Talk:Rebel News/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Tommy Robinson

Newimpartial, please stop repeatedly adding unsourced information about Tommy Robinson, in violation of our BLP policy. This information may be true, but it requires reliable sources to support it. I also have serious concerns about the neutrality of using descriptors that do not appear in the lead section of Tommy Robinson (activist). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Just so that we are on the same page, my edits to that section of the article are a restoration here [1] of material originally added and sourced by HungarianPhrasebook here [2] which I subsequently moderated in tone here [3]. I then restored the material when it had been deleted, here [4] responding to TheRationalist who argued that the Telegraph was not a reliable source (!), and after that section of the article had been stable for more than three weeks. Most recently, I restored the stable version again here [5] after it was modified by a brand new user. When the same user made the same edit less than 24 hours later, I did not revert.

Of all of those edits, only the last could be by any stretch be regarded as "adding unsourced information", although I had previously looked up the criminal record of the person mentioned in reliable sources and had discussed the same issue with HungarianPhrasebook. I do not feel any ownership of the language used to discuss Mr. Robinson in this article (and please note that my original edit to this passage was to tone down existing language, and edit that was stable for almost a month). I take BLP policy very seriously, and resent very much the false statement that I "repeatedly added unsourced information", which I most certainly did not. Newimpartial (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, if you are accusing me of socking as 184.151.36.87, that ain't me. Please clarify and/or withdraw the accusation. Newimpartial (talk) 04:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. You're on thin ice on the conduct front, but let's focus on content please. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Finally, about the term "convicted criminal" - while I neither introduced the term to this article nor did I add sources supporting it, I will point out that the linked article on Mr. Robinson makes note of - and provides sources for - at least four criminal convictions. Descriptions of his various offenses and their consequences take up a substantial portion (perhaps one-third?) of that article. "Criminal" is not a controversial discriptor in this case. It would, however, be easy enough to add sources if desired. Newimpartial (talk) 04:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Which article? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Tommy Robinson Newimpartial (talk) 04:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'm not saying the guy is not a convicted criminal. I'm saying you need to provide a citation to a reliable source in this article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I would even disagree here. That Tommy Robinson is convicted in a few lawsuits, does not mean in here you have to denote that he is a 'convicted criminal'. People can read about the lawsuits in the wiki page about Tommy Robinson. I think it is not relevant. I cannot deny I have the impression that this is only mentioned to libel Rebel Media. It is also not neutral voice in my humble opinion. AntonHogervorst (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Which I will be happy to do once the dust settles. But I hope you can recognize that I haven't reverted the text since this issue was constructively raised; Lewisdrummerboy36's original comment, "POV garbage", in lieu of a talk page comment, did not raise this issue in a way I could readily recognize. My only revert of that specific phrase was the R cycle of BRD, and now we are in D. :) Newimpartial (talk) 05:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Content added back with sources. Newimpartial (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Though Tommy Robinson was convicted of a few offences, he is in first place an activist. You have now written it like he is a professional burglar or something. That is not neutral voice in my opinion. AntonHogervorst (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Alt-Right

I have removed the alt-right template and alt-right mention in the lead. The section in the lead was poorly sourced for such a claim as was the response to it. Also both were added by a blocked sock here and here, as such should not be restored without discussion here. PackMecEng (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Although I commonly removed material added by socks, such material can be restored without discussion, there's no rule against that. Of course I didn't restore the edit (and hadn't noticed who added it) so much as the category. However, it seems obvious that TRM has been described as alt-right, and the McLeans.ca article seems an RS. Winnipeg Free Press:[6] "In the space of just a few days, the Rebel Media, a far-right website founded two years ago out of the ashes of the short-lived Sun News Network, has imploded under the weight of its own foolish attempts to find sense in the blatantly nonsensical "alt-right" movement." Sydney Morning Herald: ""They rode the alt-right, the far-right wave, but have gone beyond that," says Goldsbie. That wave crashed at Charlottesville, Virginia in August."[7] Yes, they then started to distance themselves, or rather "On Monday, the company's co-founder and "Rebel Commander" Ezra Levant issued a memo attempting to distance the company from the so-called alt-right, arguing that the movement had drifted from its origins and "now effectively means racism, anti-Semitism and tolerance of neo-Nazism." He alleged that Richard Spencer, a white supremacist who attended the rallies in Charlottesville, was now "the leading figure – at least in terms of media attention" of the movement."[8] Maybe they aren't now, but they have been. Doug Weller talk 15:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not doubt MacLeans is a reliable source, but for such a statement a stronger source is needed and possibly attrition. Also you have to admit the rebuttal was very poor and should not be a primary source to a youtube video which could make it OR since we are interpreting a primary source. With the Winnipeg Free Press, we should not be using an opinion article for those claims. I am not very familiar with the Sydney Morning Herald, but seems only mentioned once in the article while quoting someone else and then goes on to say how they are trying to change from that image. Finally the Globe and Mail only talks about how they are not alt-right and try to distance them self from that label. PackMecEng (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The question of who originally added this content is a red herring, particularly since one of the edits concerns a template and the other proposed language for the lede which has subsequently been edited considerably - sources contributed by banned socks do not suddenly lose their relevance, and must be considered on their merits.

McLean's is pretty much an optimal RS for the claim made in the text, anyway, so I have restored both the lede and the template inclusion to the stable version. Newimpartial (talk)

I agree with PackMecEng, the macleans.ca cite is not good enough (says "alt-right" in a headline and says "ensuing international coverage that casually called The Rebel an alt-right website"). And the Winnipeg Free Press quote doesn't actually say The Rebel Media is alt-right. We'd need an attributed statement to some reliable-looking person or group that shows that it understands the word's current meaning and and that it has studied how it is appropriate to apply the word to this subject. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand your point here, Peter. McLean's literally says that international coverage "called The Rebel an alt-right website" and the WP article currently says "has been described as". Your claim, "we'd need an attributed statement to some reliable-looking person or group that shows that it understands the word's current meaning" is complete bafflegab and totally contra WP policy on WP:V - the article says that The Rebel has been called such and such, and provides a reliable source documenting that The Rebel has been called the same such-and-such. The rest is noise. Newimpartial (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

MacLean is a fairly weak source for such a claim and the rebuttal in the form of a youtube video is far from appropriate. Also slapping the alt-right template for one sentence in the lead that was not supported in the body anywhere is not how it works. Are there sources that call them alt-right? Sure, but all those sources easily fall into the undue category. Also you seem to be misunderstanding what attributing to a source means, it does not mean saying so and so has been described as x. Proper attribution would look more like RS x says so and so is y.PackMecEng (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are arguing, PackMecEng, but when the claim is that "so and so has been described as x", it is entirely sufficient to find a reliable source documenting that "so and so has been described as x". It is not at all necessary to find sources actually making the original claim, "so and so is x", which is what you seem to suggest and what Peter has just explicitly claimed. Also, it is not necessary to provide multiple sources for a specific claim such as this, although they are certainly available.

Finally, McLean's itself documents The Rebel's disavowal of the alt-right label, so that aspect is not dependent on the primary source alone. I agree that the alt-right claim belongs in the body as well as the lede. Newimpartial (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Again you seem to be misunderstanding what Peter Gulutzan was trying to explain about what inline attribution is, a good place to state would be WP:YESPOV. Also you may want to check out WP:VNOTSUFF and WP:UNDUE, which this seems to meet. PackMecEng (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

If you want to make the argument that the "Alt-right" label is undue, please make an actual argument. I am familiar with all the policies you have just referenced, and you and Peter both seem to be missing the fact that the claim made in the article is that the description has been used, a claim which is appropriately cited. The article does not venture an evaluation, encyclopaedic or otherwise, of the validity of the label, and Peter's call for original research on this point looks to me like a deliberate defiance of WP policy.

Anyway, if you want to argue that that particular claim is not a salient and DUE aspect of The Media's public image and reputation, please do so here on talk, but you will never accomplish that by citing policies and saying the situation "seems to meet" them. That would be pretty much the paradigm of "weak". Newimpartial (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes the claim has been made, what has not been specified is by whom. Which is the important part, weasel words like "has been described as" is wrong as you well know. Where the article "venture an evaluation" is in the response "although it rejects the term" which is, in Wikipedia's voice, interpreting a primary source youtube video. Kind of the definition of WP:OR. So we have a sentence in the lead not supported by the body, making a controversial claim with weak sources, and a OR rebuttal. And then you go on to say citing policy is not a way fix the issue? PackMecEng (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

And you and I both know that there are many sources both using the label and documenting The Rebel's rejection of the label. Therefore, WP policy calls for the creation of a new, DUE, correctly voiced, sourced section in the body discussing the label, and a reference to that in the lede. It does not call for Peter's OR about the true meaning of Christmas Alt-right, nor the deletion of edited, sourced content because it was once upon a time added by a sock. Newimpartial (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Great, lets work on that and see if it is DUE. Until then remove the poorly sourced statement and the OR. That is the correct course of action per policy. I have no problem with it being said about them if properly sourced, but to leave poorly sourced info in the lead with nothing in the body is wrong. PackMecEng (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

"has been described as" is wrong as well you know? I see it argued over, but with the option being "is". Where does it say we shouldn't use "has been described as"? Doug Weller talk 19:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL since is it "creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated.." Which goes along with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV since it is a minority viewpoint. PackMecEng (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The material seems fine for inclusion to me. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth:Just so I understand here. You are good with a one sentence statement in the lead from a weak source, in wikipedia's voice, with no support for it in the body that this company supports Neo-Nazism, misogyny, homophobia, Islamophobia, and antisemitism. While a OR statement from a primary source youtube video is a fair rebuttal to that claim. All of which was added a POV pushing sock that was blocked.

Now again I am not actually against stating that they support the alt-right, but that it has to be properly done. That would be a strong source, actually talking about it in the body, and a proper rebuttal per NPOV. PackMecEng (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Same here, I think there's wiki-lawyering going on here and that the information we are trying to put into this article, is being subjected to undue scrutiny for the purpose of making it hard to include, where information included on an article, say, on "ducks", for example would not be. Since this is the case however and the lawyers are demanding a stronger source - perhaps this one from the guardian will make things more explicit. - "

Mark Latham has joined the ranks of the ‘alt-right’ Rebel Media, where he’s joined by figures such as English Defence League founder Tommy Robinson

" - Which also succintly provides, "

Alexander Reid Ross, antifascist researcher and author, told me that Latham joining Rebel amounted to “linking up with trans-national alt-right commentators who play in the interstices between fascism and the radical right”.

" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edaham (talk • contribs)

@Edaham:That is all I am really looking for. Is proper attribution and structure for such a negative label. The issue with The Guardian article is that it is a opinion section. Better sources would be something like Salon, the issue I am finding when trying to find sources that state Rebel Media is alt-right is that there are not very many that are not opionion coloums. That is why I was making the case for undue. PackMecEng (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Case by case analysis, per WP:NEWSORG: The article is an opinion piece, but it comes from a publication with a reputation for fact checking and editorial correction announcements. We aren't taking a statement of fact from this source, and further more, the quotation comes not from the op-ed its self, but from a writer quoting for the publication. Consensus will probably uphold that this is already overkill for the text in its current format, however NEWSORG does recommend attribution (in this case to author Alexander Reid Ross), which I'd consent to add. In summary, the statement we want to include in this article isn't a breaking scientific adjustment to the speed of light or a date of an important battle, it's a category and a lede sentence which makes our readers aware of the context surrounding the subject and the elements with which it has been involved. Sensibilities of those who may have any interest in the addition or removal of such information aside, the inclusion of this information is uncontroversial and sufficiently sourced.Edaham (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Attributing (if the proponents could tell us whom to attribute to) might help with the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV requirement, but not with WP:CATVER etc. In any case, thanks for pointing to Salon -- I see it says 'neo-Nazi types have derided The Rebel as "alt-lite"', therefore Wikipedia must add label = alt-lite too, if policy = put in whatever somebody says that somebody said. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia must

--? I don't think there's a policy which says that Wikipedia must include any information on a subject. It should include all the relevant information per RS/DUE, but as for must - if you feel that way, you are an editor and can add the relevant text and citations yourself. Edaham (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

As far as the category goes, I have no problem dropping the alt-right category link, after this Talk page discussion - I just didn't think it was appropriate to drop it based on who added it months ago.

While new wording is required, it seems to me that it is not WEASEL for the article to describe in wikipedia's voice how The Rebel is labelled in the media and popular discourse - the use of these labels is IMO a crucial part of how the outlet is perceived and situated in the mediasphere. The key point of the WEASEL guideline, AFAICT, is this: "Phrases such as those above present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. ... Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed. The examples given above are not automatically weasel words..." So the body of the article needs to discuss the attribution and standing of the labels, and the lede can then summarize the situation. Newimpartial (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe we are divided about the category, thus: Doug Weller + Edaham definitely want it in, PeterTheFourth almost certainly wants it in (I wasn't positive whether PeterTheFourth supports both the lead and the category), NewImpartial prefers it in but is okay if it's out, PackMecEng and Peter Gulutzan definitely want it out. I believe we can have an RfC about the category, thus: "Should The Rebel Media be in category = Alt-right?" I will wait first to see whether anyone objects to the wording, or whether new participants comment. The other issue, putting "alt-right" in the lead in the way it's done now, can be a separate RfC later. (Update -- added several days later ...) I am backing off from posting an RfC. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Just found a source on Rebel Media profiteering on a Canadian national tragedy, let me know if it's worthy of adding to the article

https://pressprogress.ca/rebel-media-is-using-the-humboldt-broncos-tragedy-to-sell-5-monthly-subscriptions/

Gw2005 (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Cherry picking

Here I changed "far-right" to "right-wing" in the lead since the sources cited are themselves internally inconsistent:

• The New York Times saying "right-wing"
• Global News saying "right-wing"

The cited sources are cherry-picked articles from those news outlets. wumbolo ^^^ 12:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

In Canadian usage, "right-wing" and "far right" are not mutually exclusive, although "far right" is more precise. Nobody is saying that "right-wing" can't be used in the article, but you can't remove the sourced term "far right" just because YOUDONTLIKEIT. Newimpartial (talk) 16:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I have changed it to right-wing again. We are not going to get a consensus on what 'far right' means. I think we all agree that includes ethnic nationalism, baseless slanders on religion with disregard to the facts. However, saying that there is a problem with some sections of the community with regard to crime (as there is) e.g Rotherham grooming is not far-right in my view as it is using the facts and it is what can reasonbly regarded as a legitimate view and concern. I believe that we have to be careful in using the far-right label as it instantly de-legitimises organisations and is therefore disregarded by a large section of the population, who associate them more with hard fascism. I certainly would call anything not mainstream on the right far right.The media in general should be a bit more careful when throwing around these labels. The lengths of the previous discussion indicate the lack of consensus, so I believe the less contentious 'right wing' should be used. Canyoutietheminabow (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

What matters is policy-based consensus, and so far no editor has come up with a coherent, policy-based argument against the sourced term "far right". The objections have been OR, references to Wikipedia articles, and IDONTLIKEIT. Newimpartial (talk) 14:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Newimpartial: Let me make a timeline:

2016-11-15: The New York Times saying "right-wing"

2017-05-16: The New York Times saying "far-right"

2017-08-17: Global News saying "right-wing"

2017-08-19: Global News saying "far-right" and "right-wing" in the same article

Clearly The Rebel Media hasn't "suddenly" become one or the other. I'm not violating OR by reading sources, which are required per WP:V. I see the personal attack by you citing WP:IDONTLIKEIT without any evidence for me "not liking it" whatsoever. I didn't use the Wikipedia article as a reference; I merely linked to a logical fallacy. And now let's get to your argument: an assertion with no evidence at all. wumbolo ^^^ 15:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

That's great, Wumbulo, but I am not saying Rebel Media is one or the other, I'm saying it is both but that "far right" is more precise. I also did not say that all intervenors are practicing OR - and - Wikipedia sourcing - and - IDONTLIKEIT, just that all that I've seen in this context have been one of the three. Your "logical fallacy" is OR, I'm afraid. Meanwhile, my position is supported by the sources that are actually in the article. Newimpartial (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Struck through/deleted sock edits. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Froome2017. Doug Weller talk 16:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

American politics discretionary sanctions and how they apply here

it is my opinion that this page is not under AP sanctions as obviously it is about Canadian media and Goldy, McInnes etc. are Canadians. However, any text that relates to American politics is obviously covered by them. This is I admit s bit tricky, as McInnes is Canadian but Proud Boys has a presence in 3 countries, one of them America and its activities there are covered, but this article isn't about Proud Boys. So, to repeat, only text directly about American politics is, in my opinion and experience although not in my official capacity as a member of the Arbitration Committee. Doug Weller talk 10:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

At least AP applies to the Alt-right. wumbolo ^^^ 10:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The alt-right in America, yes. Our article on it doesn't yet discuss the alt-right in Canada but it should and I've pointed this out. Doug Weller talk 11:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Far right

An IP editor is repeatedly changing the lead section to replace "right-wing" with "far right," even though the cited sources say "right-wing." Please review our verifiability policy and stop doing this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The first citation on that phrase explicitly characterizes RM contributors as advancing far right rhetoric. If I have to add further citations to clarify, I will be happy to do so. That said, the use of a broad term as "right wing" in other sources (the latter two of which barely mention the Rebel Media) does not in any way preclude the editorial slant from being labelled as far right. Looking at the contributions of these editors, I am concerned that politically motivated users (including those reverting the "far right" edit) are softening the tone of articles on far-right subjects and downplaying the radicality of those subjects (as Dr. Fleischman may have noticed on the Breitbart conversation). For reference, they should review Wikipedia policy on euphemisms. Additionally, the two cited sources explicity referencing RM as "right wing" don't really have much to do with RM, which is a problem all on its own.

If it's worth any consideration, I would also point out the frequent hosting of prominent white nationalists in interviews, use of white nationalist slogans by primary contributors (ie. deus vult), and the fact that one of its most prominent contributors founded a fraternal organization with extensive associations with various alt-right groups definitely qualifies as being far right.

Apologies for not using the user tag, icons on mobile aren't working properly. I am the IP contributor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.223.154 (talk) 02:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand how Wikipedia works: we follow the reliable sources. If the reliable sources say organization X is far right, then we can say it's far right. If they say organization Y is right-wing, then we can say it's right-wing. Your analysis of Rebel Media's content is known as original research and is not permitted. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

McLean's uses "far right". Surely it is a reliable source. Newimpartial (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

It generally is, but check the source closely. It doesn't actually say RM is far-right. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure it does. It says that Ezra "saw a wide-open market for unadulterated, far-right conservatism in Canada; he’s chasing the same opportunity abroad." Since his entry into that market is Rebel media, it does indeed say that. Also, see the title. Newimpartial (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

This might sound like splitting hairs, but chasing a far-right market isn't the same thing as being far-right. The previous sentence makes clear that Levant wants to become a "far-right media mogul" but he isn't one yet. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's splitting hairs. But if I have to edit the phrase "far-right market" into the article, I can certainly do that. Newimpartial (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I also think the source content about "pro-Trump, pro-Le Pen, pro-Brexit anti-Muslim-immigration-everywhere" could be useful. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

From the Macleans article, "The website sits high in regard south of the border among those at the far-right edges of America’s conversation, for whom Fox News is too tepid..." It's pretty clear that The Rebel Media already appeals to this audience. 184.151.36.42 (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Being in high regard among the far-right doesn't mean you're far right. For instance, many in the far right hold Fox News in high regard; that doesn't mean we can describe Fox News as far right. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Except Fox isn't held in high regard by the far right. As 109.76.223.154 had stated, "right wing" and "far-right" are not mutually exclusive terms, and the sources currently listed don't focus on the outlet's editorial bias, whereas the sources in the far right edits centre on TRM's content and contributors. 76.68.48.217 (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting; now please stop edit warring before you're blocked. No, the sources you want added don't actually say that RM is far right. If they did then I for one would fully support using them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

You are being extraordinarily disingenuous. The NYT article labels TRM as a far-right that employs Posobiec. The HopeNotHate article lists the Rebel as a far-right outlet, and the Macleans source specifically talks about Levant as chasing a market for far right media. You've failed to make a recognizable distinction between the two, as clearly "chasing the market" entails publishing content with a far right slant. As Newimpartial has said, you are splitting hairs. 76.68.48.217 (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I had misread the NY Times article, my apologies. I had thought it said that Posobiec and not was far-right. The MacLeans article doesn't expressly say that RM is far-right, and Hope Not Hate is not a reliable source. However, in light of the Times article I now support using "far right" and will edit accordingly. Please do try to assume good faith. Nothing disingenuous here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Care to elaborate on how HOPE not hate, a respected research organization, isn't a reliable source? Additionally you are the only person arguing that the Macleans article doesn't call TRM "far-right". Users discussing the matter agreed that you are, in your own words, splitting hairs. 76.68.48.217 (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I would, but why does it matter? I agreed to keep far right--why do you care which sources are cited? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

HNH's research is seen as invaluable to professional media and academics studying extremism in Britain. I think for the sake of thoroughness we should resolve whether or not HNH should be treated as a reliable source. 76.68.48.217 (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

You are free to post something at WP:RSN then. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The sources for saying they're "far right" are left-wing newspapers.

So does that mean if right-wing outlets refer to something as "far left" (e.g. HuffPo) then I can edit those articles and describe them as far-left?

Or does Wikipedia have a left-wing bias, like I fully suspect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThebeOkonma (talk • contribs) 17:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

TRM's contributors sell white supremacist gear, post videos about what they hate about Jews, and spread "white genocide" fearmongeeing. If you wanted a leftist perspective, i'm sure they would sooner call TRM a "white supremacist" outlet. Wikipedia does not euphemize. If you want to confirm your bias, go frequent Metapedia instead. 184.151.36.144 (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Please review our verifiability policy. Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there is only one reliable source calling Rebel Media "far-right". However, you have at least three other reliable sources (including the same New York Times), calling it "right-wing":

The Guardian: "Brian Lilley of Rebel Media, an online news and right-wing opinion outlet..."

BBC: "...hosted by the right-wing Rebel media group."

The New York Times: "Lauren Southern, a host on the right-wing Canadian media site Rebel Media..."

Three against one. If there's no answer about this point, I'm going to reinstate the "right-wing" label.--Pareshy Taimur (talk) 01:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

McLean's also uses far-right source. Also, it isn't a poll of the sources; it is an editorial decision which WP:RS label is more accurate. Newimpartial (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Rebel Media are not widely considered to be "far right" which is synonymous with fascism and nazism, they don't identify as such, their contributors are not widely considered to be far right. This smear needs to stop. If you need to add a section that talks about this contestation then so be it, but this is supposed to be a neutral page when the opening line is clearly ideologically-driven. There is absolutely not a consensus amongst mainstream reputable sources that this is a far right outlet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:2BC4:3100:14DE:398B:92DB:CF97 (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The New York Times, an extremely reliable source, calls RM "far right," and no other reliable source contradicts it. Further, "far right" is not at all "synonymous" with Fascism and Nazism. This is not a smear or anything ideologically driven. This is merely an effort to comply with our verifiability and neutrality policies and accurately describe the organization in light of the existing reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The New York Times is not consistent enough with its description of RM for it to be referred to as far-right. See: "right-wing website based in Canada called The Rebel." and ”Rebel Media, a right-wing Canadian media company”. The usage of the word far-right is inflammatory and I think it is better to avoid using inflammatory words unless there is substantial evidence to support its use. HaraldTheBlue (talk) 02:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how consistent or inconsistent The New York Times is. So they have called the organization right-wing and far-right, so what? The two terms are not mutually exclusive. Robin's eggs are blue and light blue; so if a newspaper calls them both at various times, are you suggesting we can't call them light blue? There is nothing "inflammatory" or derogatory about describing an organization's ideology, far-right or otherwise. Many groups are proud of being described as far-right. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I changed the wording to "conservative", but I would be ok with "right-wing, or "right-of-centre", but not "far-right" or "alt-right", as these are defamatory terms unused by the majority of sources.199.119.233.173 (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Reverted per WP:BRD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newimpartial (talk • contribs) 14:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Cool story bro, nobody cares about the OPINION of some random shmuck on the internet. The far right label is well sourced and not going away any time soon, regardless of these idiotic campaigns to whitewash the article. 184.145.53.158 (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I have a few problems with Wikipedia using the term "far right" so carelessly. For example in the article on The Rebel Media. Firstly the two sources in the article that supposedly back up the claim that The Rebel Media is a "far right online political and social commentary media website" don't actualy back up the claim that The Rebel Media is "far right". The first source that supposedly backs up the claim that The Rebel Media is "far right" only mentions The Rebel Media once and does not speak of it again. More precisely the article speaks only of a man called "Jack Posobiec", who according to Wikipedia only worked for The Rebel Media for two months. Other than this individual it does not speak of The Rebel Media at all. It does not even back up the claim that The Rebel Media is "far right" See: "U.S. Far-Right Activists Promote Hacking Attack Against Macron". The second article that supposedly backs up the claim that The Rebel Media is far right. Actually does not even say this at all. That article specifically says this about The Rebel Media "The right-wing Rebel Media is facing growing criticism in the wake of its coverage of the deadly protests in Charlottesville, Va." in its intro. The article however does say that Ezra Levant is far right which it does not actually give any reason to support this claim. The article does not say specifically that The Rebel Media is "far right". So to use this article to support the claim that The Rebel Media seems strange, in my opinion. See "A fight over a four-bedroom house" Their are two sources in the article and one of which never even specificaly mentions that The Rebel Media is "far right". And the other article does not speak about The Rebel Media at all. This means that the article as it is, has no proper basis or sources to call The Rebel Media "far right".

Secondly I have yet to read a source that actually bothers to substantiate the claim that The Rebel Media is "far right". We have on Wikipedia ofcourse the definition of the term "Far-right politics". Why don't we examine the claim that The Rebel Media is far right using the definition that is given on Wikipedia? And lets actually find supporting evidence to back up the claim.

Thirdly in my opinion the word "far right" is indeed inflammatory. Their are a few reasons I believe that it is indeed inflammatory. Just look at this entire discussion we are having. Furthermore look at this "source" "A fight over a four-bedroom house" and then visit the comment section of the source. You'll see that people are very much bothered by the careless use of the words "far right". I would also direct you to this video of The Rebel Media "Ezra Levant: Why does everyone hate The Rebel?". In this video the owner even says that he is not "far right". Which again disproves the claim that The Rebel Media is "far right". Also in this comment section people are bothered that people call The Rebel Media "far right". And lastly a blog on The Huffingtonpost written by Carleton-Taylor says and I quote "The answer lies in the essence of what it is to be far right. It is to oppress, devalue and discriminate against others" See "What Exactly Do We Mean By 'Far Right'". I think I have given enough cause for you to see that the word is indeed inflammatory, whether it is ment thus or not. So I think using the words "far right" should be done carefully as it is inflammatory.

In conclusion: - The sources in the article don't back up the claim that The Rebel Media is "far right" - The owner of The Rebel Media says he is not "far right" - No one has proved The Rebel Media is "far right" - The term "far right" is as I have shown inflammatory and should therefore be used carefully

Therefore I would recommend removing the word "far right" in the article. Or let the article say that some media outlets refer to The Rebel Media as far right as that can easily be sourced. I would also recommend using the word "conservative" or "right wing" as the owner of The Rebel Media would describe himself as. Which can also be seen in the youtube video above or again here. See "Ezra Levant: Why does everyone hate The Rebel?". MrFlup 19:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrFlup (talk • contribs)

This is the latest effort of a long established, ideologically motivated campaign attempting to whitewash the article utilizing edit warring, sockpuppetry, and persistent vandalism to push a VERY specific edit. Indeed, another of these vandals created an account solely for this edit, disingenuously suggesting this outlet which consistently hires white nationalists, is a "moderate," right wing platform. 2607:FEA8:955F:F959:CC7D:635F:9183:E54 (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment above however I have a few thoughts about that aswell. I concur with you about two things. It is true that I want a very specific edit to this article. The reasons for which I think I have clearly demonstrated above. The words "far right" are both incorrect with regards to this article and are indeed inflammatory. Also this is at this point indeed a new account on wikipedia. After reading the article I thought I had to comment about it and at that time I had no account on wikipedia yet. I do not agree with your other comments though.

Firstly I don't agree with the motives you try to attribute to me. If you want my motives for why I want the article to change the words "far right" or at least change the . You could simply ask what my motives are instead of you attributing motives to me.

Second I want to engage into a discussion about this specific subject, namely about the use of the words "far right". I haven't edited the article and I don't intend to personally edit the article, unless it is clealy shown here that it is supposed to be changed. I don't think it works at all if I edit it and then later someone else edits it back.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I can gather from your comment is that you believe the words "far right" are correctly being used in the article.

If this is correct, could you explain to me why you believe this?

Also why do you believe that this outlet consistently hires white nationalists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrFlup (talk • contribs) 17:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I can't answer for any other editor, but I believe the term "far right" is justified since it has been a consistently used term for The Rebel since its Charlottesville coverage. If you want to know why The Rebel hires white nationalists and other defenders of "white genocide", you'd have to ask Ezra. Newimpartial (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I too appreciate your comment 'Newimpartial', but again I am stuck with a few problems. The reason for this is that you say two things that bother. Namely that the words "far right" are justified and that The Rebel Media hire white nationalists and other defenders of "white genocide". Both of these claims have yet to be justified and proven.

With regards to your first claim. As I have shown above. The claim that the term "far right" is justified is not true or at least this has not been shown here or in the article. Again as I have shown above the "sources" that are mentioned in this article are not correctly sourced. The articles that are refered to don't justify the claim. One of them doesn't even say that The Rebel Media is "far right" and the other does not explain why they use those words. The "sources" in the article are worthless as sources for this specific issue. So if you believe that the term "far right" has been justified then give me a source that actually justifies it.

With regards to your second claim and I quote your response "The Rebel hires white nationalists". I have yet to actually receive an answer to my question. Here I will ask where did you get this information? For I would like to actually read or see this information for myself.

Lastly with regards to the part where you say that The Rebel Media hires "other defenders of "white genocide"". Here too I ask where did you get this information from? MrFlup (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Flup - there are far, far more than two reliable sources that describe The Rebel as far right. Oir job as WP editors is to reflect the terms used in the SOURCESEXIST not to question their grounds for doing so.

As far as the white nationalists and defenders of the "white genocide" theory, read the hyperlinks for the current and former contributors and you will find them. Newimpartial (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Newimpartial - It is true that there are multiple news outlets that describe The Rebel Media as "far right". Whether we should use them as source to state that The Rebel Media is "far right" is a whole different thing. If we, as WP editors, are going to source a specifc topic, we should source the topic correctly and specifically. With regards to this article it is stated that The Rebel Media is "far right". It is stated as though it is a fact. When I then want to know more about why they are "far right". I am directed to two articles, both of which are not accurately sourced.

One does not even say The Rebel Media is "far right" and the other article (The Times article) merely refers to The Rebel Media as "far right" once and then continues its story about something other than The Rebel Media.

I have already said this before, but I propose changing the article about The Rebel Media to say that many media outlets refer to them as "far right". This is easily sourced and is indeed an accurate description.

Instead of stating something as though it is a fact. We can be more accurate by saying that some media outlets describe them as "far right". As I have shown above (several times) it is still not a proven fact or even an accurately sourced description.

I would like to direct you to the second sentence of the article about The Rebel Media. You can see the same thing that I propose in the second sentence of the article. It is said and I quote "It has been described as a "global platform" for the anti-Muslim ideology, also known as counter-jihad". Why can't we do something similar with regards to the "label" "far right"? This can easily be sourced and does not state an unproven description as a fact. One of the sources currently in the article can even remain, namely the Times source. The other source however would still have to go, because even in that case it is still not accurate. The change that I propose would look something like this:

"The Rebel Media (officially The Rebel News Network Ltd.,[1] stylized as THEREBEL.media, and shortened to The Rebel) is a Canadian right wing online political and social commentary media website founded in February 2015 by former Sun News Network personalities Ezra Levant and Brian Lilley. It has been described as a "global platform" for the anti-Muslim ideology, also known as counter-jihad.[4][5][6] The Rebel Media is considered by some media outlets as being politically "far right"[2]." (The number-references to the sources will ofcourse change to be consecutive numbering)

I look forward to hear your thoughts about my comments and about the change that I propose. MrFlup (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Article problems and Citation errors

On the Rebel Media page there are five citations to support the smear of 'far-right'.WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V

Reference 1: the article is written by Mark Scott for the New York Times and labels "Jack Posobiec, a journalist with the far-right news outlet The Rebel". Jack Posobiec was a US based correspondent and therefore direct competitor to The New York Times. Furthermore the article suffers from guilt by association and only evidence appears to be "the first to use the hashtag with a link to the hacked documents online, which was then shared more widely by WikiLeaks. Mr. Posobiec remains the second-most mentioned individual on Twitter in connection with the hashtag behind WikiLeaks, according to a review of the past 100,000 Twitter posts published since late Friday." sharing WikiLeaks does not constitute one as far-right. Therefore, the New York Times' labeling of Rebel Media as far-right is an opinion.

Reference 2 the article is written by Sean Craig for Global News "The right-wing Rebel Media is facing growing criticism in the wake of its coverage of the deadly protests in Charlottesville" and "Ezra Levant’s far-right video and commentary network The Rebel spent the last week in damage control, trying to distance itself from the extremist alt-right movement whose values many have alleged the site’s content too often sympathized with." Guilt by association, and mixing opinion with facts; specifically "many have alleged the site's content too often sympathized with [alt-right movements]. There is no link or person stating these opinions; therefore, it is safe to assume these are the opinions of the author and do not belong in a fact piece. "Levant — a long-time conservative persona who has morphed from early Reform Party figure to Western Standard publisher to right wing Sun News Network host to independent far right internet gadfly" No proof for assertion and actively disproves as immediately following this opinion is a statement of denouncing the alt-right by Ezra Levant. Acting in good faith the author should accept the persons denouncement or provide evident to disprove the denouncement.

Reference 3 the article is written by Graham Ruddick for the Guardian "Katie Hopkins, the former Mail Online columnist, has joined far-right Canadian website the Rebel Media, where Tommy Robinson, the founder of the English Defence League, is also a contributor." The Guardian (UK) is a direct competitor to Katie Hopkins and Tommy Robinson and they conveniently forget to mention that Tommy is the former leader of the EDL and left when it became to radical (lie by omission). This website is labeling without providing substantive evidence to back up the claim (circular referencing). "being accused of publishing deliberate provocation rather than legitimate commentary." is an opinion. "One of her most controversial pieces involved comparing African migrants crossing the Mediterranean to “cockroaches” and calling for gunboats to stop migrants reaching their destination." actually evidence that could be used to state that Katie has opinions further right, however the article does not mention Katie as far-right; but before Katie has joined the Rebel Media they are already Far-right (lie by structure).WP:NPOV

Reference 4 the article is written by Maya Oppenheim for the Independent "Canadian far-right activist Lauren Southern has been detained in Calais and banned from entering the UK. Ms Southern, who worked for far right Canadian site The Rebel Media, was held by Border Force in Coquelles on Monday." Labeling via opinion, circular referencing, lie by structure, guilt by association (to Mr. Sellner) and Independent is UK based and direct competition with Tommy Robinson, Lauren Southern and Independent journalist Ms Pettibone.

"Dr Joe Mulhall, a senior researcher for anti-racism campaign Hope not Hate, raised concerns about Ms Southern's activism. (political opponent)

"We’ve been watching Lauren Southern for some time, and she has gradually become more and more extreme in her outbursts and associations,” he told The Independent in a statement. (not evidence)

“The decision to refuse her entry came after she distributed racist material in Luton on a recent visit to the UK." (attempt at evidence Lauren Southern handed out Pamphlets stating "Allah is Gay/ Allah is a Gay God" is vice far-right? Was Jesus Gay? or the Guardian stating that a god is gay does not amount to racist material, as it was not based on race but religion.)

Reference 5 the article was written by Alastair Sharp and is actually the most honest and well written, however there is this statement, "Globe and Media was uncomfortable with the site's increasing harsh tone and growing association with the likes of white nationalist Richard Spencer." That is a weird way of quoting Brian Lilley, because he isnt quoting Lilley he is paraphrasing and changing Brian Lilley from Global News Article “I don’t think these guys (rebel media) are racist, but I think there’s… ahh, it’s getting too close for these guys (alt-right)," and “I get activist journalism, but activist journalism for someone like Richard Spencer, to me, is simply denouncing the guy because he’s a Nazi.” The second quote does not make sense. It does not mention who is doing activist journalism for Richard Spencer and I have not found any instances of doing journalism for Richard Spencer, other than maybe defending his right not to be punched in the face without provocation . If he is talking about supporting other "alt-right persons or far-right persons then he should point to the specific instance of this occurring rather than speaking in broad generalities.

Therefore Rebel Media page should be modified to indicate that "their competitors insist the Rebel Media is Far-right, however the Rebel Media has denied this allegation."

D3bug l0gic (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Purest FALSE BALANCE. The Rebel Media is simply not comparable to Global, much less The Independent or The Guardian. The latter are paradigmatic Reliable Sources, and the idea that they would stoop to "smear" The Rebel as "far right" is absurd. They use the label for this news outlet because that (and not the labels preferred by D3bug) is how The Rebel is perceived by more responsible journalists. There are many, many other citations available to this effect; let's not go there. Newimpartial (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Yup. We summarize reliable sources, not source we personally wish were reliable. The New York Times, Guardian, etc. are reliable. Pedantic WP:SYNTHy dog-whistles about "Islam isn't a race" are not useful. "Facts over feelings" indeed. Grayfell (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

References

The "New York Times", "The Guardian", "The Independent", etc. are independent reliable sources. What they directly state about the topic is verifiable.

If you wish to challenge that they are reliable, please take the issue to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I'd suggest starting with the New York Times. Good luck.

If you feel Wikipedia should drill down on sources to determine if the sources' sources support their statements (and presumably the sources' sources' sources and their sources ad infinitum), you seem to be challenging WP:V, one of Wikipedia's pillars. (While it is possible to change, it won't be easy. You might raise the issue on the talk page for the policy or at the Village Pump.)

If you are simply displeased that Wikipedia accepts mainstream media as reliable sources, calls the far right "far right", etc. you may be happier editing either Conservapedia or Metapedia. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

User: Grayfell please assume good intentions and do not use such harsh tone, this is your first warning. Also Islam is a religion not a race, you can join or leave the religion of Islam. Please provide reference if you wish to state otherwise.

User Newimpartial I understand your opinion now thank you for clarifying, however, your opinion on what constitutes competition is strictly speaking just that, an opinion. Secondly, I am not questioning the validity of these sources, however do these sources not have to provide evidence for subsequent labeling? Notice that I am not questioning the events that are being reported. Rather I am pointing out flawed logic and reasoning. Guilt by association and circular reasoning can occur on any newspaper or person. Yes, the better papers should probably be less likely to have these occurrences, but they are not perfect. Btw your using circular logic "how the The Rebel is perceived by more responsible journalists". Is far-right not quantifiable to specific actions? No, its based on subjective journalist opinion.

D3bug l0gic (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

No evidence is necessary; we trust the conclusion of political journalists. We state it as fact if it is universally agreed upon (among these reliable sources). If it was controversial, which it is not, we would attribute the opinions. I have previously tried to remove the alt-right label and failed to convince anyone, and many have tried removing the far-right label, so I doubt you're gonna get any consensus. wumbolo ^^^ 20:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I tried, and failed, to read the TL;DR screed that started this thread and for some reason this quote popped into my head:

“There will be a prize of half a crown for the longest essay, irrespective of any possible merit.” ― Evelyn Waugh, Decline and Fall

--DanielRigal (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

D3bug, Wikipedia uses reliable sources, not original research. Second-guessing the accounts of reliable sources, when performed by WP editors, is by definition original research. Newimpartial (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The sources cited are reliable by Wikipedia's standards. What reliable sources say, Wikipedia considers to be "verifiable". Reliable sources do not have to provide evidence for anything they say.

If reliable sources said "The Rebel Media is a cheese sandwich", Wikipedia's article would say The Rebel Media is a cheese sandwich and include cites to reliable sources (like NYT, Guardian, etc.). - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

how hard is it to remain charitable User:DanielRigal?

User:Wumbolo yea I think User:SummerPhDv2.0 basically sums it up when you rely on people that use circular references. I'm not attacking variability, I'm seeing either lazy work, or political hackney, the number of people who have come on to attempt to edit away from far-right might indicate that there is controversy but no because infallible media (reporters) call a competitive company far-right. At least User:Newimpartial understood what I was getting at the rest of you it appears flew right over your head. D3bug l0gic (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@D3bug l0gic: I started to get into this discussion and then realized that SummerPhD. and Grayfell have been editing for (a random guess) 10 years each and you have two days under your belt. Stick around for a few years or so and try again. Carptrash (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

D3bug l0gic used the word "charitable" with the implication that I was being less than that. Amazingly, this is closer to being on topic that it may seem. The Wikimedia Foundation is indeed a charitable organisation but it is not a charity for the purpose of providing editors with a playground or a soapbox. It is a charity for the benefit of the readers. In the case of Wikipedia, it exists to provide them with a free encyclopaedia covering all topics in a neutral encyclopaedic manner based on the best external sources available. It is not in the interests of our readers to allow poorly referenced or politically biased nonsense to be added. In fact we have a policy (in addition to the classic WP:NPOV) that speaks directly to this sort of behaviour: WP:SOAPBOX. I suggest that it is well past time for D3bug l0gic to step down off theirs. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2019

The Rebel media is a right of center political and social commentary media website. Coniferblue (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.

Please also note that Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2019

The Rebel's list of current contributors no longer includes Jack Buckby Done or Janice Atkinson Not done. They should be moved from the "Notable contributors" section to "Former contributors" and the "UK contributors" subheading should be removed. Not done As well Rob Shimshock is a redlink so his name should be removed from Notable contributors and not listed at all. Done 216.154.60.97 (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done: Janice Atkinson might be an oversight. She still has a bio here: https://www.therebel.media/janice-atkinson and a link on her website with no acknowledgement that she is no longer a contributor. Buckby has been moved to a former contributor, and Shimshock has been removed as a red link. Orville1974^talk 02:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

Could we add https://tnc.news/ to the "see also" section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.16.78 (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Please move Tanveer Ahmed, Sebastian Gorka, and Katie Hopkins from the " Notable contributors" section to the "Former contributors" section.

According to Canadaland, Hopkins and Gorka are no longer with the Rebel: "Having joined the site in January of 2018, Hopkins’s tenure lasted nearly a full year. Former Trump advisor Sebastian Gorka, Rebel Media’s other high-profile get last year, stuck around for just two and a half months."[9]

Additionally, Tanveer Ahmed has not contributed since April 2018[10] and is not included in the list of current contributors.[11]

The three are not listed as Rebel contributors in the site's 2018 annual report in the section "A great team"[12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F2C0:9338:6200:E4E6:7228:7657:7DA1 (talk) 04:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! — Newslinger talk 10:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Newslinger: Thanks. You missed one: Katie Hopkins should be moved from the UK contributors subsection to "Former contributors" as well (and the UK subheading should probably be removed and the remaining content merged with the parent section). 2607:F2C0:955D:1800:3994:C48D:6D8:282D (talk) 11:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done. All done now. Sorry about that. — Newslinger talk 11:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Proud Boys far-right *and* neo-fascist?

Having "far-right neo-fascist" is a duplicatation as neo-fascists fall under the far-right and this isn't an article about the McInnes or the PBs, it seems to be described more often as far-right so it should be shortened it to that.Swil999 (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

If we accept this position, then both Rebel Media and the Proud Boys are far-right, while the Proud Boys are specifically neo-fascist. Phrasing it this way explains the commonalities between Rebel Media and this separate, but related, group. This wording also provides a relevant detail of this other group for context. This information should be better-explained in the body of the article instead of the lede, but the wording seems fine.

Since this has come up a lot very recently, if there is some Proud Boys discord or subreddit or something where this is being discussed, please see WP:CAN and WP:MEAT. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

"Boycott of Conservative Party of Canada"

Personally, I suggest that we renamed it to "Distancing by the Conservative Party of Canada" because neither sources http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/after-events-cancelled-at-toronto-campuses-andrew-scheer-says-universities-have-right-to-decide-who-gets-space or this or this "https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/08/17/andrew-scheer-says-he-won-t-do-interviews-with-rebel-media-until_a_23080706/" indicated that the party boycotted it also.

or

We call it a boycott but include the latest article https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-top-conservative-aide-seen-speaking-to-rebel-media-who-are-banned/, which argues that they were banned from covering the event becuase “We don’t give media accreditation to activist groups" stated the spoke person. Which one is better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:22:4000:110:1ffe:bcdf:721d:e775 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Rebel News issued a condemnation of the Unite The Right Rally afterwards that is not mentioned in the article "The aftermath of Charlottesville has hit The Rebel, an ultra-conservative online Canadian media outlet, particularly hard, with three regular contributors resigning over its recent content, despite its proprietor issuing a disavowal of the alt-right and one of its most popular personalities harshly condemning the rally and its organizers." Also, the coverage mentioned at source #60 only mentions the reporter Faith Goldy's "narration" of the events. Here it is: "For those who'd looked away from The Rebel's racial appeals, Goldy's breathless narration in favour of the white nationalists made it hard to unsee." I can't find her actual footage with audio but can find an interview that took place after the events with her while the video plays in the background as she walks around. She was fired for the interview. You can't tell what she is saying at the actual event so we don't know if the narration that the writer in source #60 is talking about is the coverage itself or the interview that got Faith Goldy fired. (Source #60 Publish Date on Tue Aug 29 2017 was after the interview video was posted on youtube on Aug 18, 2017 so its possible the interview is being conflated with the actual coverage) The source #60 is really a condemnation of the far right racist elements of the Canadian Conservative Party in general since the 1980's (don't know Canadian politics. Don't know if Source #60 writer is making a false claim of association or if the Canadian Conservative party is really welcoming of Nazi like constituents). Also, the article notes that the coverage is a live stream. So basically it was live streamed and then a bunch of bad optics happened and it looks like Rebel News was incorrectly blamed for it. If Faith Goldy's actual footage can be found we would know what really happened but I can't find it. I think the article may be slanted and I think this is becoming extremely common on Wikipedia. If what the article infers is true (that Rebel News covered the events in a live stream that supported the alt-right/nazi/kkk/racist elements of the rally) then evidence should be found for that and sourced. Otherwise, it looks like the Canadian Conservative Party just reacted to bad optics due to a live stream where Rebel News had nothing to do with the horrible events of that day other than covering the story. The source article uses lines like "Now, the party has willingly engaged with The Rebel and the hateful sentiments it represents." but doesn't then back the statements up...it just mentions the coverage and demands the reader assume Rebel News to be in support of racism and/or white supremacy. To be accurate, someone needs to find the actual video of Faith Goldy covering the rally, otherwise its just asking you to assume the characterization in the source article is true and the source article doesn't really state anything but 'I'm the writer of the article and I say Rebel News was bad so Conservative Party is bad bad bad'. This looks like it could Child's writing. In the source article and in the Wikipedia article. As for the video - the interviewer is clearly a little beyond regular political discourse as he describes the events as the modern day "Beer Hall Putsch" (spelling) so it does sound like Faith Goldy did a questionable interview (she also compares it to the new Berlin - even though Beer hall Putsch was in Bavaria!!! People are idots!) but that would be her in that interview, not her coverage at the Unite the Right Rally and not Rebel News itself...after all...she did get fired for the interview (especial since it was the Krypto Report - a podcast associated with the Daily Stormer but again - that was Faith Goldy's interview; Not Rebel News and she was fired for the interview). Warning: If you listen to the Krypto interview, it has anti-Semitic comments towards the end about Ezra Levant mixing meat and milk.

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2019

Please remove David Menzies and Sheila Gunn Reid from the "Notable contributors" section as there are not articles on either of them. 216.154.60.97 (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Removed unsourced additions with no indications of notability--recommended WP:WTAF. Orville1974^talk 18:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I was the wiki editor who added these two, as it seems they contribute alot of the content to The Rebel Media YouTube channel and their own website. I know that David Menzies is/was a Sun Media columnist and also a person Charles Adler (of Corus) interviewed in the 2000s. There is currently an article of a David Menzies, a Scottish football player in the early 20th century. Is it OK to create a David Menzies (journalist) article if I can find some sources about him? Jimj wpg (talk) 21:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikiprojects Websites / Computing?

How is Computing related to an article on a conservative social media website? I believe the template on the Talk page should be removed. Jimj wpg (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2019‎

 Done I can't see the connection either. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2019

Please move Janice Atkinson from the "Notable contributors" section to the Former contributors section as she's no longer listed on The Rebel's contributor page. 199.119.233.247 (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done There is more of a lack of reliable sources than presence of them for moving her from "current" to "former" but her absence from the contributor page and the lack of any stories with her byline for 6 months argues in favor of the requested change. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2019

1) Please rename the article from The Rebel Media to Rebel News as that is the outlet's current branding (see [13]) and change the lede from "The Rebel Media (officially The Rebel News Network Ltd., stylized as THEREBEL.media, and shortened to The Rebel)" to "Rebel News (officially The Rebel News Network Ltd., and shortened to The Rebel, formerly The Rebel Media)". As well, please change the infobox accordingly.

2) Please move Gavin McInnes from the Notable contributors section to Former contributors. McInnes is no longer listed on the site's contributors page at https://www.rebelnews.com/meet-the-rebels and he was referred to as a "Rebel alum" on [14] September 3, 2019 post (alum meaning "graduate" but used in non-academic circles to refer to a former member, employee or associate). 69.165.159.57 (talk) 12:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Part 1 not done, please see WP:MOVEREQ. Part 2 not done, source is a dead link. Upsidedown Keyboard (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Requested move 8 January 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: MOVED. Reasonable nomination, which was unapposed after two weeks including the January 17, 2020, relist by Amakuru. Doug Mehus T·C 12:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

The Rebel Media → Rebel News – The platform has changed its name to Rebel News as per https://www.rebelnews.com/ The previous domain, http://therebel.media now redirects to rebelnews.ca and the branding has also changed accordingly. 199.212.27.189 (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC) —Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Question about incoming links to this page

I'm trying to figure out why this article has so many incoming links at Special:WhatLinksHere/Rebel News. I've checked a handful of the pages that link to this page, particularly the templates on said incoming pages, and there's no reference to this page or to The Rebel Media (its former name), so I can't figure it out.

Appreciate some assistance and troubleshooting on what I am missing. Thanks! :)

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 12:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Can you give us some specific examples of the pages that you checked and which had no reference to the Rebel News article? It's difficult to say what you might be missing otherwise. I checked 5 random ones and they all linked to it in some way. At any rate, there's always the possibility that maybe the results you viewed were cached and thus contained entries that no longer qualified for inclusion on the list at the time of access. 78.28.44.223 (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks also for your reply. Should I try purging the page? Doug Mehus T·C 16:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Nope, that didn't do anything. For clarity, I am referring to The Rebel Media; I can't find out how those incoming articles are linked. Doug Mehus T·C 16:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

It's because of a template, actually several templates. I'm not convinced it should be there but that's why.Praxidicae (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae, Thanks for the reply; the pages in question were the Canadian Alliance and related political party articles. Doug Mehus T·C 16:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Its because it's in the template. click show on each subsection and you'll see it. Praxidicae (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, let me try looking at that. Doug Mehus T·C 16:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit notice discussion

There is some discussion at Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Rebel News regarding the edit notice for this article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2020

1) Please move Gavin McInnes from the Notable contributors section to Former contributors. He has not contributed segments in a year, see https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2HWRRSziC_EC78epg_wUCtI2ijN2yC-K and is not listed as a current contributor at: https://www.rebelnews.com/journalists

2) Accordingly, in the lede pleade change the final sentence from "McInnes left the site in 2017, and rejoined the site in 2019." to McInnes left the site in 2017, and rejoined the site in 2019, but is no longer a contributor as of 2020."

216.154.47.232 (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see WP:NOR. Using the lack of evidence as a source for absence is original research. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Address

This is regarding whether or not to include the specific postal address in the infobox.

A comparison was made to Toronto Star. This is flawed for several reasons. That newspaper's address is independently notable: One Yonge Street. This is a landmark building. Further, the significance of this building is supported by many reliable sources. By comparison, 116 Tycos Drive, Unit 2 is not notable at all, and is very unlikely to ever become independently notable, since it appears to be a generic office building neighboring a residential area.

Further, this is merely the mailing address for a news website, and may or may not be the address for the headquarters. These are usually, but not always, the same, and a reliable source would be necessary.

Additionally, yellowpages.ca may or may not be reliable, but without a more substantial source, it's trivia. By policy, Wikipedia is not a directory. We do not repeat trivial details just because other sources with different goals include them. Grayfell (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Is 351 King Street East a notable address (see Globe and Mail), or 365 Bloor Street East, 3rd floor (National Post and Toronto Sun) or 503-192 Spadina Ave, Toronto, Ontario (Now (newspaper))? No, in all three cases they are fairly non-descript office buildings. As for whether or not the Yellow Pages are reliable, the Yellow Pages are a fairly iconic source. See Yellow Pages. 75.119.247.192 (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Other articles have other content. Maybe it belongs there, maybe it doesn't. There is no consensus for this particular address to be included in this article's infobox.

So, for the first on you list, The Globe and Mail center is a 500,000 sq ft office building with a big "Globe and Mail" sign at the top. People get married there. I'm guessing the building is about a dozen stories tall. The Rebel News address you listed is a single-story commercial space. On Google Maps, it appears to be a store that sells drapes and there is no other indicator the address is even correct.

Being iconic is irrelevant. It's not about how recognizable a website is, it's about reliability and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Grayfell (talk) 00:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

No one has ever gotten married at 365 Bloor East or 192 Spadina. The address is factual, it's listed on a reliable source, and there's no reason to exclude it. I've never heard it argued before that the actual phone book is not a reliable source. 75.119.247.192 (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

"On Google Maps, it appears to be a store that sells drapes and there is no other indicator the address is even correct." - that's a different unit. There are several units in that complex, Rebel is at Unit 2. 75.119.247.192 (talk) 01:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

To definitively say there are "several units at that complex" you either have a WP:COI or you know of a a reliable source you're not sharing for some reason. Regardless, this is still trivia and the source is flimsy at best. Grayfell (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

nope, if you search "116 Tycos Drive" in the yellow pages the other units come up. 75.119.247.192 (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I endorse everything Grayfell says, the specific address is inadequately sourced - specifically as being the HQ, is trivia, is not common practice here (except when the HQ is itself notable - which is the case with a few UK broadcast offices eg), and pointing to a few exceptions does not amount to an argument for inclusion. If it is so easy to find in the Yellow Pages, let people who need to know it find it there.Pincrete (talk) 06:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Rebel News is on Google Maps[15] so there's a second reliable source for you. 75.119.247.192 (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Neither is a secondary source for our purposes, neither mentions 'HQ", but IMO that isn't the issue - the issue is "why include?" We aren't a directory and would not include other contact info, even if we knew it.Pincrete (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Is Rebel News a reliable source?

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Rebel News --Rob (talk) 07:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Removal of sources and clean-up of references

I made an edit tonight, removing two uses of globalresearch dot ca URLs in this article. In each case, there already was an WP:RS-compliant source provided for the associated content. Be aware that globalresearch.ca is NOT considered WP:RS! (The globalresearch URLs happened to be biased against the Rebel News organization. i.e. my edits are not motivated by leftist sympathies.)

While editing, I also noticed over-citing and excessive use of primary sources. I am going to clean that up, with the objective of upholding WP:NPOV and WP:RS. There is some opaque formatting that requires readers to navigate through multiple footnotes in order to determine sources. That violates the spirit of good-faith editing. There are plenty of references cited in this article that DO adhere to Wikipedia reliable source guidelines. It is unhelpful to clutter up the article with those that don't.--FeralOink (talk) 04:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

You're mistaken. There were no cites of globalresearch.ca in the August 31 revision, which was the last one before your sudden spate of edits. I haven't time to read them all, but if this is an indication of how careful you are, I am dubious that they are good. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The edits Special:Diff/977151717 and Special:Diff/977133731 actually removed Global News (globalnews.ca), which is completely different from globalresearch.ca (RSP entry). Since Global News is considered generally reliable, I've restored the citations in Special:Diff/984655436. — Newslinger talk 09:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Date Launched

One point of order I noticed. If you refer to Rebel News' own YouTube channel the oldest video they have is a teaser dated Feb 14, 2015 which shows Ezra's prior work with Sun Media and a comment to "stay tuned" for therebel.media. The Wiki article notes Feb 14 2015 as actual launch date but based on their own media I think this is untrue. The oldest source I can find for any Rebel media is actually Feb 16 2015 so I am revising the start date to that unless someone else has a better source. Kav2001c (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)kav2001c

References

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2021

Could the hatnote please be moved above the {{update}} tag? Thanks, 142.161.113.242 (talk) 04:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done Morneo06 (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

See also

I attempted to remove the "See also" section, based on how it's used here. It's inherently problematic due to the combination of two separate things, working together:

1. WP:SEEALSO states "As a general rule, the 'See also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body". This makes a lot of sense, otherwise, every article would have scores of related articles in the "see also" section. We should always provide relevant links to related articles, but we should normally do so in the *body* of the article. Now, sometimes, there are a few links, that are generally relevant and of interest to readers, which aren't strictly on-topic, and worthy of inclusion in the body. Those few cases, can go in a "see also".
2. Due to WP:BLP (this article obviously relates to living people) and other policies, we must always cite any contentious claims, which includes any claim that is libelous if untrue. Words like "Neo-fascism" are inherently contentious and must always be cited when linked to living people (directly, or through an organization).

So, it is therefore impossible to have these kinds of terms in "see also" section. Now, I want to be clear: I am not objecting to using these terms, or indicating an association. I'm fine with that. I'm fine with the internal links to these articles. I fully concede readers of this article may be interested in them. I'm just saying, that they should be worked into prose in the body, with appropriate citations. If they already are, then that's fine. I'm not proposing any other changes. I'm just saying that they simply can't be used in "see also". In re-adding "see also" the editor said they were well cited throughout the article. Ok, if they are well that means that they are in the body, and there's no need for being in "see also". Or, are we going to place all relevant internal links in the "see also" section. The article "Ezra Levant" is highly relevant. I'm sure most who read this article, will also read that article. Should we list Ezra Levant in "see also"? Of course, not, it's redundant. It is clear the editors that added "See also" here, with certain terms, are clearly trying to say something significant about Rebel News. If you want to do that, do it in the right place, in the right way. --22:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Going by your argument, only one link has to be removed from the See Also section. According to the #WP:SEEALSO that you are going with "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense". It is common sense to identify the ideologies that are highly relevant to the very existence of Rebel News for further reading. Otherwise certain actions by Rebel News may be interpreted incorrectly. Nevertheless, I will remove the link that is repeated as per your request but the other links will remain as they are not linked previously in the article and are relevant and "would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic". (ArctcBanana (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC))

If they're not linked previously in the article, then they are necessarily not cited, and they must be removed. You can't make contentious statements about people based on your common sense. You have to have a citation. If these terms are worthy of mention, then mention them. But, to mention them *anywhere* you must have a citation. It's also important to remember that WP:BLP trumps WP:SEEALSO. You have to meet both, but you especially have to meet WP:BLP. Redundantly linking to something in WP:SEEALSO is a minor violation of a style guide. But, including a contentious claim about living people with no citations is a blatant violation of WP:BLP *policy* that must be removed. If you feel these words must be mentioned, to aid the readers understanding, then please, go ahead and do that. --Rob (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

These are well cited and factual articles that are very well connected to the far-right and alt-right movement. Your personal opinion does not warrant removal of material that is so obviously and factually connected (ArctcBanana (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC))

I'm not disputing that those articles are well cited factual articles. I'm demanding a citation that links each contentious term to Rebel News specifically in order to use the term *anywhere* in this article. Along with this, it is necessary for the prose of the article to reflect the reliable source(s), in explaining exactly what that connection is. Once that's done, you will have satisfied WP:BLP. Of course, at that point, any link in "See also" will become redundant. But, that's a lesser issue. --Rob (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Rebel News and See Also --Rob (talk) 00:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Rebel News is cited and sourced as a far-right organization motivated by/profiting from far-right activism. You can review sources in the references for this proof. The connection between far-right and anti-jihad or islamophobia is explained in each article respectively which provides the necessary connection between the the organization and the ideology that it supports/propagates/caters to/profits from. Please read the articles listed in the See also section to better understand the connection (ArctcBanana (talk) 01:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC))

ArctcBanana, whose first Wikipedia contribution was on October 23, is suddenly possessed of sufficient authority to re-insert whatever I revert e.g. here and whatever Rob (aka :Thivierr) reverts e.g. here. According to WP:EDITWAR -- which has not happened yet -- "Disagreements should be resolved through discussion." According to WP:NOCONSENSUS "... lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." which ArctcBanana lacks, since two editors have objected. (My objection was about poor sourcing not specifically related to "See also".) Does anyone support any of ArctcBanana's edits? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan Nobody has authority here and neither do you. You have been inserting unsourced and uncited rightwing propaganda on wikipedia. Your opinions are completely invalid. The difference between my edits and your reverts is that mine has numerous sources where your reverts have none other than your opinions. (ArctcBanana (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC))

Peter Gulutzan, you're on your own on your points. My concern is with "see also" only, as it prevents the required context, explanation, attribution, and source citation that is required for statements related to living people. A quick Google search, reveals a slew of possible sources[16] available to add appropriate content related to a variety of less-than-flattering-terms regarding Rebel News. It just takes an editor who has the time, and willingness to properly add the appropriate content, with appropriate sourcing. ArctcBanana, I honestly don't know why you're arguing with me. You seem to support stating that Rebel News is Islamophobic. So, please, go ahead and add that if you want. But, just include the appropriate explanation, context, attribution, and citation when you do it. You seem to be responding to me, as though I was some kind of defender of Rebel News, that didn't want bad words spoken about them. I don't care one way or another. I just want WP:BLP and WP:SEEALSO followed. --Rob (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

As I remarked at BLPN, BLP in relation to see alsos seems a bit of a red herring here. The article categories Rebel News in two islamphobia cats. That means from a BLP standpoint, "the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources". Despite their concerns & belief BLP applies, Rob is unwilling to challenge these categories. I assume this means they accept that the article justifies these categories otherwise there's a major BLP-violation they are ignoring.

In other words Rob apparently agrees that as per the article body and sources, Rebel News is an example of Category:Islamophobia in Canada and Category:Islamophobic publications or sufficiently associated with Islamophobia in Canada and publication sufficiently considered Islamophobic. They therefore cannot simultaneously claim the article body doesn't sufficiently outlay a connection to islamphobia such that mentioning it as a see also becomes a BLP issue.

Perhaps there are MOS issues. I won't comment on that but MOS issues are not BLP issues when they cleaarly don't raise BLP concerns. Which they don't here assuming that the article already basically says Rebel News is widely considered islamphobic or is considered islamophobic point blank (i.e. in wikivoice rather than attributed), even if it doesn't use that specific word; which must be the case if the cats are justified under BLP cat.

However since it is each editor's responsibility to maintain BLP, I would urge any editor to check the article themselves no matter how Rob feels. If other editors feel the cats aren't supported by the article body then the cats should be removed if people feel BLP applies. I did not and am unlikely to check myself since I'm not convinced it's even useful to apply BLP to the general point. (For starters, the article seems to have I think at least 18 names already. And these are blue links. I assume there must be a bunch we either are not notable or we lack articles on meaning at least 30+ people seem to be associated with this publication. I think anything which relates generally to publication involving 30+ people is getting beyond the area where BLP applies, although it could still apply to specific issues.)

TLDR: If people feel that the article already demonstrates that Rebel News is a an example of Islamophobia in Canada and an Islamophobic publication, then the BLP issue falls out the window. Note that it would probably still be better to simply change the article so it uses the word when it supposedly already basically says the same thing without using the word, but IMO editors shouldn't feel like BLP is hanging over their heads if if isn't. WP:CRYBLP is harmful to actual BLP concerns and if Rebel News is an example of Islamophobia in Canada and Islamophobic publication as per the article body and sources, than any suggestion islamophobia in the see also is a BLP violation is IMO straying in that territory.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Just because I have tried to have a narrow and simple focus on "see also", doesn't mean I support everything else in the article. Please don't put words in my mouth. If you or anybody feel a category isn't properly supported by content and sources, than please just go ahead and remove it. I didn't want to *personally* remove categories that I knew could easily be re-added with new sources (not yet present). However, any editor is absolutely entitled to remove such categories if they don't currently have the required sources in the article. I'm allowed to try and fix one problem in an article, without trying to fix everything else. "Categories" and "see also" are two separate things. I don't need to solve both at once. As you helpfully pointed out at WP:BLPN, WP:BLPSEEALSO makes clear contentious terms don't belong in BLPs (and therefore BLP-related articles). I consider "see also" settled. --Rob (talk) 03:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Rebel News is not a living person and the staff are not morally or legally responsible for RN's output. That does not mean we have carte blanche to say what we want, but it does mean BLP is not a significant consideration except for specific actions by named individual members of staff.Pincrete (talk) 07:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

RN is Ezra Levant. Everything we say about RN is about Levant. The two are inseparable. You can't call RN Islamophobic or neo-fascist, or whatever, without implying it about Levant. This ain't IBM or some other faceless giant corporation. Also, even without BLP, I think it's frankly pretty shoddy editorial practice, to throw around contentious words, without explicitly stating what you're implying. Regardless, contentious terms still do require citations in all articles. BLP just increases the urgency of requiring sources for contentious claims, and gives editors more poor to immediately remove them without discussion. "See also" was never meant as a list of labels for a subject. It's a simple list of non-contentious logically related internal links, that would likely be added in a fully developed article, or articles that can't naturally be worked in (such as "List of" articles) but relevant. In any event, you can't use literalism as loophole to bypass BLP. RN isn't literally a living person, but the content of this article is about one. --Rob (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree at all, the standard of sourcing for a 'see also' is much less strict than for article text or categories as there is no single, fixed implied connection. If a publication in India was known for its campaigns against violence against women - an apt see also might be "Bride burning" - no one could possibly construe that either the publication or its owner were being accused of being 'bride burners' or endorsing the practice.

However, that discussion is a bit esoteric and academic. What specific items in the see also's do not have a sourcably close connection to RN? Pincrete (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I came across this again a long time late, but Rob's particular opposition seemed to be the Islamophobia see also. As I pointed out, this opposition made no sense, since they never argued for removal of the Islamophobia categories even though these were logically far bigger issues if it was correct that islamophobia was not supported by the article body and sources. Indeed at BLPN, they came up with some IMO convoluted argument which made no sense as to why the categories were okay but the see also was not. AFAICT, I'm not the only one who felt their argument made no sense, and they did not seem to gain much support at BLPN and the discussion petered out. I came across the discussion at BLPN and although I didn't re-read it that well, I still have no idea why they decided the cats were okay but the see also was not when if they really felt the article body and text did not support the see also and that it was a BLP issue, they could have followed what WP:BLPCAT says and demand we remove the categories as well which may not have gained much support, but at least wouldn't have resulted in debates about the logical inconsistency of their argument. Nil Einne (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Removal of opinion from description of the Organization

I would consider slapping the term "Far Right" onto a media organization to be more inline with a personal opinion, rather than factual information. With the only evidence for that opinion being over a decade old, and the individual who was responsible for that example is no longer a part of the organization. (The source material cant even be found anymore for that example).

I request that the opinion of Rebel being "far right" be removed, or be adjusted to right wing. Probiasremoval (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

No. we reflect what reliable sources say, and reliable sources say that Rebel News is far-right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

New here and have a question. Why is Rebel News labelled as ALT-RIGHT when all the sources sited for but one cited for this sentence call them "Far-Right"? Also why is there no Talk about Far Right being changed to ALT-Right. Thank you. NirakCanada (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I endorse what NirakCanada says above - all the sources speak of far-right rather than alt-right. I appreciate that there may be a huge overlap, but far-right is the term mainly used in the sources here. Several of the sources speak of Rebel News 'cosying-up' to the alt-right, but that is reflected already - later in the lead. Pincrete (talk) 06:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Reliable sources? The sources used have been criticised for being left wing. Hardly reliable. 194.33.196.6 (talk) 08:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that using the term "Far-Right" or "Alt-Right" is exactly a fair description of Rebel News since all the sources listed are from Rebel News' competitors who have seen a decline in readership/viwership since the creation of Rebel News. I think a more accurate term would be "right-wing conservative" and/or "right-wing libertarian" and yes I do have to agree to the person above: 194.33.196.6 (talk) 2A02:C7F:D46C:9900:3942:EDE4:57A8:FB40 (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I've added academic sources that support the "far-right" descriptor. — Newslinger talk 09:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I've viewed a couple of their videos and believe alt-right or far right is not an accurate description of the outlet. Libertarian would be more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:7000:d818:9e00:b090:c38d:6926:b157 (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Libertarianism is a philosophy, not a euphemism. If you have located high-quality academic sources that assert that Rebel News is not far-right, feel free to share them. — Newslinger talk 04:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Anything right of Vox is 'far-right' these days. The centre line keeps moving left, because the 'far-left' is just going really far to the left... 'Far-right' honestly doesn't mean anything anymore, just like when everyone is called racist or Nazi for saying that biological men can't be women.

You'll never win this on Wikipedia, because it is also a leftwing organisation, despite claiming neutrality. You can look at locked articles aplenty that support this claim by myself and others.

All the sources approved will only ever be leftwing sources that call Rebel Media 'far-right', because most sources are leftwing with an agenda and not neutral. AndrooUK (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• Agree with the right libertarian. Rebel most opposes restrictions instead of advocating. —— CommInt'l (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Islamophobia template

Another editor can try to help me understand if Isi96's edit of adding the Islamophobia template is justified? CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't pretend to understand Isi96's edits, but, partly copying from what I said about a template on Parler: I oppose use of the sidebar template. an RfC said that "additions should be only be done rarely and for cases that are the most obvious", WP:SIDEBAR says that articles with this sort of sidebar should "be fairly tightly related", and I fail to see how these requirements are met by mentioning Islam in the article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC) -- Update: corrected a small copying error. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Based on this there is no clear mention of explicit Islamophobia in the article. All of the mentions are simply tags and portals. It's obvious Rebel is a troubling news network but I fail to see the need to over tag it. CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I added the template because it already included Rebel News. Isi96 (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

What is the license of the logo?

Is the domain really PUBLIC DOMAIN? Just because something is on the interwebs...does not mean it is PUBLIC DOMAIN. Can anyone cite sources that the Rebel News logo is public domain? If not then the Rebel News Logo should be removed. MiroslavGlavic (talk) 07:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, MiroslavGlavic. The licensing language states The depicted text is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain because it is not a “literary work” or other protected type in sense of the local copyright law. Facts, data, and unoriginal information which is common property without sufficiently creative authorship in a general typeface or basic handwriting, and simple geometric shapes are not protected by copyright. This logo consists of text in a commonplace font, and is therefore ineligible for copyright protection. Cullen328 (talk) 07:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. It's the logo of Rebel News. I thought it would of been copyrightable.

How come it isn't yet IBM's IBM text logo that we all know is copyrightable? MiroslavGlavic (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit war

An IP has been changing sections that appear to have consensus established earlier, as evidenced by notes in the text which state not to change without discussion on the talk page. I am neither familiar nor bonded to the subject but leave this as a place to discuss and avert an edit war. Ifnord (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Ponyo has temporarily blocked 70.48.197.212, if that's whom you mean. But if somebody has sprinkled orders in the article about not changing, without explanation, it's probably a violation of WP:HIDDEN. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Accused of spreading misinformation

CaffeinAddict has inserted in the lead the sentence "Rebel News has been accused of spreading misinformation." I reverted. CaffeinAddict re-inserted. I don't think there's disagreement that the accuser is Justin Trudeau, as the cites indicate. I contended that since the accuser is Justin Trudeau it's against WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and it's so natural that politicians criticized by Rebel News will want to criticize Rebel News, so that it's not worth putting in an encyclopedia. The first sentence of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution." There is a repetition of the accusation, attributed, later in the article, and it too should be removed. Any other opinions? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Your description is a bit misleading. One gets the impression that the addition just happened and you reverted. Instead, you reverted long-standing content backed by three RS, IOW content that has achieved a consensus version status, and you reverted it out-of-the-blue. That was a Bold edit and it was Reverted. Now we're Discussing, so BRD is being followed.

If there's anything wrong with the content it's the lack of attribution and specificity in the lead, so just attribute it and mention it's anti-vax misinformation. Such disinformation is pretty serious business, so mention in the lead is appropriate. I'll fix these defects. They are really bad actors and pushers of fringe misinformation on several topics, so anything that smacks of whitewashing should be avoided. -- Valjean (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

CaffeinAddict inserted in September, I never said or implied otherwise, I objected by pointing to the edit and pointing to a guideline and didn't bring up the WP:BRD essay-class page. I regard your suggestion about misleading and your claim about prior consensus as unjustified. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Not far right

“Far right” is linked to a page that discusses nazism/racism etc which rebel news is absolutely not. Rebel news shows the side of the news that’s not being reported by the media.

Canadian news is government owned and funded, which realistically is a form of communistic propaganda (especially when it comes to vaccines), so that could be considered far right.. 2604:3D08:B77E:400:A598:2695:E633:A032 (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

"Far right" doesn't necessarily have to be nazi. There are other aspects to far right. Your statement ("Rebel news shows the side of the news that’s not being reported by the media.") indicates a source so extreme that no mainstream media cover what they cover. In this case, that justifies the "far" part of "far right". On a personal level, a reasonable person should eschew such sources, be they right- or left-wing. They are ALWAYS unreliable. -- Valjean (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I see on this page it's a constant battle to have far right removed. If you really want far right removed, then find WP:VER sources that say otherwise. And / or look at the sources that claim Rebel is far right and make sure they pass WP:VER. Simply removing far won't get you anywhere. Masterhatch (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

No, good luck with getting it removed. "Far-right" in the lead is sourced in a footnote which covers seven reliable sources. Bishonen | tålk 20:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC).

I'm not saying it's possible, I'm just explaining to the IPs the way wikipedia works. Masterhatch (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that 'far-right' should be revised. Rebel News' ideologies do not align with far-right. For the time being at least, 'far' should be removed as it could be considered a neutrality issue. Clearly, no-one can come to a consensus so just calling it conservative instead would still be accurate whilst not potentially disparaging the organisation. Attydatty (talk) 09:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Rebel news is not "far right". The term is provocative and attempts to mislead the reader. Far right is understood by Wikipedia itself and by readers as counter to the respectful free democratic traditions of Canadian rights and freedoms. This is not a characterization that can be made of Ezra Levant, for example, a sober presenter on Rebel News. I am not associated in any way with him or with Rebel News; just a Wikipedia user and occasional supporter of Wikipedia, concerned with the harm that may be done by mischaracterization and misunderstanding. Thank you to the reader of this for considering this small important point. Eric Stein Feb 21, 2022. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.64.17.244 (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

High-quality academic sources confirm that Rebel News is a far-right publication. They are already cited in the article, and for your convenience, I have reproduced these citations below (emphasis added):

In 2015, he established Rebel Media, a far-right outlet that regularly features global and domestic “stars” of the nationalist movement.

Perry, Barbara; Scrivens, Ryan (19 August 2019). Right-Wing Extremism in Canada. Springer International. p. 37. ISBN 978-3-030-25169-7 – via Google Books.

Far-right Twitter accounts come and go, often generating significant traction without any obvious relation to organised movements. As a stage of his reinvention of self after the EDL, its leader Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (‘Tommy Robinson’) reinvented himself as a journalist, working for the Canadian far-right media company Rebel Media.

Titley, Gavan (2 July 2020). "The distribution of nationalist and racist discourse" (PDF). Journal of Multicultural Discourses. 15 (3). Taylor & Francis: 7. doi:10.1080/17447143.2020.1780245. S2CID 221521303.

The Rebel Media, a far-right news organization, published articles by Canadian alt-right propagandists such as: “Want to stop cultural Marxist indoctrination? Cut public funding of universities” (Nicholas 2017); “Social justice is socialism in disguise” (Goldy 2016); and “How progressives use our kids for Marxist social experiments” (Goldy 2017).

Mirrlees, Tanner (3 August 2018). "The Alt-right's Discourse on "Cultural Marxism": A Political Instrument of Intersectional Hate". Atlantis: Critical Studies in Gender, Culture & Social Justice. 39 (1). Mount Saint Vincent University: 61. ISSN 1715-0698.

Far-right Canadian media outlets, for instance, have bombarded its subscribers with all kinds of pro-Trump, racist and xenophobic dialogue, both before and after Trump’s victory. Rebel Media, a popular far-right online media platform run by Ezra Levant, a controversial Canadian far-right political activist, writer and broadcaster, has been an outright supporter of Trump, publishing countless extreme-right leaning articles on why to support him.

Perry, Barbara; Mirrlees, Tanner; Scrivens, Ryan (27 February 2019). "The Dangers of Porous Borders". Journal of Hate Studies. 14 (1). Gonzaga University: 61. doi:10.33972/jhs.124. Archived from the original on 9 August 2020.

— Newslinger talk 03:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Not one of those sources could be considered a "high-quality academic source" for the subject at hand. Each of the journals has an ideological perspective. An academic's expression of opinion is not necessarily a reliable fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.36.173.62 (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS to see how we define a reliable source. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

My points still stand regardless of WP:RS, which I am well aware of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.36.173.62 (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

All of those sources are high-quality academic sources, as they are peer-reviewed academic journals from reputable publishers. As stated in WP:SOURCETYPES, "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." There is no evidence that each of the above journals have an "ideological perspective" that would negatively impact its reliability. The "far-right" descriptor is a factual claim, as the term far-right has a specific meaning in political science. — Newslinger talk 18:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

You have merely restated you opinion using different words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.36.173.62 (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

You wrote: "My points still stand regardless of WP:RS, which I am well aware of." So you're aware of our RS policy, but choose your own opinion instead. That means you don't belong here because you lack the attitude required of editors. Goodbye. -- Valjean (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Valjean Yes, I am saying it violates WP:RS and so you simply WP:NOTTHERE me. The sources clearly violate WP:PARTISAN and more. Is that how disputes are settled here by the Mods?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.36.173.62 (talk) 03:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

"regardless of WP:RS" doesn't mean "it violates WP:RS". It seemed to mean "in spite of what RS say, my points still stand", and your rebellion against what RS say was emphasized by your "which I am well aware of." Just in case I misunderstood you, I have removed the hat. -- Valjean (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The cited peer-reviewed academic sources are not partisan with respect to Rebel News. Additionally, WP:PARTISAN states, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective". — Newslinger talk 08:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

It also requires -"..level of independence from the topic the source is covering." Just look at the sources for heavens sake; those are independent from the topic? This is just the tip of the ice-berg concerning WP:RS. How are these sources even defining far-right? Have they justified their claim? The term 'far-right' carries a lot of emotional weight and should be used carefully. There are raft of issue here but am accused of lacking " the attitude required of editors" for bringing them up and told I do not belong here. Wow! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.36.173.62 (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, these academic sources, their authors, and their publishers are unaffiliated with Rebel News, which makes them independent. The verifiability policy and reliable sources guideline are both met. — Newslinger talk 12:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Bingo! RS are clear that Rebel Media is far right. -- Valjean (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Left wing sources, academic or otherwise, are not reliable sources as what is 'far-right'. Similarly, there is an expectation that a source demonstrates their point to some exrent. Not one of those sources does so; they simply express an opinion. They do not even define what 'far-right' is. Rebel News bears no resemblance to that defined in Far-right_politics, which alludes to neo-nazis, ultranationalist etc. Apparently, none of this matters or am I incorrect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.36.173.62 (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

There's no evidence that the cited academic sources are "left-wing". The verifiability policy requires content in Wikipedia articles to be corroborated by reliable sources; it does not require sources to contain additional information that is not used in the Wikipedia article (e.g. a dissertation on why Rebel News is "far-right"). But to answer your question, the above excerpts show that Rebel News has advanced the far-right Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and has published "racist and xenophobic dialogue", both of which are aligned with far-right politics. — Newslinger talk 18:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

So the sources are not left-wing? It is definitely demonstratable they are, but would take an enormous amount of time to do so. Especially, say, to anyone who point blank refuse to accept the point. Thus anything they say about Rebel News is reliable, regardless of it flying in the face of common sense? Wikipedia can do better than this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.36.173.62 (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

No, the academic sources are not "left-wing". They are reliable sources because, as WP:SOURCETYPES says, "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." Peer-reviewed academic sources tend to be written more carefully and fact-checked more thoroughly than news sources, which is why they are preferred when available. Your assertions have not been backed up by any evidence so far. — Newslinger talk 19:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The left- or right-wing bias of a source is never enough of a reason to reject it. It must be unreliable, and these are RS. -- Valjean (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Sentence inserted in the lead on 6 February 2022

Valjean on 6 February 2022 inserted in the lead: "They have also published climate change denialist views." citing a Financial Post article. I on 21 April 2022 reverted. Valjean on 21 April 2022 re-inserted. The source doesn't say climate change denial. Any other opinions? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

At Wikipedia, we equate "climate change skepticism" with climate change denial, just as we equate vaccine hesitancy with vaccine denialism.

Climate change denial, or global warming denial, is denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its effects on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions.

Vaccine hesitancy is a delay in acceptance, or refusal of vaccines despite the availability of vaccine services. The term covers outright refusals to vaccinate, delaying vaccines, accepting vaccines but remaining uncertain about their use, or using certain vaccines but not others.

There is no doubt that these apply to Rebel Media. Rebel Media is a fringe and extremist organization, just like Breitbart, and Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia where we give due weight to the mainstream POV and reliable sources that unequivocally condemn their views. Because this is one of their prominent views, it deserves mention in the lead. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Valjean This is not about what you claim "we" do at Wikipedia or vaccines etc. It is about the fact that the source doesn't say denial and there's no evidence that the source thinks skepticism is a synonym for denial. From the explanation in the note accompanying the WP:V statement that direct support is required: A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of Wikipedia:No original research. Everything in that linked policy is appropriate especially WP:STICKTOSOURCE. It's okay if you've decided WP:BRD doesn't apply to you, I'll wait a few days to see whether there are other opinions. If not, I'll try WP:3O. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I have tweaked it to this version that sticks even closer to the source, although I suspect that an RfC on the matter would justify (yes, what WE do here at Wikipedia, according to OUR policies) the version under discussion, as our justified use of synonyms means that "climate change denial"="skeptical of climate change". Here's the newest version, with the same wikilink: "They have also published views skeptical of climate change." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

References