Talk:BNN Breaking

Theft and fabrication by bnn breaking - first hand knowledge

As the author of a story for Stars and Stripes on Alice Byrne and Her family I can attest that BNN Breaking stole the material from my article and fabricated quotes and information. I talked with alice byrne today - the day after the story was published (2/14/2024) - and she had talked to no one at BNN Breaking and never said the words in the quotes on the bnn breaking "story." This is a scumbag outfit and any allowance for what they do is enabling fabrication, plagiarism and theft of intellectual property. they operate from the protection of the chinese government in hong kong. don't help them make excuses or justify their lack of basic ethics, both journalistic and business. anyone who works for them should be blackballed by any legitimate media company.

Stars and Stripes story:

https://www.stripes.com/branches/army/2024-02-14/alaska-military-families-army-soldiers-13002527.html

BNN Breaking plagiarism and fabrication (None of the quotes from alice byrne are real)

https://bnnbreaking.com/world/from-tropics-to-tundra-an-army-familys-alaskan-adventure

The photo was stolen from a website about christian baptisms at a lodge.

https://www.samaritanspurse.org/article/suddenly-he-was-in-the-water/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocwarner (talk • contribs) 20:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ocwarner, I've had to remove your addition to the criticism section because contrasting two articles is technically against WP:NOR. However, if there were a third party source commenting on this plagiarism it would be permissible to cite. Nonetheless your example is important to consider here on the talk page.

DanielMichaelPerry (talk) 03:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic, but this from TheJournal.ie may be useful for something:[1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on Recent Edits and Ensuring Article Neutrality

Hello everyone,

I've noticed that there have been some recent changes to the BNN Breaking article that significantly alter its content and tone. I am reaching out to engage in a constructive dialogue with all contributors, including @DanielMichaelPerry, regarding these edits. I would like to ensure that the article adheres to Wikipedia's core principles, especially the Neutral Point of View policy.

The recent revisions seem to have introduced content that may not fully align with the @Wikipedia:NOV NPOV standard, leading to a portrayal of BNN Breaking that could be perceived as biased.

To address this, I propose that we:

Review the contested edits together, discussing each point to understand the concerns and intentions behind these changes.

Collaborate to identify and agree on topics that actually are relevant for the subject matter that should be in a encyclopedia.

Strive for a balanced presentation that recognizes the achievements and recognition of BNN Breaking, ensuring that all significant viewpoints are fairly represented.

It's important to remember that Wikipedia is a platform built on consensus and respectful collaboration. I believe that by working together, we can improve the article in a way that reflects the facts while adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines.

To prevent any potential edit wars and ensure a productive conversation, let's use this talk page as our primary means of communication. If there are specific aspects of the article that you believe require adjustment, please share your insights and sources here, so we can discuss them openly.

Thank you for your attention and willingness to engage in this dialogue. I look forward to your constructive feedback and hope we can reach a consensus that benefits the quality and accuracy of the BNN Breaking article.

** Additionally, for those who are engaging with this discussion for the first time, I encourage you to compare the different versions of the article. It might seem puzzling that a news site, which serves as a source for thousands of Wikipedia pages and is frequently cited by reputable outlets like The Washington Post, People Magazine, and CNN, has recently been presented in a manner that raises questions about editorial neutrality. This contrast becomes particularly evident when comparing the recent introduction, as edited by @DanielMichaelPerry.

Is it conceivable that so many publications could consistently reference BNN Breaking's work if the portrayal suggested by the recent edits was accurate? This discrepancy underscores the importance of our discussion here. It invites us to critically evaluate the representation of BNN Breaking, ensuring it aligns with Wikipedia's commitment to a Neutral Point of View (NPOV), and reflects a balanced account that both newcomers and regular contributors can agree upon. 118.140.29.162 (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

You have cited no sources for your edits other than BNN Breaking itself; a clear conflict of interest and a prime example of WP:UNDUE. You have removed all information critical of BNN Breaking from reliable sources on the basis that it could "tarnish the reputation of the company", and not based on reliable external sources. You have removed sources that are not deprecated by Wikipedia, and then justified your own edits on the basis that BNN Breaking is not currently considered a deprecated source. WP:NPOV does not negate WP:FALSEBALANCE.

Furthermore, drawing the conclusion in the article that BNN Breaking is a reliable source based on the fact that it has been cited by other organisations borders on a violation of WP:NOR. Your edits are clearly disruptive and evidently not a good faith engagement with the article or the subject matter. DanielMichaelPerry (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello @DanielMichaelPerry,

Thank you for your feedback and for highlighting your concerns regarding the recent edits to the BNN Breaking article. I appreciate the opportunity to address these points and clarify my intentions, with the ultimate goal of ensuring the article meets Wikipedia's highest standards for neutrality and verifiability.

1. Source Citing and Potential Conflict of Interest: I understand your concern about relying heavily on BNN Breaking as a source. My intention was not to create a conflict of interest but to ensure the article reflects verified information. I agree that a diverse range of independent, reliable sources is crucial for a balanced article. I'm committed to working with the community to incorporate such sources that meet Wikipedia's reliability standards.
2. Removal of Critical Information: My edits aimed to question the balance and sourcing of criticism, not to censor valid, well-sourced critiques. Wikipedia's guidelines on Biographies of living persons (BLP) and Neutral Point of View emphasize cautious editing, especially concerning contentious material. I advocate for a discussion on the Talk page to reach a consensus on how best to present criticisms in a manner that is both fair and supported by reliable sources, adhering to Wikipedia's Verifiability policy.
3. WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:NOR: You've raised important points regarding the pitfalls of false balance and original research. My intention was to highlight the recognition of BNN Breaking by reputable outlets, not to draw unsupported conclusions or engage in original research. I welcome further discussion on how we can accurately represent BNN Breaking's reception and usage in the media, without violating WP:NOR.
4. Constructive Engagement: I am here to engage constructively and work collaboratively towards an article that everyone, including newcomers and regular Wikipedia contributors, can trust for its accuracy and neutrality. Let's use the Talk page as a platform for open dialogue, where we can propose edits, discuss sources, and strive for a version of the article that reflects the consensus and adheres strictly to Wikipedia's content guidelines.

Moving forward, I propose we collaboratively review the contested content, with a focus on enhancing the article's neutrality and factual accuracy. This includes reevaluating the sources and ensuring that any criticisms of BNN Breaking are presented in a balanced way, backed by reliable and independent sources.

I look forward to productive discussions and to finding common ground that respects the principles of Wikipedia and serves the interests of its readers. 182.153.171.116 (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Request for Transparency and Confirmation of Neutrality

Dear @Stale Meme and @DanielMichaelPerry,

In light of recent discussions and edits regarding the BNN Breaking article, and considering the accusations of potential conflict of interest directed towards my contributions, I believe it is crucial for us to uphold Wikipedia's principles of transparency and neutrality.

As we all strive to improve Wikipedia, ensuring the integrity of its content is paramount. This includes being vigilant against conflicts of interest that might affect the neutrality of articles. To this end, I respectfully request that both of you, as fellow contributors who have shown interest in the BNN Breaking article, confirm on this Talk page that you are not affiliated with any entity that might seek to negatively influence the portrayal of BNN Breaking. This is in the spirit of Wikipedia's guideline on Conflict of Interest, and it is intended to reassure all participants of our shared commitment to unbiased and fact-based content creation.

Similarly, I reiterate my previous statement that I am not affiliated with BNN Breaking or any party with an interest in the article's content, other than contributing to Wikipedia in a volunteer capacity. My aim is to ensure the article reflects an accurate, neutral, and comprehensive view, supported by reliable sources.

Creating a space where editors feel comfortable disclosing potential conflicts of interest voluntarily enhances the credibility of Wikipedia and helps maintain the trust of its readership. It also facilitates a more collaborative and constructive editing environment, where discussions can focus on content quality and adherence to Wikipedia's core policies.

I look forward to your responses and hope we can continue to work together to improve the BNN Breaking article and uphold the standards of Wikipedia. 182.153.171.116 (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I haven't made any attempt to look for WP:RS or check the sources in the article, but having "Critisism" as the first and only prose-section is not good WP-writing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not great, but the more I look into this, the more I can only find criticism. I'm not sure we can use a Substack blog as a source, but I found this analysis compelling: "Rephrasing news articles from major outlets is much easier and cheaper than actually hiring journalists all over the world" Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

That was present in the article yesterday, but I removed it. Personally, I think it should just be merged into the founder's article for now, with one or two sentences covering the criticism. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 13:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Humorously, [2] appears on the site, I'm sure the timing is just pure coincidence. Ravensfire (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree with @ARandomName123, we can merge it with the founder's article and this entire article can be rewritten as per platform standards.Tanhasahu (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I think considering the fact that BNN Breaking has frequently been used as a news source by other media outlets and on Wikipedia itself is enough to merit its own article. A few sentences on the founder's article doesn't seem sufficient to accurately reflect both the frequent usage of BNN Breaking as a source and the significant criticisms made against it. Most of the coverage of BNN Breaking has been negative and the layout of the article fairly and proportionately reflects that fact.

There are news outlets much less widespread and with no major criticisms against them that nonetheless have their own articles. If BNN Breaking were to be moved to the founder's article it would have to be much longer than the sections on his other ventures in order to give a fair and proportionate coverage of these facts. DanielMichaelPerry (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Being used by other media sources isn't a valid rationale for keeping the article. Besides, there doesn't have to be positive coverage, just coverage about its operations and history. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The main point is that despite being launched only two years ago, BNN Breaking has already attracted significant attention from major media outlets for its issues. Its history is relatively short but defined by significant criticisms made by reliable outlets that are more than trivial, and it is certainly notable in its own right. DanielMichaelPerry (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

"frequently been used as a news source by other media outlets and on Wikipedia itself" That doesn't matter, but the sources in the article makes a decent case for WP:GNG anyway. If someone wants to start a WP:AFD, they can, and we'll see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I feel the GNG bar would likely be passed, particularly with the recent addition about the defamation case. Their algorithm appears to be playing extremely fast and loose, and I wouldn't be surprised if they become quite notorious. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Going on a rant about supposed biases, misuse of donor funds, with a sprinkle of quotes from Larry Sanger seems to be the norm for rich people unhappy with their Wikipedia pages these days... ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

This was the main issue I had when writing this article. It seems that most of the coverage BNN Breaking has received is overwhelmingly negative, and I think it's important that this fact is reflected in the article. If they had received any positive coverage I would include it, but I've yet to find any. DanielMichaelPerry (talk) 03:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Shame the site is under attack.

Please go on publishing decent news. That's the main thing in your favor. it does seem pretty obvious to anyone reading this article that it's under attack, so I think that remains on your side. Just report on this story as a regular new story and try to do it with as much integrity as possible - and I think people will be able to see it. That's the mark of good journalism. Lawrence18uk (talk) 07:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not a forum about the subject of the article. If you want to make a case for the subject publishing “decent news”, you could join the discussion here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#bnnbreaking.com ?. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Appreciation for your insights, @Lawrence18uk. Your observations highlight significant concerns regarding the neutrality and balance of this article. It is evident that additional perspectives from diverse contributors are necessary to achieve a more balanced representation of the subject, as currently its written as an "attack piece."

Regarding the actions of @Barnards.tar.gz, it's crucial to maintain a collaborative environment on Wikipedia. While concerns about source reliability are valid and should be addressed through appropriate channels such as the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, the removal of BNN sources from Wikipedia pages is disruptive and should be approached with caution to avoid undermining the article's comprehensiveness. It's important that all edits and content management decisions are guided by Wikipedia's core principles, including neutrality, verifiability, and consensus-building. 49.130.118.20 (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to review my edits and suggest where using BNN as a source would be an improvement. Please also declare any conflict of interest you may have regarding this subject. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

If the article lacks neutrality and balance, bring the independent WP:RS that can correct them. In WP-land, if this article is a reasonable summary of the existing WP:RS, then it has neutrality and balance. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Barnards.tar.gz

The recent edits and discussion surrounding this page raise serious concerns about adherence to Wikipedia's foundational NPOV policy. Labeling the current state of the article as anything but a one-sided critique undermines the very essence of what Wikipedia stands for—providing balanced, neutral, and comprehensive coverage of subjects.

The transformation of the "Criticism" section into "Reception" without addressing the substantive issues of balance does little to disguise the fact that the article, in its current form, operates as a hit-piece rather than an informative piece. This is not in line with Wikipedia's standards.

The suggestion to review your edits and propose instances where BNN could serve as an improvement overlooks a fundamental concern: the wholesale removal of BNN as a source without a balanced consideration of its contributions or potential validity in certain contexts. This approach not only diminishes source diversity but also prompts questions about the impartiality of such editorial decisions.

I have already declared no conflict of interest with BNN, yet the continued push to portray the site in a negative light without substantial, balanced critique from diverse perspectives suggests a departure from Wikipedia's NPOV. The question now is: can those challenging the site's credibility and pushing for its negative portrayal say the same?

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Asserting that the article represents an "accurate summary of reliable sources" while it remains overwhelmingly negative and critical is a flawed argument. It's essential to ask: Are we truly striving for neutrality, or are we selectively interpreting what constitutes a reliable source to maintain a biased narrative?

Wikipedia is a collaborative platform where the goal is to inform, not to condemn. As such, it's crucial that you must revisit the principles that guide those contributions: neutrality, verifiability, and the inclusion of a multiplicity of viewpoints. 49.130.9.100 (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Please suggest some additional sources that could be used to improve the article. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

You are asking me to provide additional sources, when you essentially have written a hit-piece?

And then engaged in disruptive editing by changing the Criticism section to Reception via @DanielMichaelPerry, just to remove the template block? Then proceeded to delete Wikipedia sources from articles that included BNN without any guidelines from the community.

Then engaged in disruptive editing by removing the template and then asked @Gråbergs Gråa Sång to join you? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BNN_Breaking&action=history

Can we stop playing games here, it's clear what's going on here.

How about you start from scratch and follow the Wikipedia guidelines for BLP and NPOV? 49.130.9.100 (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPOV = Summarize the WP:RS. Is you want other WP:RS to be summarized, bring them. WP:BLP... not a problem per se, but a sentence on the founder's history was a bit off-topic for THIS article. I removed it, we'll see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, thanks for this. Whoever put that in there needs to reread the BLP very carefully. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it didn't belong in that place. Sort of a summary of Gurbaksh_Chahal#Domestic_violence_and_battery_conviction. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't assert, read again. "overwhelmingly negative" can be a result of reasonable summary of WP:RS, and on this website, that is "neutral", WP:FALSEBALANCE is not the goal here. So again, bring the missing WP:RS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Your disruptive edits and history clearly show a bias and that will easily reflect on anyone looking for a pattern. 49.130.9.100 (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Btw, I wonder if we're talking to some AI-generated text here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, please come again! 49.130.9.100 (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

One is reminded that WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

External link

Is The Curious Case of BNN acceptable per WP:ELMAYBE #4? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't normally suggest so if there was any real controversy here, but the reliable sources are completely one-sided, with the only dissent coming from Mandy. I also notice the author, Conspirador Norteño, has been described as an account known for investigating misinformation online by a reliable source: [3]. So IMHO that gives it enough credibility to include in the external links section. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

LOL, you want to include a person with the name Conspirador Norteño (which isn't even a real name or person) with a medium.com blog page as a reliable source.

Tell me you are not getting paid to attack this page, when you clearly are. 49.130.9.100 (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

No, I do not think that that is acceptable at all--wait, after looking at the France24 article, and this one, I withdraw that objection. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC) Drmies (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Took a quick analysis and found all of the wikipedia usernames that have edited the founder's wiki page in a negative light for years have now taken a sudden interest to do the same to the BNN Breaking page in the same light.

You guys couldn't even try harder.

This is a serious violation of Wikipedia's policies. 49.130.9.100 (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

How desperate are you now? Those articles aren't even from the publications, they are from "contributors." 49.130.9.100 (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

And 72h block. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The log should reflect that the range is now blocked for a month. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The guy does have some cred. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I saw the note at the Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. I think this link is acceptable under ELMAYBE #4 ("Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources"). I have no strong opinions about whether to include it, but I lean slightly towards including it, with a brief description of its contents. People who click the link should know that it's about computerized plagiarism detection, so they can make a decision about whether they're interested. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I haven’t heard of BNN breaking before.

Some of their news articles can be found at Google news --Dustfreeworld (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm taking the above as consensus in favour of adding the link, and so have added it. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Twitter Suspension.

The bit about BNN having their Twitter account suspended, makes it sound like their account was banned permanently, but they obviously got unsuspended as I've just been to their twitter account. Yakacm (talk) 12:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The only account mentioned in the cited source is @BNNBreaking, which is still suspended today. Belbury (talk) 13:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Fwiw, no twitter on their FOLLOW US page, which I can't link, but it's top-ish right-ish on their startpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2024

The site is using AI for its articles. It is pretty obvious, read the style of the text and tell me that it is not chatgpt! This is evident from the style of writing used in the articles. The use of words like "underscores", "inclusive" and "stands as a beacon" in a news article is not common and indicates the use of AI-generated content. I am an A-level history teacher and I have spoken to ChatGPT, Gemini etc numerous times and gained a pretty good understanding of what a typical AI will sound like. Also, check out GPTZero (which I use and my judgement to see how "AIish" (if you will) a student works sounds. Further evidence is below.

It should say: BNN Breaking is a news website based in Hong Kong launched in 2022 by Indian-American entrepreneur Gurbaksh Chahal. It has been criticised for posting large numbers of misleading and inaccurate news stories, using AI-driven content aggregation.

First look at these two articles:

https://bnn breaking.com/local-news/kathleen-bradys-successful-appeal-against-council-fine-in-north-wales-for-feeding-seagull

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/04/i-fought-a-birdbrained-fine-for-littering-and-won

This site is using AI to reword articles it is pretty clear from this that the site is using some kind of AI bot and not real journalists.

Now, look at this so-called "journalist"

https://bnn breaking.com/author/muhammad

How can you publish about 3 articles every 4 minutes on average???

It should say: BNN Breaking is a news website based in Hong Kong launched in 2022 by Indian-American entrepreneur Gurbaksh Chahal. It has been criticised for posting large numbers of misleading and inaccurate news stories, using AI-driven content aggregation.

There are also several reliable sources in the Wikipedia article as well. In my personal opinion, this article should NOT exist at all and should be deleted. It is a joke of a website and more like a news aggregator which is not notable. But oh well.

Thanks. 94.197.57.10 (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, I agree that the site is almost certainly using an LLM. However, Wikipedia summarises what reliable sources say about the subject, not the opinions of the editors, no matter how correct they may be. Sometimes we don’t need citations to state that the sky is blue, but I don’t think the claim about AI quite rises to that level of obviousness. To my knowledge, no sources outright confirm that the site uses AI, so we attribute the claim, and use “potentially” in the lead. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: As Barnards.tar.gz correctly points out we summarize reliable sources - drawing new inferences like this is not allowed. If you don't think the article should exist you can take it to WP:AFD, but I'd recommend challenging the site's notability or sources instead of arguing that it is AI-generated. Jamedeus (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

There is an argument to merge this article to Gurbaksh Chahal. If it happens, it happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Trimfeed

Heads up, BNN Breaking seems to be in the process of rebranding to Trimfeed. Their YouTube channel now identifies as @trimfeed, and one look at tr.im should be enough to confirm it's the exact same site, but under new livery, presumably to evade the Google ban. They seem to be trying to scrub the name "BNN Breaking". No RS coverage yet as far as I can see. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

We'll see what happens, perhaps some usable source will notice. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Some names are re-occurring, I'll say that: tr.im/authors. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)