Talk:Breitbart News

Repetition in Sources

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

Fixed. In Special:Diff/1176535475, I've removed the Mashable (RSP entry) citation from that location since it is unclear why the Mashable article is being cited for the far-right descriptor. I've also moved the Southern Poverty Law Center (RSP entry) citation next to the term alt-right, since the SPLC article explains Breitbart News's promotion and defense of the alt-right (which is a subset of the far right), but does not explicitly label it as a far-right website. — Newslinger talk 10:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2024

Remove the first two paragraghs or lable as "opinion", because none of the statements are factual or verifiable. 2600:1700:7D48:CA00:F166:9E00:B948:C847 (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The first two paragraphs have 30 sources. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 14:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Bias defeats purpose of article, to define Breitbart News

For an organization, such as Breitbart News to be praised by the president and lauded by the Whitehouse staff, this article is mis-information and offers no objectivity whatsoever. It should be edited to the point of objective reality if it is to be offered as an information source. 156.57.30.199 (talk) 10:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh yes -- if the president thinks Breitbart is better than sliced bread, then any criticism (no matter how well founded in reliable sources) must be COMPLETELY unfounded and must be removed immediately. GREAT POINT!! Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Article-space link

In Special:Diff/1290050416, a link to Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Categorizations was removed with the edit summary: "Undid revision 1289959133 by Isi96 (talk) WP:LINK "In articles, do not link to pages outside the article namespace, including draft articles, except in articles about Wikipedia itself (and even in that case with care – see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid)."

However, because Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Categorizations is actually a page in article space, I propose for the link to be restored. — Newslinger talk 04:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Isi96, as the editor who originally added the link, do you still support retaining it? — Newslinger talk 09:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

@Newslinger Yes, I do. Isi96 (talk) 10:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done in Special:Diff/1290692181. — Newslinger talk 12:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

As the editor who reverted the link, I oppose this re-insertion. My edit summary pointed to what WP:LINK says about care with self-reference because there is self-reference here, though it's indirect. i.e. a reference to an article which is about to a non-article. I maintain that the insertion was not done with sufficient care. The Breitbart article sentence now is "In September 2018, Wikipedia editors "deprecated" Breitbart News as a source due to its unreliability;" where the link on the word deprecated brings readers to the WP:RSP article. But this is misleading. The RfC absolutely did not use the WP:RSP description, the proposer and closer said in the same way as the Daily Mail, and did not mention WP:RSP. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)