The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page
Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.
Why does Wikipedia say that Breitbart News is "far right"?
You can post a message on this page about your concern but please be aware that this issue has been discussed many times before. You are encouraged to review Wikipedia's policy on consensus-building and the following discussions before posting on this subject:
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
Omer Benjakob (April 11, 2018). "Breitbart Declares War on Wikipedia as Encyclopedia Gets Drafted Into Facebook's 'Fake News' Battle". Haaretz. Retrieved April 11, 2018. In the past week, Breitbart's Wikipedia page has become the scene of an epic battle, with alt-right trolls descending en masse to change its content. After Breitbart ripped into Wikipedia, painting it as a bastion of the biased liberal elite, others followed suit. The Breitbart article saw a massive uptick in traffic, with more than 50,000 people visiting the Wikipedia page in recent weeks.
Adam Smith (October 3, 2018). "Wikipedia Bans Breitbart as Source of Fact". PC Magazine. Retrieved October 5, 2018. The right-wing site will still be a source for opinion-related content, but all other citations will be removed. Wikipedia did the same with British newspaper The Daily Mail.
Marcus Gilmer (October 3, 2018). "Wikipedia demotes Breitbart to fake news". Mashable. Retrieved October 5, 2018. Wikipedia, the internet's crowd-sourced encyclopedia, has declared "fake news" on far-right site Breitbart, deeming the outlet an unreliable source for facts.
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Andrew Breitbart was copied or moved into Breitbart.com. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
I don't want to change anything like this without consulting others, first. However, in the lede we have a bundled ref of several sources that affirm Breitbart is far-right. This ref bundle is repeated later in the "Accuracy and ideology", but it is joined by two additional citations. So, I ask, should we remove the other two sources from this statement or should we just add them into the larger ref? Maxx-♥talk and coffee ☕12:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
.svg?lang=en){kind=icon}
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)
Not done: The first two paragraphs have 30 sources. 