critics are also competitors, we can expect an overzealous slant with partisan leanings both ways. Oh how I long for the days of Walter Cronkite, and the Huntley-Brinkley Report. I just added a bit more info to the lede, and look forward to a productive collaboration with you. Atsme☯^Consult 17:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you that "the criticism weighs heavily" in the article, but I don't understand how that equates to "UNDUE". Having read a considerable amount of reliably sourced information about Breitbart.com, I think it is very plausible that a balanced and properly written encyclopedic article will inevitably contain a very "weighty" amount of critical content. I also disagree with the assertion that "most of Breitbart's critics are also competitors", and find the opposite to be true. Its competitors (other conservative activist websites) are not the source of most criticism; most critical content will come from news organizations and liberally-motivated fact checkers. Your addition to the lede is a good start, by the way; I thought it odd that such an informative RS was being used in the article only to support the Krugman bankruptcy content. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

So you think that the article's readers will be better served if they are prevented them from finding out about the inaccurate stories that Breitbart has published? — goethean 18:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course he does. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

No, you've got it backwards. I think the article's readers will be better served if they find out about the inaccurate stories being published about Breitbart. Atsme☯^Consult 02:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source for your claim that the criticisms of Breitbart are inaccurate—hopefully a source with more journalistic integrity thn Breitbart itself—then let's see it. — goethean 20:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

When did encyclopedias transform into judge, jury and executioners? Our job is to provide encyclopedic information about a topic in a dispassionate tone from a NPOV. Comments like "more journaiist integrity than Breitbart" is not only judgmental, it's far from dispassionate and it's certainly not neutral. Can we please more closely follow WP:PG, and steer clear of attacks and WP:UNDUE, and try to reflect some sense of WP:NPOV? This article doesn't need to be inundated with trivial and/or biased partisan criticisms. See WP:BALANCE. There actually is a very balanced and reliably sourced world outside the box of pundits, bias, and partisanship. Atsme☯^Consult 19:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see where "more journaiist integrity than Breitbart" has been inserted into our article. That sounds more like an opinion of an editor, which is certainly not subject to Wikipedia's NPOV policies. As for the assertion that "This article doesn't need to be inundated with trivial and/or biased partisan criticisms", is it possible that reliable sources about Breitbart.com are inundating us with criticisms about the website, and therefore our article is reflecting that? WP:NPOV instructs us to present what reliable sources say in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Reception

Present, longstanding wording in the 'Reception' section states this:

Breitbart.com has been lauded for its role in the "evolution of pioneering websites" including Huffington Post and the Drudge Report. It has been both criticized and praised for its role in the reorganization of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)), as well as its loss of private and government funding.

A recent edit, summarized as (fixing use of ambiguous pronouns, weasel words), has changed the wording to this:

Breitbart.com has been lauded for its role in the "evolution of pioneering websites" including Huffington Post and The Drudge Report. It has been acknowledged for its role in the reorganization of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)), as well as ACORN's loss of private and public funding.

I see nothing "weasely" about noting that Breitbart.com's role in the ACORN video controversy received both criticism and praise; reliable sources convey that dichotomy. (Even the title of the Atlantic piece is "Andrew Breitbart's Legacy: Credit and Blame Where It's Due".) The sources do not say Breitbart.com was merely "acknowledged" for its role in the ACORN scandal; there was an actual notable reception to it. Breitbart's media had an impact, but it was described as both "good and bad". Not meaninglessly "acknowledged". While trying to stay true to what reliable sources convey, but without using the words "criticized and praised" that another editor objected to, I took verbiage right from a source:

Breitbart.com has been lauded for its role in the "evolution of pioneering websites" including Huffington Post and The Drudge Report. It has been both repudiated and celebrated for its role in the reorganization of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)), as well as ACORN's loss of private and government funding.

But that got reverted, too. So per WP:BRD, it's time to have this discussion. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 10:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
On a related note, that section is also in need of some comprehensive expansion. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

"both criticized and praised" or "both praised and criticized" seem best to me; it's clear and concise. "Acknowledged" is vague.- MrX 12:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

"both criticized and praised" is a waffle term. There is nothing more vague than that. The concern is the value judgement it may make about ACORN. --DHeyward (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Noting that an action was "acknowledged" conveys little information. Further noting that the acknowledgement took the form of both criticism and praise is more informative (and certainly not a "waffle term" or a "weasel term" ... please review the definitions), and factual. However, it still leaves the reader wondering what the specific criticisms and praise were, so the concern that the wording is still "vague" is indeed a valid concern. But there is a bigger problem we should probably address first.

I think a bigger concern is that the "Reception" section doesn't say anything about the subject of this article (Breitbart.com the website), and instead just has a sentence specifically about how the ACORN controversy was received. BigGovernment.com was launched with the ACORN videos in 2009, but that one event is not what the "Reception" section should be about in this article, is it? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree the start of the "reception" section is woefully inadequate, not least since I had to remove most of it as the source wasn't talking about Breitbart.com at all. We need to come up with a way of improving this section, rather than arguing over semantics.Megajeffzilla (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The edit changed the meaning of the paragraph, and did not reflect what the cited source relayed. The article needs balance, including more positive input. Not every single paragraph has to reflect criticism, for Pete's sake. Leave the criticism for the criticism section, and write the article from unbiased POV NPOV. If we developed the same pattern of editing over at the NYTimes & Huffington Post, do you realize how those articles would look? WP needs consistency, not a hodge podge of how a thousand different editors would like for an article to appear. Atsme☯^Consult 19:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

PS: be careful of WP:SYNTH - you can't take information from one source and add it to another to come up with a statement, which is what happened when my edit was changed. Atsme☯^Consult 19:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you will have trouble finding sources that discuss the website without also discussing Andrew Breitbart, or without criticizing the website for it's journalistic lapses. Believe me, I tried.- MrX 22:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

And it is up to us to maintain WP:NPOV rather than letting personal opinions enter in to how articles are written. Including grammatical errors from editors, of course. Collect (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Breitbart vs Breitbart.com

I've had to make a couple of edits where sources talking about Andrew Breitbart have been quoted as if they were talking about Breitbart.com. (Both relating to this piece on the Atlantic site When sourcing information for this page, please make sure it is about the Breitbart website and not Breitbart the man. Megajeffzilla (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, it's clear that some people don't think this is clear cut as I do. To avoid an edit war, can some else please take a look at the Atlantic source and confirm it is talking about Breitbart the man, not Breitbart.com and as such has no place on this page.Megajeffzilla (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Show me in the edit where it is NOT about Breitbart's News Network. Breitbart created or pioneered the evolution of the sites mentioned, and the edit clearly states "whatever one thinks about their content, they helped spur advances in the Web medium the fruits of which are now universally available. That is a direct reference to Breitbart's News Network. I will give you the opportunity to please undo your revert. Atsme☯^Consult 00:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

"Breitbart played an important role in the creation or evolution of pioneering Web sites like The Drudge Report, The Huffington Post, and his "Big" sites -- whatever one thinks about their content, they helped spur advances in the Web medium the fruits of which are now universally available. Said Gillespie, summing up who benefits, "It's the conservatives at Drudge, the liberals at HuffPo, the leftists at DailyKos, the libertarians at Reason." So that's a mention of five sites, not one of them being Breitbart.com. The piece is not about Breitbart.com. It's an excellent source for the Andrew Breitbart page, but it's not one we can use here. I'm not reverting the edit. Megajeffzilla (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The source is primarily about the man, but there are bits that are also about the website in the source. Therefore the source as a whole could potentially be used for either purpose. However, for the specific paragraph in question, it is clear that the source is discussing the man, and his influence on the mentioned sites (including his own site). The source is not talking about brietbart.com's influence on huffpo etc, but AB himself. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Looking at it more closely, the Atlantic piece isn't always a primary source - it gathers up opinion pieces from elsewhere which I think makes it even less desirable to use. Megajeffzilla (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Read what I wrote, please - "An article in The Atlantic credited Breitbart's network among those he played an important role as creator or evolutionary pioneer, like the Drudge Report and The Huffington Post, further stating "whatever one thinks about their content, they helped spur advances in the Web medium the fruits of which are now universally available." Breitbart.com has been both criticized and praised for it's role in the reorganization of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), as well as its loss of private and government funding.

1. To avoid copyvio you don't copy verbatim;
2. You can use what a RS has written, and it doesn't have to be exactly as written as long as it points to it with an inline citation. See WP:IC. The article may have been talking about Breitbart but the article clearly stated what I wrote in reference to the websites.

Please revert your edit. Atsme☯^Consult 00:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I've read what you wrote. None of it is about Breitbart.com so it doesn't go on this Wikipedia page. I copied the paragraph in question not because I thought that is what should be included in the post, but to highlight the fact that the source, at least at that point is not talking about Breitbart.com. I will not revert the edit. I also have support from another editor for this position. However, I am minded to update the reception section to include a mention of Jack Shafer's obit, quoted in the Atlantic piece as saying "I liked the idea of Andrew Breitbart better than I liked any of his work at Big Government, Big Hollywood, Big Journalism, Big Peace, Breitbart or Breitbart.tv.", which does directly mention Breitbart.com. It's not ideal being a secondary source, so I'll try and track down a better one. Does anyone have any thoughts on whether that's a worthwhile inclusion? Megajeffzilla (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)86.1.74.202 (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

You do realize this article is about the BREITBART NEWS NETWORK, don't you? You might want to read the lede before you decide to not undo your revert. You have totally overlooked the fact that the article DOES mention "his 'Big" sites'. You reverted 3x in violation of 3RR, and now you are refusing to undo? Atsme☯^Consult 01:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I've made two reverts. Megajeffzilla (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC) 01:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Nope - you've made 3 - [1][2][3] Atsme☯^Consult 01:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Naming and Ordering Sections based on precedent

WP:Manual of Style/Layout states: "The usual practice is to name and order sections based on the precedent of some article which seems similar." There really isn't any consistency across the board in the Category: American News Websites, so why not help establish the precedent? I recommend following the naming and ordering of sections based on the Drudge Report's layout which includes (<Name?> my emphasis): Origins - Content - <Design?> - Political leanings - Influence - <Archives?> - Notable Stories - Controversial stories, errors and questions about sourcing. The Reception section being used now contains information that could be incorporated into the lede, or under Notable Stories to avoid redundancy. Maybe it's just me, but Reception doesn't fit. We could easily include what is mentioned in that section in more appropriate sections. The first sentence belongs Origins, and the ACORN reference in the story section. Atsme☯^Consult 00:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I think Origins should be called History, but I'm somewhat flexible on that. There is probably very little to write about Design, so that should probably be rolled up into Content. If there is enough content available to fill Political leanings and Influence then I'm fine with that, otherwise I think Influence could go in History. I'm opposed to a section called Notable Stories. I would be open to merging the current reception content into History though, that way we could present everything chronologically and avoid some potential NPOV issues.- MrX 01:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok by me. We can fill each section as we go, and see what fits and what doesn't. Curious as to why you oppose the notable section? We can change stories to articles if that's a concern. I think we need the section for balance if we include Controversial, errors and source questions as a section, although most of the articles will probably go under that heading. Atsme☯^Consult 05:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I misread your original comment. I don't think we need separate controversial stories and notable stories sections. I would prefer just one section that includes everything notable. I'm open to what we call it. Reception was an attempt to make the section more neutral, but there may be something better. - MrX 02:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, if we title it Articles, it might open the floodgates while Notable Articles would include only those articles considered notable. I think it offers the best option for NPOV, because as you said, it would include everything notable. Atsme☯^Consult 03:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

partner of Boston.com

"Wemple reported that Boston Globe editor Brian McGrory said this incident is curious because "the idea that we'd have a partner on our site is actually news to me."" [4]

[5] "Breitbart.com has since taken down its item. Boston.com, which aggregated the item from Prudent Investor, a financial blog, has not."

Boston.com does view the content provider as a "partner". Collect (talk) 13:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Collect. Thank you for providing those two quotes from those two sources. If you'll now read those sources more carefully, you'll discover that 1) McGrory was not referring to Prudent Investor when he expressed surprise at the claim that Boston.com would have a partner, and 2) the "aggregated the item from Prudent Investor" error was corrected further down in that same Politico article (look for the words UPDATE (2:30AM):). The only "partner" both of your sources refer to is FinancialContent.com, and the sources make clear that it did not "obtained the satirical content from The Daily Currant" as the incorrect text you reinstated asserts. It's an understandable oversight, with the updated information being way down at the bottom and all.

My concern is that our readers not be left with the misconception that Boston.com was responsible for the link to the false story appearing on its financial page — it wasn't, as the more recent reliable sources made clear. Not addressed by your comment here (or the edit summary), however, was your complete removal of the other incident of Daily Currant satire being repeated as news (The WaPo story) -- it's covered even in the very sources to which you just linked, but it was removed. I'll assume that, too, was just an oversight and not intentional, and replace it. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Boston.com gets revenue as a result of it posting the material. Boston.com left it visible until well afyer Breibart removed the article. WaPo specifically said Boston.com was to blame. If a story is on your website and you leave it up even after being told it is wrong, you have done nothing wrong at all? Really? Cheers -- but the reliable sources clearly blame Boston.com here. Collect (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I know nothing of how Boston.com receives revenue, nor did I see that mentioned in any of the sources. Nor do I see where "Boston.com left it visible" in any sources, although I do believe the Breitbart posting did come down before the link at Boston.com. If you could direct me to the source behind your assertions, I would appreciate it greatly. In the meantime, I'll leave your most recent edits to that content as is. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you read the sources then. And the Editor of the Globe specifically referred to "Prudent Investor" as a "partner" in case that elided your notice. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I read the sources before I posted my comment, Collect, so my statement stands. I'll ask you one more time to please supply reliably sourced proof of where "the Editor of the Globe specifically referred to "Prudent Investor" as a 'partner'". Just cut & paste it. Right here. Otherwise I'll be correcting your most recent edits. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

[6] One of the feeds that pulls in the Prudent Investor is knit together by a California company named Financial Content, which delivers stock quotes and financial information and news to its clients’ websites. And one of those clients is Boston.com, a portal that presents content from the Boston Globe.

[7] Breitbart.com took down their post, and Boston.com still has their version online (as of this posting):

[8] "The post about Paul Krugman was an automatic feed on a partner website called financialcontent.com. And Boston.com uses them to provide stock and other financial data on an automatic feed.

[9] A content-providing ‘partner’ to Boston.com has left the Boston Globe looking embarrassed after it published a false report that New York Times columnist Paul Krugman had filed for personal bankruptcy.

So "partner" is thoroughly vetted, and the fact that boston.comhad it stil up after Breitbart yanked the story is clearly also vetted. Collect (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

On the above 4 links, please note:

(1) This source indicates it is FinancialContent.com that partners with "Prudent Investor", which disproves your claim. It does not say Boston.com partners with "Prudent Investor".

(2) This source indicates that the story was taken down from Breitbart, but not yet from Boston -- it does not convey that Boston.com was intentionally keeping it up (and in fact, it would have disappeared much sooner if it were actually on the Boston.com website, instead of linked through a 3rd-party aggregate feed).

(3) This source says the partner is FinancialContent.com, not "Prudent Investor", which disproves your claim.

(4) This Boston Magazine source does, incorrectly, mention "Prudent Investor" as a "partner" -- perhaps that is the source of your confusion? That source's error in reporting has already been directly refuted by the 1st and 3rd sources immediately above; by the editor of Boston.com and the Executive editor of the Boston Globe, and by the rest of the sources already cited in our article.

So yes, "partner" is thoroghly vetted, and it's not "Prudent Investor" as you have claimed, and the fact that the 3rd-party feed story was still briefly visible at Boston.com after Breitbart quietly pulled their reporting is common knowledge. I trust you'll have no objection to my editing of that section to convey the facts from our reliable sources. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

"Prudent Investor" is clearly a "blogname" used by the company - your assertion that they are somehow distinct fails. Your claim that Boston Magazine is "wrong" - fails. I did not assert boston.com was "deliberately keeping it up" only that Breitbart took the story down before boston.com did -- which you doubted. I gave you the proof. See also [10] to show that the partnership involves "monetization", [11] "Using our domain masking technology, our financial pages integrate silently and deeply into your site,where they become indistinguishable from your own content to users and search engines." etc. "FinancialContent" provided "monetization" services and deep connections so no one will know or be able to find out that you are not creating the material yourself. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Almost correct; let me finish catching you up. "Prudent Investor" is indeed a blog & blogger's name (or handle). You'll see I referred to them above as "blogger (non-RS) Prudent Investor" at least as far back as 18:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC). So far, so good? My assertion that the "Prudent Investor" blogger and FinancialContent.com are distinct does not "fail", as you claim. (Prudent Investor) and (FinancialContent.com) and (Boston.com) are three distinct, separate entities. Boston.com and FinancialContent.com had an association whereby FinancialContent.com would display content on Boston.com's financial page ("seamlessly" through an automatic feed). FinancialContent.com would obtain this content from many sources, including "Prudent Investor". Boston.com had no association with "Prudent Investor", and never "partnered" with them, as you asserted above. You should know this since I see you linking to financialcontent.com pages on how they do things, just as I linked to them as long ago as 19:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Boston.com's only association/partnership was with FinancialContent.com. Which brings us to your denial that Boston Magazine is wrong when it mistakenly said "Prudent Investor" is a "partner" of Boston.com. I don't need to explain to you that just because an otherwise reliable source said something, that doesn't make it accurate; you said as much just the other day in a noticeboard comment. For your edification:

Financialcontent.com had picked up the item from an Austria-based business blog, Prudent Investor, without any editorial review of its own, according to financialcontent.com CEO Wing Yu. "We are a technology company, we don't have an editorial desk," Yu explained. "There is an RSS feed that we parse from each content provider. We have categorized [Prudent Investor] as a business content provider and the content is syndicated along with the byline." YU said Prudent Investor is one of more than 400 content providers that financialcontent.com draws on for news and data, which it then forwards to some 200 news outlets such as Boston.com, as well as others owned by McClatchy, Media News Group and AOL. The Prudent Investor website is based in Vienna, Austria, and run by Toni Straka, who describes himself on the blog as "an INDEPENDENT Certified Financial Analyst..."

Boston.com has no association with (and no partnership with) Prudent Investor, or the other 400 sources FinancialContent.com draws from; FC is the middleman. Boston Magazine made an understandable mistake, but a mistake nonetheless, when it described PI as a partner just because it saw the byline on the article. Fortunately for us, your mistaken belief that the blogger is a "partner" with Boston.com wasn't part of your recent additions to our article, so let's move on to the next item.

You: I did not assert boston.com was "deliberately keeping it up" only that Breitbart took the story down before boston.com did -- which you doubted.

You have that backwards. Me: I do believe the Breitbart posting did come down before the link at Boston.com, something I've never doubted.

It was you who said: Boston.com left it visible until well afyer Breibart removed the article. WaPo specifically said Boston.com was to blame. If a story is on your website and you leave it up even after being told it is wrong, you have done nothing wrong at all? Really?

That underlined part sure smells to me like you were asserting that Boston.com was intentionally keeping it up after being told it was wrong. If you'd like to scroll back up and edit your statement to say the opposite, be my guest. The fact is, according to the very sources you recently cited, Boston.com worked as quickly as they could to get FinancialContent.com to remove the satirical piece as soon as they were made aware of it. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:TE Collect (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the content below regarding the Krugman bankruptcy story be included preserved in this article

Paul Krugman "bankruptcy" hoax from Boston.com[edit]

On March 11, 2013, Breitbart.com posted that Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman had declared personal bankruptcy citing a Boston.com article.[46] Boston.com's finance section syndicated the story from content provider financialcontent.com, which picked it up from an Austria-based business blog, Prudent Investor, which in turn picked up the content from Format, an Austrian magazine, which had erroneously used a story from satiric news blog The Daily Currant.[47] The story was removed shortly afterwards.[48][49][50][51][52]

Gaijin42 (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

(modified by 174.141.182.82 (talk) 09:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC))

Survey

• No running a story that was wrongly run by other reliable sources is not notable or controversial. There are plenty of things to blame Bereitbart for, this isn't one of them. further, its undue relative to the rest of the article at any length. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • If only that was what happened; but it didn't -- it was not wrongly run by any reliable source. It was created as a satire piece by The Daily Currant; repeated by Format (magazine) as a satire piece; then blogger (non-RS) Prudent Investor repeated the satire as a news story to automated news aggregators -- one of which linked the story into Boston.com under a "Prudent Investor" byline, "without approval or review from either Boston.com or the Globe." The "blame" heaped upon Breitbart is twofold: for running such an implausible story without fact-checking it, and after pillorying other news sources for doing the same thing. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• No No sufficient nexus to Breitbart, as the same claims could be added to Boston.com and every other user of the syndicated story as well, with far stronger rationales. The use of "hoax" implies deliberate falsification by a source, and there is no reason or basis to assert Breitbart used it or intended it as a "hoax" ("An act intended to deceive or trick." is a common definition). Lastly this is a matter for editorial discretion, and I do not suggest that there is a consensus for inclusion. Collect (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The same claim can not be applied to Boston.com (see above note to Gaijin42), and I see no reliable sources running it. The article was indeed created as a hoax, as a deliberate falsification, and then Breitbart repeated it as if it were an accurate news story -- I don't think anyone is asserting that Breitbart thought it was a hoax when they published it. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• No Undue Weight. Similar situations have occurred with the same source and have not resulted in the same WP emphasis. If Breitbart had been first in line for linking the false story it would be a different story. The fact that the actual first in line received no WP focus tells us that it really was not that big of a deal. Arzel (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The first in line with an opportunity to apply editorial oversight was the non-RS blogger Prudent Investor, followed by Breitbart. Both failed to do so, and it would not be undue at all if it were noted at both locations (but you'll have to create an article first for Prudent Investor). Xenophrenic (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Inappropriately constructed RfC -- since the content has been in the article for a long time, the proper question is whether there is a consensus for its removal. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, it's been covered by multiple relatively-neutral reliable sources, some of which specifically connected it to Breitbart's history and reputation. We can argue about whether or not they're right to do so, but I don't think it's unreasonable for these sources to conclude that Breitbart's history of poor fact-checking and the fact that this dealt with someone they consider an ideological opponent makes it more notable than it otherwise would be (and more notable than when boston.com automatically reposted it.) If you disagree with the conclusion that eg. The Atlantic came to regarding the noteworthiness of this event, the answer is to find sources that argue against that view and to put them in the article, not to say "I don't personally feel this is noteworthy, and I feel these RSes were wrong to cover it in relation to Breitbart specifically" and then remove it from the article. --Aquillion (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Some of these sources apparently mis-thought that Breitbart was the actual and original source of the misinformation as an RS. Thus editorial comments seemingly based on that belief may be being given UNDUE weight here, as this is not given any weight whatsoever in the Boston.com article. As sources clearly indicate that the problem arose at that site, the place for this material should be there. Collect (talk) 02:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Actually, of the seven sources, five go into detail about the origin; one is a screen shot; and one is a NYT article published months later that states "Last year, the company republished as news a satirical false article saying that Paul Krugman, a Nobel-winning economist and a columnist for The New York Times, had filed for personal bankruptcy."- MrX 03:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
• Yes. Like Nomo, I'm not sure that there's a specific reason to remove it. It happened, it got extensive coverage on Google News, and it seems as though the coverage is even continuing into mid-2014 (this article in the SMH, for example; more available on Google News). However, this analysis of the hoax is completely undue, as it has nothing whatsoever to do with the history of Breitbart, the ostensible topic of this article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
• Inappropriately constructed RfC As noted WP:STATUSQUO applies here. There is also no evidence that the sources used for this section "apparently mis-thought that Breitbart was the actual and original source of the misinformation". Megajeffzilla (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
• No The controversies section is already way too long makes it look like an attack article on Breitbart, specially when articles on other sites have no "criticism" or controversies section like The Guardian implying that they're never wrong Loganmac (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The 'controversy' content is less than similar content at New York Times, so your reasoning based on "other sites" is unpersuasive. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• No as per User:Gaijin42. DOCUMENT★ERROR 14:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Per Gaijin42, who argued "the story was wrongly run by other reliable sources"? That argument has since been refuted, so care to revise your comment? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• No - Collect nailed it. Atsme☯^Consult 00:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
• Note to closer The !votes above arguing for improperly formed WP:STATUSQUO evaluation of the RFC are only relevant if the result of this RFC is no consensus. If there is a clear yes or no answer, "should X be included" or "should X be removed" are equally valid.Gaijin42 (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
• No - WP:UNDUE and not significant. It's not even notable on the Boston.com article and they are the source for the erroneous report. --DHeyward (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No, Boston.com is not the source for the erroneous report, nor did it post an erroneous story. Time to re-read the reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Boston.com was the apparent and acknowledged syndicator of the story. And you should note specifically that Boston.com did post the "erroneous story." I suggest you look at the screen shot of Boston.com where that story was prominently shown before saying that screen shot does not exist <g>. Collect (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Boston.com was neither the apparent nor acknowledged syndicator of the story. Boston.com specifically did not post the erroneous story. If you'll review the reliable sources and the screenshot more closely, you'll see the outrageous story was from a non-RS blogger using the handle "Prudent Investor", not Boston.com. The link to that story is no more a product of Boston.com than the pop-up links to weight-loss pills; neither should be used as the bases for a "news" story. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• Yes - the content is not undue and can be included, but not as incorrectly written at the start of this RfC. The header is misleading (the 'hoax' was neither from Boston.com nor Breitbart); the Format magazine didn't "erroneously use" the article, it properly noted it as satire; Boston.com didn't "syndicate it from...", it was bylined to a blogger. Perhaps the above objections citing "undue" would disappear if the content were better written to convey its significance to Breitbart.com as conveyed by reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• No The inclusion of the misreporting about Paul Krugman's bankruptcy is undue. From the paragraph it is clear that this is just one of a long line of media outlets that got suckered by this hoax article. Its inclusion here is unwarranted and undue. None of the other media articles inlcude this incident. This may belong on the article of the original hoax creator, it certainly doesn't deserve inlusion here. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • From the incorrectly written paragraph, you mean? Name just one reliable source who got suckered by a hoax article. Certainly not Boston.com; they didn't post it, didn't authorize it, didn't fact check it or review it. It was linked to their website by a third-party without their authorization. I'm very interested in seeing this long line of outlets you say got suckered; I'm guessing there will not be a reliable source among them. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Xenophrenic Does the Washington Post falling for a Twitter hoax count? [12] How about the NY Daily News falling for a parody? [13] How about AP and multiple others including Reuters falling for a hoax? [14] Breitbart even had a few opps to expose others falling for hoaxes [15]. Here's a short list of others including the NYTimes: [16]. Atsme☯^Consult 20:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
      • No, none of those count as "one of a long line of media outlets that got suckered by this hoax article." Breitbart was the only one. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
        • You said Name just one reliable source who got suckered by a hoax article. I named several, so your response comes as no surprise. It appears you have run out of substantive argument. Atsme☯^Consult 01:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
          • No, that's not what I said. Look again, please, at what I actually said, not just the snippet you quoted. There is a word for the misrepresentation you are attempting. Capitalismojo said "this is just one of a long line of media outlets that got suckered by this hoax article", and I challenged him to name just one who got so suckered. He has not done so. Neither have you. If you are still confused, just let me know and I'll see if I can help. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Yes. It is a disservice to the readers of this article, who come here seeking information on Breitbart, to elide a major instance of it getting a story completely wrong. Breitbart is a website with a long and well-documented history of getting stories badly wrong. It is frankly shameful that Wikipedia editors want to hide this fact from the readers of this article. — goethean 20:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• NO A mention of a news website that got something wrong, OH MY! How shocking! But more importantly, SO WHAT!? This is not worthy of an RfC or the waste of people-time that's already taken place. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • So what? Well, since you asked, this RfC is not about a news website getting something wrong. That does indeed happen all the time; corrections are issued, no big deal. But that's not what happened here. That's not what all the cited references are crowing about in this matter. The poorly written content quoted at the start of this RfC, however, does not clearly describe the matter at all, so your confusion is understandable. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• Remove or substantially rewrite. There is no justification evident for having this paragraph included in § Reception. Specifically, there is no indication that there was any reception—they posted this story, it came from here and here and here, and they removed it. As written, it’s a non-event. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 09:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

  I agree that it is a non-event as written, and misleadingly inaccurate as well. Perhaps editing it to convey what the reliable sources say will alleviate some of the concern. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

  Probably, yes. Much of the discussion here appears to be about what the sources say and the paragraph in question does not, rather than what the paragraph does say. So the RFC was asking entirely the wrong question. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• No, obviously Blogs are notoriously unreliable, right wing propaganda conspiracy blogs even more so. Don't forget, Wikipedia seeks to be encyclopedic, and if there are ever any actual High School or College students using the page for research, we don't want to feed them unevidenced nonsense. Wikipedia attempts to utilize legitimate references and citations which is one reason why using Fox News is depreciated. Damotclese (talk) 17:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
• Yes - Several solid sources (Slate, MMA, New York Times, Business Insider, MSNBC, The Atlantic, Huffington Post, Washington Post, Salon) seem to suggest a substantial story, so I say it's silly to suppress such stuff. Policy (WP:WEIGHT) requires that we include content in proportion to its coverage in reliable sources. In this case we have at least nine sources, compared with two available sources for the Mike Flynn content; one available source for the Breitbart Sports launch content; and zero available sources for the Lingospot search engine content. - MrX 03:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• No - I agree with Collect that Breitbart's connection to this story is cursory at best. They are one organization in a long line of others that also circulated the false story; the story surrounding the "hoax" seems to be most related to Boston.com.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FacultiesIntact (talk • contribs)

Discussion

Specifically, where the origination of the story is specifically not from Breitbart but from the generally accepted reliable source "boston.com", is the ascription of the story using the word "hoax" properly made to Breitbart, or ought it more properly be in the Boston.com article? Is there a consensus of editors here that this section belongs or is necessary for the Breitbart article? Collect (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Our article, which closely follows the sources, documents the provenance of the hoax. Breitbart, in their effort to attack Krugman, jumped the shark. End of story.- MrX 03:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

And you make clear that the aim here is to deride Breitbart, facts be damned. All well and good, I suppose, but nor precisely how encyclopedias are supposed to vet claims. Collect (talk) 13:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

WaPo: No editorial oversight, sure. Editorial impact? Absolutely: The Prudent Investor posting on Krugman made its way through the Financial Content feed and onto Boston.com. Once there, it sucked in all the juices of integrity and credibility stored up over the decades by the Boston Globe. So people believed the posting that indicated Krugman had gone bankrupt. [17]

MediaMatters (second story) [18] The bogus story that New York Times columnist Paul Krugman had filed for bankruptcy appeared on Boston.com, the sister website of The Boston Globe, through a third-party content provider that posts content without editorial approval and provides such content to more than 200 web outlets.

BusinessInsider [19] A satirical item published last week purporting that economist Paul Krugman had filed for bankruptcy has spread to Boston.com and the conservative website Breitbart this morning.

[20] Earlier this month we learned from Viv Bernstein, writing in the New York Times, that several years’ worth of stories about stock-car driver Tia Norfleet—including those in such august publications as the Washington Post, ESPN, AOL Fanhouse and the Huffington Post—have been factually inaccurate, repeating false but checkable claims by Norfleet about her accomplishments in NASCAR. Around the same time, a satirical story in the Daily Currant about economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman declaring personal bankruptcy was picked up as real news by several websites, including the mendacious right-wing site Breitbart.com, yes, but also including Boston.com, the website affiliated with the Boston Globe, one of America’s great newspapers.

IBTimes [21] Yet another Chinese news outlet has fallen victim to satirical news reporting. According to China’s 21st Century Business Herald, a Guangzhou-based magazine, famed economist and Nobel Prize winner, Paul Krugman, has declared bankruptcy

And yet you only seek to attribute the story in the Breitbart article - and not in the others? Seems a bit POV-ish, I fear. Add it to the other RS sources which ran the story ... and add the Norfleet hoax to WaPo and HuffPo etc. Collect (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it should be accompanied by an explanation of where the information originated. I am also wondering if the various sections under Controversies should be updated? For example, the Shirley Sherrod section leaves readers dangling. I'd also like to see more balance in this article because the Controversies section far outweighs the rest of the article - WP:UNDUE. See The Washington Post, Media_Matters_for_America, The Huffington Post, the latter of which Breitbart was one of the founders. Why no mention? The lede is pretty weak, too. Atsme☯^Consult 20:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

This is an excessively detailed history of the hoax. I can't even imagine why it would be this detailed. Why not just say, "Breitbart ran a hoax article that had been picked up by several other sources, ultimately traced to a satire website"? One concise sentence, and you're all done. Sheesh. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thus ignoring the central role of boston.com? An interesting proposal indeed, but a rather cart-before-horse solution. Boston.com was the primary "culprit" and this was even picked up in China -- from Boston.com. Collect (talk) 02:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This isn't an article about Boston.com, the hoax, or the history of the hoax. It's an article about Breitbart. The history is completely irrelevant to Breitbart.com. If it is kept, it needs to be severely edited down. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Question - since an article is supposed to summarize the topic comprehensively, why does this article look more like a WP:LIST? Atsme☯^Consult 12:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Whether this is featured on the Boston.com Wikipeida page is not relevant to the content of the Breibart Wikipedia page. Anyone who feels it should be featured on the Boston.com Wikipedia page should have that discussion on the relevant talk page. This is clearly well sourced information as regards the Breibart Wikipedia page and should remain. Megajeffzilla (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect. It's a question of weight and balance. This is not a significant Breitbart event at all as they just repreated information from a reliable news outlet. If AP gets a story wrong, we don't malign every paper that ran the AP story, we attribute to AP. --21:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect. Breitbart repeated information from a blogger (not meeting Wikipedia's requirements as a reliable source), and did so without first verifying the story, despite the premise of the story being ridiculous. If the story was sourced to AP (or even Boston.com), then you might have an argument to make. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• where the origination of the story is specifically not from Breitbart but from the generally accepted reliable source "boston.com"...

But it wasn't. A link to the satire piece, with the byline to Prudent Investor, was placed on Boston.com "without approval or review from either Boston.com or the Globe."

"The story didn't originate with the Globe or Boston.com. It was an automatic feed deep in the website. We asked (financialcontent.com) to give us more information as to how this story got added to their financial news feed. We're trying to find out more about what happened, and reevaluating our relationship with the vendor."

— Ellen Clegg, Boston Globe.

It should be clarified however, as noted above, that Breitbart.com was not itself perpetrating a 'hoax', but printing what it assumed and hoped was a true news story. Also, it would be reasonable to introduce a 'criticism' to the Boston.com (or Boston Globe) article about the problems associated with using embedded 3rd-party bylined feeds on a news website, but such a criticism doesn't negate the information about Breitbart.com in this matter. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It's really not worth mentioning - it was bycatch from the Boston Globe who committed the greater sin. Is there a wikilink to connect the two stories, and giving credit where credit is due? Conner screwed-up by believing the Globe was a RS that fact-checked - bzzzzt - goes to show us that what we may think is a trusted reliable source may not be. Remember the big "V" in verifiability. Corroborate the story with other sources, particularly in an encyclopedic article. WP is not supposed to look like a sensationalized news site. Atsme☯^Consult 02:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Wildly incorrect. You and I must be reading completely different reliable sources. (See These appended Updates and this step-by-step breakdown and this Boston exec explanation.) The Globe had nothing to do with this event. Conner screwed up by 1) failing to fact-check a story from Prudent Investor, and 2) trying to attribute it to Boston.com. It was never on the Boston.com website -- there was only a link in a framed external feed clearly marked as belonging to a self-published blogger called Prudent Investor. Of course Boston Globe is a reliable source, and yes, the stories they post are fact-checked. Likewise the news stories posted by Boston.com; fact-checked. Breitbart.com didn't fact-check what they posted. The reason Breitbart.com and this event is mentioned by all the reliable sources, and hence in this Wikipedia article, is because Breitbart.com contends that it conveys actual news. Bzzzzt. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

See Medialite's take on it. I don't like being thought of as "wildly incorrect". [22] Atsme☯^Consult 19:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Following your link, I didn't find Mediaite's take on it, but did find a commentary piece (more concerned with conveying an opinion rather than fact) by their columnist Christopher. The lack of factual thoroughness in that piece is evident; the failure to mention that the Format article notes the story is satire is just one example. But even as an opinion piece, Christopher still concludes "Breitbart.com is guilty of posting a dubious story at their own already-dubious website", which is what this discussion is about. As a separate matter, Christopher additionally says news organizations that allow unchecked, unreviewed links (like this 'story' from Prudent Investor) to be placed on their sites deserve even more criticism (and I agree, but that doesn't change anything about Breitbart.com). Boston.com didn't post the story, didn't review the story, and didn't even know a link to it had been inserted on their site until readers contacted them. Unlike the situation with Breitbart.com. Clearer now? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Heres a screenshot of the story on Boston.com. [23] It didn't appear on their "homepage", but it absolutely 100% appeared on a branded boston.com page. The only indicator that it isn't boston.com content is the byline, which is pretty subtle. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

It not only doesn't appear on their "homepage", but also isn't present on their site. That's a screenshot of the linked story, and there is nothing subtle about source of it. The key difference between viewing that story through the Boston.com website and the Breitbart.com website is that the former was a link placed automatically, without human intervention or review, while the latter was consciously posted by a living editor with complete disregard for fact-checking or accuracy. Should the Boston.com article (or the Boston Globe article as its parent) have content about 3rd-party electronic feeds and the potential problems they can cause? Sure; but that is a separate matter entirely. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

"The post about Paul Krugman was an automatic feed on a partner website called financialcontent.com. And Boston.com uses them to provide stock and other financial data on an automatic feed. So we worked to get it taken down as soon as we heard about it from readers early this morning. The story didn't originate with the Globe or Boston.com. It was an automatic feed deep in the website. We asked (the site) to give us more information as to how this story got added to their financial news feed."

Xenophrenic (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Your assertion is that at no time could you go to a URL at boston.com and see this story? They put up a syndicated feed. That doesn't mean it wasn't on their site. If it wasn't on their site, what does "worked to get it taken down" mean? What does "deep in the website" mean? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

No; that is not my assertion. Of course Boston.com used 3rd-party feeds (Stock data; Advertising; etc.) which displayed various content while a viewer was looking at a Boston.com URL. Such content is not generated by Boston.com; it's not hosted on the Boston.com website; it certainly shouldn't be used as the basis for a news story "credited" to Boston.com. If an ad feed were to suddenly start popping up pornographic images instead of ads for diet pills and car insurance, or if a stock data feed were to start popping up satirical news stories instead of closing market numbers, I think "worked to get it taken down" becomes self-explanatory, doesn't it? You can see how these 3rd-party links and widgets are integrated into news sites, but we are straying far from the matter at hand.

The matter here is that Breitbart.com lambasted the "lamestream media" (WaPo) for being so blinded by angry partisanship that they would carelessly print satire as news without fact-checking it; then just a few weeks later Breitbart.com goes and prints satire (from the very same site!) as if it were news without fact-checking it. Trying to equate Boston.com with Breitbart.com in this instance is a red herring, and not an applicable argument here. Breitbart.com editors consciously chose to not verify an outrageous story. Not so with Boston.com. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - when was the question changed? This RfC needs to be declared null & void. You don't change the original question after the RfC has begun - you ADD an ALTERNATE. The editors can either SUPPORT THE ALTERNATE, or not. Atsme☯^Consult 16:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• [24]. Hipocrite (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Changed just today in the link provided by hipocrite, by an anonip. While perhaps we should revert the change, I don't think it invalidates the RFC, its mainly just a rewording to clarify the statusquo, and does not change the meaning of the RFC or what anyone's !vote means. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Just saw that, Gaijin, thank you. I'll strike thru the null & void part. Atsme☯^Consult 16:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Tell me again why the ridicule (criticism) of Breitbart is so important to include in the article when the Boston Globe is just as guilty, yet nothing is mentioned about it there? [25] I also don't see any mention in the "perceived flawless and reliable" Washington Post regarding their embarrassing Sarah Palin hoax reprint, realizing it's only related because it, too, is a blunder. [26] How is this attack on Breitbart as a reliable source not argumentum ad hominem, and clearly POV when you consider the sources claimed to bed so reliable have done the same thing if not worse, including the NYTimes? Sure looks like there may be a little political bias at play here. Suggested compromise - to the editors who support the inclusion of the Krugman paragraph in Breitbart - will you agree to add the same criticism to the Boston Globe first, and then also add the Palin hoax in the Washington Post? That will surely demonstrate your NPOV, which certainly seems like a fair and neutral compromise, and then we can use similar phrasing to include the Krugman paragraph in Breitbart. Atsme☯^Consult 17:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The Globe story was automated aggregation. The Breitbart story was touched by a human. Further, other stuff exists. Hipocrite (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reclassify its ideology?

Breitbart seems to lately have moved away from mainstream conservatism and is now advocating neoreactionary and manosphere ideas, such as imposing a cap on the number of women allowed to study science and technology.

It isn't that long ago that most conservatives would have objected to any form of gender and/or race-based affirmative action as a form of reverse discrimination. Yet Breitbart is now openly advocating these very policies, albeit from the other end. "Reverse reverse discrimination", maybe?

I suspect their hiring Milo Yiannopoulos, who is also among other things a GamerGate supporter, might have had something to do with it. In any event, Breitbart doesn't seem to represent the conservatism of William F. Buckley anymore. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you have sources for this? Political classifications are often controversial, and 'conservative' covers a wide ground; the breadth of labels like that means that they will sometimes encompass contradictory views or opposing wings. Going for a more specific identification (or taking the implicit stance that the positions you mentioned are definitely not conservative) probably requires high-quality sources discussing the issue. --Aquillion (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Person/organization

Sherrod sued Breitbart for something Breitbart's organization did. The distinction here is not worth making. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Accuracy in an article is always worth it. Andrew Breitbart was sued personally. The news organization was not sued. This is an article on the organization. We have no ref that the website was sued because it didn't happen. The material on the lawsuit is at the Andrew Breitbart article. Since the lawsuit didn't involve the website it shouldn't be at this particular article. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It's an event that followed directly from something Breitbart.com did. It's entirely relevant and there's no reason to leave it out; someone who reads that section is very likely to be interested in that specific angle. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

For those interested: We already have the Main article (Firing of Shirley Sherrod) linked and the Andrew Breitbart article linked. The inclusion of a lawsuit not involving subject of this article in this article is redundant, undue and inaccurate. It leaves the impression the website was involved in the lawsuit. It wasn't. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Settleman, don't start following me around. You've made it clear you are familiar with WP:HOUND... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Cute. Anyway, I think the name of the article should be changed since MrX correctly point out the article is actually about a network of websites (which is confusing). I suggest moving it to Breitbart (websites network) and recreate this page as a redirect. Settleman (talk) 19:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the title should be changed to Breitbart (websites) or Breitbart News Network. The company name is BREITBART NEWS NETWORK, LLC according to the website.- MrX 20:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I think "Breitbart News Network" would probably make more sense than the current name. My top pick would simply be "Breitbart.org." Or maybe even just "Breitbart." I don't know if Breitbart (websites) would make sense, because although it appears that historically Big Government, Big Journalism, etc., were their own websites (www.biggovernment.com, etc.), looking at the breitbart.com website today it appears that those once separate domains have simply been folded into the main Breitbart.org, where they now appear as sub-domains, i.e. www.breitbart.com/big-journalism. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

You mean Breitbart.com right, not Breitbart.org? I would be fine with the domain name, or the company name. I would even support taking over Breitbart as a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC target.- MrX 03:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, my bad, I meant Breitbart.com. The internetz iz hard sometimes :)Safehaven86 (talk) 03:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

My vote is for Breitbart News Network. It is accurate. The redirects promise the reader will find his way to the info. Settleman (talk) 05:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like everyone is fine with Breitbart News Network. Should we have a more extensive discussion or RFC, or should we just go ahead and make the move and see if anyone objects? Safehaven86 (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you can just be bold and do it. You might want to reference this discussion.- MrX 14:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Cool, will do. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

This is good, but I do think that "Breitbart" should redirect here as well. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Editor's blog post

There is currently a ref'd blog post from a NYT opinion editor commenting on the error re Lynch. This is both unnecessary and hardly RS. It is, at best, the opinion of the author. Why this opinion should be included in what was a one day story eludes. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

It easily meets RS (WP:NEWSORG), particularly for being attributed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

It's his opinon. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

For that matter why is this section included at all? Really? A news organization prints material on the 8th, corrects it on the 9th, and removes it by the 10th. This literally happens every day in every news organization in the world, as do the snarky comments by competitors and advocacy orgs. This seems undue, or if used as a template for other news organizations would change our standard approach to media orgs. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh the fun if we were to take this approach on reporting corrections in the encyclopedia articles of the Chicago Tribune etc. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Our opinion about the worthiness of the story should not override that of an RS. Don't see a compelling reason to remove it here, or to remove Politifact. Gamaliel (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Reverts

Capitalismojo believes he has done only one revert on this article today [27]. Do others share that view? Capitalismojo might benefit from some additional insight on the matter. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I did one revert on the material you reverted. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

With no comment whatsoever on which version I prefer (I have not reviewed them), reverts are typically counted article wide, not for particular content for the purpose of 3RR/1RR/etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Right. He's an editor in good standing. I'm sure he's willing to self-revert any unintentional violation of 3RR. GraniteSand (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks to me like two wholesale reverts. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

That's what I see. GraniteSand (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

With respect, there was one edit regarding the NYT blog ref. It had been there for some time (year+?) I removed it, and explained my reasoning immediately, another editor reverted. I suggest that is not a "revert" by me, as reverts are commonly understood, merely an ordinary edit. My revert of the Politifact piece is the sole "revert". Capitalismojo (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Listing Breitbart as supporting the terrorist group Gamergate

WP:DNFTT(see my explanation at Talk:Air conditioning)) Brustopher (talk) 09:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As defined by WP:Truth present in the article Gamergate controversy Breitbart can be found admitting to supporting them. As such I move to include this highly important and relevant piece of information in this article I do not see how there cannot be consensus on this fact that they themselves admit but it seems some reactionary conservative right wing MRA gaters have chosen to try and suppress this information. Udoks (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC) Two points: Per WP:LEAD, content must be included in the body of an article before it can be considered for inclusion in the lead, and even then it must be especially significant for such mention. You would need a secondary source making that connection. Without a source making that claim about Breitbart (and used as the reference), your edit is classic original research. BullRangifer (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC) ok then, would this be a better secondary source or this piece of research oh and this the reference I presented was their own admission to supporting the terrorist group gamergate. Thus that alone should be evidence as it relates to the publications own stance but with these too, it seems it would be more than enough to make it worth while to add such a secition Udoks (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC) No -- the Salon piece says nothing about "terrorism", and the other doesn't meet WP:RS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC) No it does however point out their support for the terrorist group gamergate. Need I remind you that presently under WP:Truth rules it's already an accepted fact that those who support gamergate are to be classed as terrorists as see by the acceptance of it as WP:Truth in Gamergate controversy. Thus Breitbart's not insignificant contribution to supporting the harassers, MRAs, Rape apologists and far right Wingers who make up Gamergate. As such I see no reason why Breitbart's connection to Gamergate (a terrorist organisation) shouldn't be listed here too. Or do they need to drive a trans woman to actual suicide before you care to list Breitbart for what it is? Udoks (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC) First of all, pardon my horrible edit reason. You are correct, it did not state that Breitbart was a terrorist group. However, I am having a hard time finding reliable information about Gamergate itself being one. Maybe a statement from the Federal Bureau of Investigation confirming Gamergate as a terrorist group would be enough to label Breitbart as a supporter of terrorism. Jsoto97 (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC) Gamergate and it's supporters are already classed as a terrorist group under WP:Truth as can be evidence by them being described as such on gamergate under the Gamergate controversey article. As such we should not need to have this argument again on each and every article. It is accepted as WP:Truth already on that article and it doesn't suddenly become non truth here Udoks (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC) Udoks, it doesn't appear that you have read my comment above and studied the link about original research. You are a newbie with only 37 edits, so you have a lot of learning to do. We are willing to help you, but you have to learn by dropping prior ideas and adopting the ideas we teach you. What you are doing is totally forbidden because it's WP:OR. You are even citing an essay (WP:Truth), not a policy. Essays can be interesting, but they have no weight. (A better essay is this one, Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, because it is based on policy, but it still has no weight.) You are also citing another article (gamergate), although I think you mean Gamergate controversy. Wikipedia articles are not RS, so you can't cite them. You need to have a RS, independent of Wikipedia and Breitbart, which clearly calls Breitbart a terrorist organization. Even then, that content would have to be introduced into the body of the article, not in the lead. That's how it's done. If you persist in your endeavors without reforming your way of thinking, you will end up blocked and not allowed to edit here. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} { Talk } 02:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC) It's not claiming Breitbart are a terrorist organisation. It is claiming they happily support a terrorist group. I can show both Breitbart and other sources claiming they support Gamergate and according to sources presented on Wikipedia it is reliable to define Gamergate as a terrorist organisation. As shown on the gamergate controversy page as such I'm calling it what it is. Breitbart supporting a terrorist group. A group terrorizing women and trans people.I know wikipedia has a reputation of sexism so I'm not surprised to face harassment like this of threats. Udoks (talk) 03:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Unfortunately, we need reliable sources for anything we put in the article; and, as others have said, WP:LEAD requires that anything you add to the lead reflect some aspect of the larger article. Given your responses here and your general edit history, I feel that these edits are a bit WP:POINTy, so I suggest reviewing that policy, too. --Aquillion (talk) 03:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Let's reboot this discussion to make sure we are discussing "support" for terrorism, not terrorism itself. I see that I got confused there. Let's start with the disputed content: Breitbart News Network is a "...terrorist supporting news and opinion website ..." A better way to approach this would be to ask "Does Breitbart support the misogynistic gamers involved in the Gamergate controversy, those whose actions have been described as terrorism against women? At least that's how I read it. According to that Breitbart article, the answer is "No". The author is clearly not supporting the misogyny, but is defending gamers who are not misogynists, but who are all lumped together as if guilty by association. So, that angle and article don't work for the purpose of supporting the disputed content above. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} { Talk } 04:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Except there is no good Gamergate. There is not such thing as a non misogynistic Gamergate supporter. Every reliable source so far is saying Gamergate is a bunch of misogynists and as seen in the gamergate article itself that they are considerable to terrorists. It's not guilt by association it's people trying to pretend they're not the hatemongers the media has rightly called them out as. Udoks (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC) I'm not a specialist on this subject, so maybe you can help me understand this. Isn't the term "Gamergate controversy" analogous to the Watergate scandal? Ever since the Watergate affair, the word "gate" has been added to words to indicate a scandal involving those words. In this case it's about "gamer"s behaving badly, thus creating a "gamergate" controversy/scandal. In the common mind, all gamers are being included under that "Gamergate" umbrella, and the Breitbart writer was objecting to this injustice, ergo not all gamers deserve to be labeled as misogynists. (That the Salon article described a Breitbart editor as a misogynist is another matter.) In neither case, specifically about Gamergate, do I see Breitbart News Network participating in misogyny, even though the right wing are known for this. It shouldn't be hard to find RS which do document BNN doing such things. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} { Talk } 19:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC) References