Talk:Andrew Breitbart/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Andrew Breitbart died just after midnight at age 43

TPM is reporting it[1] Guettarda (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

CNN's front page as well. Guettarda (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/01/andrew-breitbart-dies-natural-causes-website-reports/ Andrew Breitbart dies of 'natural causes,' website reports, FoxNews.com

Andrew Breitbart's Death Reported, The Atlantic Wire (contains endorsement by Breitbart associate)
Andrew Breitbart dead at 43, Politico (note language accepting legitimacy of death; "Breitbart.com editor-in-chief Joel Pollak confirmed to POLITICO on Thursday morning that Breitbart had passed away.".
Jake Tapper (ABC News) confirms with coroner. [2] Dubhghlas (talk) 14:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Natural causes

At 43? The only actual source for the "unexpectedly from natural causes" diagnosis is from a statement on Breitbart's own website with ABC News just parroting the statement while noting the source. The ABC report does say they got confirmation from the Los Angeles Coroner's Office, but only as to time and place of death. The few hours that passed between time of death and these news reports is not sufficient for any sort of autopsy to have been performed and a plain "natural causes" is decidedly unlikely at 43 without some underlying factor. - Dravecky (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Forty-three isn't that young. Heart attacks, aneurysms, blood clots, strokes - these things get more common as you get older, but they're they're not unheard on in your early 40s. Natural causes is plausible. Guettarda (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
That is true, and natural causes are most likely. But the man had lots of enemies as well. IMO, Wikipedia would be best served by holding off on cause of death until the medical professionals have a chance to do an autopsy. At this point no one can know if the death was natural. 71.141.119.3 (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Like ABC at this stage we are better off repeating the phrase and noting the source. But we should take care to avoid innuendo. --TS 15:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

In reality we all die of something. Natural causes usually just means old age, so 43 would seem like an odd age to die of natural causes. That said, I am sure an actual cause will be released in a day or so. We can cool our heels until then and wait and see. Until then, reliable sources appear to be using the term natural causes, so thats what goes in the article.--JOJ Hutton 16:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree that noting that sources have reported "natural causes" as cause of death is appropriate. Agree with JOJ. For anyone coming here and wondering -- Andrew was tweeting until last evening, maybe no less than an hour or two before he died based on what is being reported. This suggests the heart attack or other catastrophic "natural cause" occurred rapidly. Its reckless to assert conspiracies.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

This entire section is pure speculation and should be removed per WP:NOTAFORUM. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

This section is discussing how to improve the article, and is therefore appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Await coroner's report for further insights and editing ! Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Allegations

My edit was deleted a little bit ago. I think we need more discussion about the Breitbart and James O'Keefe's allegations that African-Americans and other Democrats are involved in child sex trafficking. As I put in the deleted section:

Big Government broke the ACORN child sex trafficking scandal[1]

Since ABC News is supposedly "liberal" and if even the "liberals" are saying that blacks and other Democrats are involved in the sex trade, it must be true. The current paragraph about child sex trafficking doesn't quite capture the spirit that the tea party activists feel when they're raging out against oppressive Democrats who are involved in the sex trade. Just ask anyone who was at a tea party rally in 2009-2010. One of the most commonly talked about things was all about how Democrats are peddling sex with children for money. And it was all about the specific action the young Irish rebel named James O'Keefe engaged in.

Analoguni (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't even know where to begin with this, other than to say that these allegations, par for the course in the careers of Breitbart and O'Keefe, have no place in a Wikipedia article. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
But this is ABC News confirming it. In today's news. Analoguni (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
That right there is an example of how far the field of journalism has fallen. Breitbart didn't "break" the scandal; he concocted it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The deleted edit by Analoguni went far beyond the source into a bizarre and frankly racist rant about African-Americans and liberals. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and Analoguni has received a final and only warning. Acroterion (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Expansion on untimely death

Seeing as Mr. Breitbart was a mere 43 years old when he unexpctedly passed away, and it occurred right at the apex of his fame, I think it would not be undue to include something about it further up the page, rather than the current configuration of only at the bottom. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Kelly hi! 20:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Criticism?

Folks, this BLP violation was removed, for which I agree. However, should we have one place to note some notable criticisms, in context? Bearian (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No particular issues with that suggestion. However, I will point out that Breitbart feels that much of the criticism, fairly or unfairly, comes from mainstream media types themselves. And because of the nature of WP:RS, that criticism will tend to be weighted more heavily. Not sure how to address that concern but did want to point it out. Ronnotel (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
There already is a criticism section that has notable criticism in it. Go ahead and put any notable criticism there. That being said, I do not feel that anything in this article violates a Neutral Point of View, and I don't see why the criticism section is tagged for NPOV. It's all well-documented, factual, notable information. In my opinion, this entire article currently DOES follow the NPOV policy so there's no reason for a tag saying it doesn't. But I think there has to be a consensus among editors to remove that tag, or something like that, so I haven't removed the NPOV tag, but I think it SHOULD be removed if other people agree with me. --Yetisyny (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The article states that Breitbart added the longer context of Sherrod's statements only after receiving criticism that he had taken her out of context; one could get the impression that he was forced to by the controversy. After the first abortion-clinic flap, he started the practice of posting the "highlights" and the longer clips simultaneously. DId he abandon that practice in this case? Or was the author just making false presumptions based on the claims that he had taken her out of context? 75.148.21.9 (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Would mentioning that many of his critics labeled him 'scum' violate the neutral point of view? Ianbrettcooper (talk) 01:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Not if it's sourced properly and framed appropriately. There are no BLP issues anymore, and NPOV has nothing to do with the POV of the content. It's about how the motives of our editors might affect the way things are presented in a manner not existing in the original source. "Editors" are supposed to remain "neutral", not the content. Neutral content would make for pretty boring reading!
Show us what you've got and what you propose to do with it. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Confrontation with CPAC "Occupy" protesters

There are two separate videos the URLs which I posted. One is from Campus Progress: http://campusprogress.org/articles/some_context_on_andrew_breitbarts_epic_rant_to_cpac_occupiers/

The second is from WND, a right wing blog containing much of footage shot simultaneously with the first, containing Breitbart repeatedly shouting, "You are filthy freaks," calling the protesters "murderers," and "stop raping the people." There is a long interview with the WND "reporter" in which a raving Breitbart stumbles over words, repeats himself over and over, and which contains footage of him with a glass of wine in his hand, being cautioned against continuing to carry the wine glass as he proceeds to the confrontation. He is clearly extremely hostile and has to be restrained by hotel conference staff, pushing against the security to engage the protesters more closely. To suggest that an unedited video from WND is not a "reliable" source is laughable. Here's another posting of the Campus Progress video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4od4QQVK1o The Thom Hartmann show has a clip of the video playing on television as I write, repeating his denunciations over and over. The WND video is at: http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/no-vagrancy-cpac-refuses-to-be-occupied/

Please stop vandalizing this posting. Don't protest its veracity unless you watch the videos yourself. Activist (talk) 06:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's the text of the WND page.

THE RIGHT STUFF 'No vagrancy': CPAC refuses to be Occupied Exclusive video shows Andrew Breitbart's furious confrontation with protesters

Editor’s note: WARNING – the following video contains language that is not suitable for all audiences.

WASHINGTON – Attendees of the Conservative Political Action Conference at the Marriott Wardman Park in the District of Columbia were alerted this weekend to the sound of the police intercepting Occupy protesters.

While some members of the Occupy movement came into the Marriott restaurant to speak with CPAC attendees, others attempted a more violent confrontation, only to be stopped by security and law enforcement.

WND was on hand to record not only the altercation, but also a feisty response from conservative activist and media entrepreneur Andrew Breitbart.

Restaurant patrons moved to the balcony to observe the police action against the angry Occupy protesters. Breitbart was among the patrons.

Breitbart then left the restaurant balcony in order to follow the police as they escorted the protesters away from the Marriott entrance.

As Breitbart confronted the Occupiers with the history of rape and violence in their movement and shouted for them to “behave,” they continued to chant and shout insults at conservatives.

Eventually Breitbart and the other patrons were asked to return to the restaurant as law enforcement continued to secure the area.

WND followed to interview Breitbart, who stated that the Occupiers were Obama’s “shock troops” and that their tactics were similar to the infamous Gaza flotilla. He also condemned the movement for infringing on the First Amendment rights of the CPAC attendees and for attempting to subvert America’s Judeo-Christian legacy.

The video, available exclusively on WND.com, is below: Activist (talk) 06:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you read up on WP:OR. You don't get to watch the video and decide what it says or means. You don't get to watch the video and decide the importance of it. You are not a reporter and WP is not a Newspaper. Arzel (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The WP:OR states: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented (and as presented)."

In fact, contending that published material from two widely disparate politically sources that report almost precisely the same thing, and those videos and his patently clear and repeated quotes from both those videos where Breitbart is shouting, over and over, is somehow not "published" or "reliable" is a considerable stretch. It would seem that your objections are tantamount to contending that, i.e., if a contributor posted information that Lee Harvey Oswald was shot by Jack Ruby, that fact couldn't be posted unless a major media reporter was quoted as writing exactly the same thing that millions of viewers had actually watched. Activist (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Activist (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Concur with Arzel. Publishing commentary this way is definitely original research. Kelly hi! 17:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid it's not OR. The AP news story today covering the announcement of his death states clearly:

"He relished public combat with liberals - a YouTube clip last month shows him bellowing at Occupy Wall Street protesters, 'Stop raping people, you freaks!' Yet conservatives and tea party activists who loved him saw a crusader against corrupt politicians and what he called the hopelessly liberal 'old media guard'." [2] Whatever your feeling about Breitbart and your possible motivation to whitewash his behavior, there no OR here unless perhaps you don't feel AP is "reliable." I suggest that you request mediation if you disagree instead of involving yourselves in multiple instances of what I construe to be deliberate and unjustified vandalism. Activist (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of vandalism? Anyway, a cited quote from the AP would be one thing, your own personal analysis is quite another. You're welcome to seek dispute resolution, but I'm pretty positive that your commentary about a YouTube video, or using the video as a source, would be excluded based on similar cases I've seen at Sarah Palin and other articles. Kelly hi! 18:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not accusing you of vandalism. You haven't gratuitously removed anything. I used the word "yourselves" because two posters (and now another) have simply removed entirely well sourced material that reflects negatively on a person whom they may feel should be above criticism. One even retitled the section within which the material was posted to read "further activism" rather than the commonly accepted, in Wikipedia style, title as "controversies. Activist (talk) 06:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Were working towards consensus on the Controversies section, and I'm guessing you've faulted some of those civilly developing that consensus. Nobody at the moment is arguing for "further activism". As for bias, Breibart is a douchebag in my mind, but the CPAC Occupy meltdown of Breibart belongs in a chicken shit folder. It's not notable or consequential, compared to sleazy tactics he used against Sherrod and ACORN. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I've restored well-sourced, vandalized material (@ CPAC) that clearly does not violate WP:NPOV guidelines nor does it give WP:UNDUE weight to a significant, recent and by definition, controversial incident. In fact, it provides overall balance to the article. There has been no attempt by those who have removed the material to edit it for objectivity. The removals instead seem to be a blatant attempt at censorship. 06:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Activist (talk • contribs)

References

  1. ^ http://abcnews.go.com/US/andrew-breitbart-publisher-author-dead/story?id=15824337#.T0-LYnLLzns
  2. ^ http://hosted2.ap.org/PAWIC/APUSnews/Article_2012-03-02-US-Obit-Breitbart/id-e232908b6a3b4c9084969284f20975b0

Daily Kos article

I reinstated the comment from Daily Kos. Since this is the first comment in any media that used Breitbart's eulogy for Edward Kennedy to eulogize Breitbart, I think it has a rightful place here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianbrettcooper (talk • contribs) 12:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Since this is the first comment in any media...
There's a message there. From WP:SPS (emphasis mine)...

...self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources...Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.

Daily Kos "diarys" are not WP:RS. You need to find reliable sourcing for that content. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Jake, I find your comment rather odd, given that IBC doesn't seem to be claiming that this piece in the Daily Kos is the source of anything other than the use for Breitbart himself of Breitbart's comment on Kennedy. Now, arguably this comment in the Daily Kos isn't worth a mention (whether because the comment is trivial, or because the fact that something is said in the DK is unremarkable), and IBC also doesn't say how he knows that it's the first "in any media", but these are slightly different matters. For what it's worth: (1) here is a column in a newspaper website that parallels the Daily Kos comment, and (2) here is a piece in the LA Times that talks about reactions in general but among them picks up this what-Breitbart-said-of-Kennedy-is-true-of-Breitbart-himself reaction. -- Hoary (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Now, arguably this comment in the Daily Kos isn't worth a mention...
Then you might legitimately, perhaps, make an argument for similar content under WP:UNDUE...but the Daily Kos source citation still doesn't survive examination under WP:SPS or WP:RS.
Introduce what you want...but do it via WP:V, WP:RS sourcing criteria which Daily Kos "diarys" simply do not satisfy.
Nor, I'd suggest, would content of this ilk be appropriate for the designated "Death" section but rather, assuming the provision of appropriate sourcing, as an addendum to the "Controversy" section. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
This could be picking up steam: here's Matt Taibbi bringing up the comment on Kennedy. -- Hoary (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
It's WP:UNDUE. Unless, of course, you want to also include all instances of praise from commentators of similar stature to Taibbi, which then would give us the problem of turning the article into an memorial page. Kelly hi! 16:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Think Progress is a WP:RS. The reason this is so important is that it gives some insight into his character, attitude and style. It's totally unrestrained invective. In Breitbart's own words, it's "off decorum."
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/08/26/57997/breitbart-kennedy-twitter/?mobile=nc ThinkProgress Andrew Breitbart Unleashes A Torrent Of Invective Against Sen. Ted Kennedy’s Legacy On Twitter By Matt Corley on Aug 26, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Early this morning, news broke that Sen. Ted Kennedy had passed away after serving in the U.S. Senate for nearly 50 years. Soon after, conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart began a sustained assault on Kennedy’s memory, tweeting “Rest in Chappaquiddick.”
Over the course of the next three hours, Breitbart unapologetically attacked Kennedy, calling him a “villain,” “a big ass motherf@#$er,” a “duplicitous bastard” and a “prick.” “I’ll shut my mouth for Carter. That’s just politics. Kennedy was a special pile of human excrement,” wrote Breitbart in one tweet....
When a fellow conservative tweeted to Breitbart asking him not to treat Kennedy like they believe some on the left treated the passing of Tony Snow and Ronald Reagan, Breitbart responded “How dare you compare Snow & Reagan to Kennedy! Why do you grant a BULLY special status upon his death? This isnt lib v con.”
--Nbauman (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm a little doubtful that the Center for American Progress could be relied upon as a neutral, reliable source for a biography of a conservative activist. That said, it might be appropriate to include a brief few sentences on reactions to his death from notable individuals who knew him. I have seen statements from across the ideological spectrum reported in third-party sources, such as Arianna Huffington (liberal), Jonah Goldberg (conservative), Matt Welch (libertarian), as well as reactions from the camps of the GOP presidential contenders (Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich). Kelly hi! 17:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd suggest caution to prevent WP:OR. Secondary sources reporting reactions and eulogies would more prudent to cite. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
You're right - and there have been a few summaries in the press such as you describe. I think that's where I saw the reaction from Huffington. Kelly hi! 20:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Kelly is right; just because one person in particular decided to be rude in his "eulogy" doesn't mean he deserves to be included. It is immaterial if Breitbart did the same for another man. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

"Natural causes?

The "died of natural causes" statement doesn't belong on this page until a third party source verifies it. A statement on his own website does not constitute a reliable source. 68.81.180.171 (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's what the article says:
On March 1, 2012, Joel Pollak, editor-in-chief and in-house counsel for Breitbart's website, released a statement saying that Breitbart had died unexpectedly from natural causes earlier that day in Los Angeles.
So the article doesn't state that AB died of natural causes, it instead says that a particular person (clearly not a medic, let alone a coroner) states that AB died of natural causes. Nothing wrong with this that I can see. ¶ IFF a serious source -- NYT, perhaps, but anyway not merely a bunch of easily excited bloggers -- cites speculation to the contrary, then its inclusion might be worth considering. Though I'd be inclined to reject even that. If the speculation added up to anything, it would lead to an inquest; with no inquest, it's mere scuttlebutt. -- Hoary (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I raised the issue this morning not to call into question the announced cause of death but only to point out that it was not reliably sourced to an expert third party. The current wording is much clearer as to sourcing and will certainly suffice until an official cause of death is released in the next week or so. - Dravecky (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Apparently the coroner is looking into it[3] so there will be an answer eventually. The ref says that he has previously had heart problems. Kelly hi! 03:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, an autopsy is apparently routine in cases of unattended death. Several bloggers who knew Breitbart are reporting that he had a history of heart problems (example); have any Reliable Sources reported that yet? CWC 04:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if it's worthy of inclusion or not, but The Hollywood Reporter has an account of the last few hours before his death from an individual who spent the time talking with him.[4] Kelly hi! 22:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I now see one source of questions: [http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/michael-savage-was-breitbart-assassinated/ here] (WND). This says that an inquest won't settle matters: "I pray it was natural causes, but we’ll never know the truth" (my emphasis). ¶ No, I'm not suggesting that this should be added to the article, just pointing it out so that experienced editors can better understand possible future edits by excitable editors. -- Hoary (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course there is going to be an inquest, but until then, it's irresponsible to quote his own website claiming "natural causes" when they have absolutely no way of knowing it was "natural causes" prior to an autopsy. Drugs could have been involved, poison could have been involved, who knows until the autopsy? I don't understand how so many things are deleted from Wikipedia as not verifiable, when a statement from someone affiliated with the man himself who is clearly not a doctor is considered a verifiable source. 68.81.180.171 (talk) 09:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually, Breitbart's family and friends are saying he had a history of heart problems and died of a heart attack, so they do know it was natural causes. Furthermore, we are just reporting their statement, not endorsing it. Best wishes, CWC 00:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Empirical, not "opinion"

This was removed as POV, but it is all factual. So rather than bust a hissy fit, especially with Arzel, who can intelligently and civilly discuss issues, I've posted it here to solicit consensus So, at least three issues.

  1. 1 Where is opinion shown?
  2. 2 Is there an RS to show Coates in empirically false?
  3. # Are there modifications that would help gain consensus?

Slate.com's William Satuern examined the tape of the speech from 20 years earlier, and found that the audience in fact had not, as Breibart had said, responding with applause or cheering to Sherrods withholding of her assistance to help a white man, and had not voiced approval of her initial maltreatment of the white farmer. Instead, Satuern said, the audience was vocally approving of her subsequent reversal to to help the man get government aid. [1] .The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It is factual that he said it, but it is opinion as to whether his view is correct. There is quite a bit of conjecture by Satuern that they were really chearing Sherrod's witholding of assistance to a white man "with an attitude". The distinction being that the man's race had nothing to do with it; it was the man's attitude which was the reason. People that view the tape will have to make their own opinions as to what happened, but you can't say that Satuern proved that Breitbart was wrong. You could possibly say that it was Satuern's opinion that Breitbart was wrong about the response of the audience, although I would say that this is undue weight unless Satuern has some background or experteise in audio and video analysis. Also, this is not emperical evidence since it requires interpretation of what was seen and heard to make the conclusion. Arzel (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I would say Coates' reporting proved Breibart a liar many times. Key word is reporting from a RS of empirical observations, not opinions or speculation by a lazy ass pundit. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 March 2012

Request a simple edit to reflect the fact that he died March 1, 2012. (Because of the controversy about his death, the cause should be listed as unknown for now, or not discussed)

118.47.27.57 (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Date of death is already reflected. Cause remains listed as is, per this talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Views of parents

His parents were conservatives, not liberals. I've deleted the misinformation accordingly. Viriditas (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it was referring to classical liberalism. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think so. It was just an error. Viriditas (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't matter anyways, classic liberalism is extremely rarely used in American political discussion. And if it was a reference to classic liberalism, specifying it as such would be necessary. -- Alyas Grey : talk 02:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
It matters, in the sense that Breitbart spoke openly about the conservatism of his parents, and he talked about how he came back to it after his college years and embraced it. In interviews and speeches, he would blame his previous liberalism on the milieu of Los Angeles, not on his parents. It was a mistake made by an editor. Viriditas (talk) 04:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Please Edit: Santorum's Opinion Not Germane

Re: "Rick Santorum called the death "shocking" and described himself as "crestfallen."[65]"

Rick Santorum's feelings and opinions about Andrew Breitbart and/or his passing are not germane to the subject and should be removed.

63.248.150.208 (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This request is denied. Santorum's reaction to his death verifies Breitbart's legacy. Bearian (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Santorum's reaction was not unique, so I located an AP story that quotes the 3 major candidates, which places the lines in context, so I added that reference. This also further verifies the subject's legacy and notability. Bearian (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Good. The reactions of notable persons is certainly germane to the topic. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 March 2012

Please change this to show that it is far to early to speak on the cause of breitbart's death and there is much suspicion behind its circumstances relating to the purported videotape that would "destroy the president"


-Begin Existing Section-

Death

On March 1, 2012, Joel Pollak, editor-in-chief and in-house counsel for Breitbart's website, announced that Breitbart had died unexpectedly at the age of 43 from natural causes in Los Angeles.[59][60][61] After collapsing while walking in Brentwood, paramedics—responding to a bystander's alert—rushed him to the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center where he was declared dead.[62] In remembrance, Republican presidential candidates Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich praised Breitbart.[63] Santorum called Breibart's passing "a huge loss" that strongly affected him,[63][64] while Romney said Breitbart was a "fearless conservative", and Gingrich called him "the most innovative pioneer in conservative activist social media in America...."[63]

-End Existing Section-

-Begin Revision Section-

Death

On March 1, 2012, Joel Pollak, editor-in-chief and in-house counsel for Breitbart's website, announced that Breitbart had died unexpectedly at the age of 43 from natural causes in Los Angeles.[59][60][61] After collapsing while walking in Brentwood, paramedics—responding to a bystander's alert—rushed him to the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center where he was declared dead.[62] In remembrance, Republican presidential candidates Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich praised Breitbart.[63] Santorum called Breibart's passing "a huge loss" that strongly affected him,[63][64] while Romney said Breitbart was a "fearless conservative", and Gingrich called him "the most innovative pioneer in conservative activist social media in America...."[63]
There is suspicion over Breitbart's death. It is impossible to determine the cause of death for collapsing while walking without performing a full autopsy, which has not been done yet. The claim of "natural causes" rather than "unknown pending further investigation" clearly indicates an intent to have people believe it was natural.
Chicago radio host Erich “Mancow” Muller told the Alex Jones Show March 7, 2012 that his friend Andrew Breitbart had in fact planned to release information that would “destroy Barack Obama” on March 1st, hours after his untimely death. Muller pointed to the fact that Breitbart’s death was explained as “natural causes” by the media within hours before any kind of cursory investigation had been conducted. Breitbart also told Lawrence Sinclair at an event in Washington DC on February 9th, “Wait til they see what happens March 1st.”[65]

References

[65] <a href=www.prisonplanet.com/mancow-muller-breitbart-was-murdered.html> ‘Mancow’ Muller: Breitbart Was Murdered </a> Mar 7, 2012

-End Revision Section-


Pzp886 (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Please read the above talk sections to see why we listed his reported cause of death as we did. We will not add an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory to this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Controversies?

I read this article due to his death being in the news. Honestly I hadn't heard of his personally before, but I had heard of the various scandals he brought to light. It seems pretty unbalanced that his exposure of other peoples' morally dubious or illegal behaviour is being presented as criticism of Breitbart. The PR/legal outcome was decidedly against ACORN, the Congressman who sent naked pictures, etc., so this is hardly how it has come across to me! The article reads as though it was written by his political opponents. Praetonia (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Also the death section makes no mention of how he was planning to release footage of Obama a day later of march 1st. 70.253.66.130 (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, the promised footage was of the Harvard days of Barack Hussein Obama. Now, the video seems to be coming out via other sources. Will it be the same tape(s)? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Apparently the footage is to be released soon.[5] Kelly hi! 15:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Praetonia. I'm going to reword the section title. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Astute observation, Praetonia. A number of mentally unbalanced leftists try to use Wikipedia as a venue to attack people they don't like. It's the job of the rest of the editors to keep them in line in compliance with the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view guidelines. — QuicksilverT @ 19:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that Wikipedia:Controversy sections is an excellent essay on why it's bad to name it thus. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
That WP essay has neither the weight a policy or a guideline. Or, as they confess: "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies." Also that essay strongly suggests shitcanning the whole controversy section. A ridiculous idea since Breibart is defined by generation and celebration of controversy at least as much as anything else.
I, for one, don't like controversy sections for a few reasons: they become a magnet for "some argue"-esque criticism, and also because they usually give undo weight to controversies (you'll notice other publications and encyclopedias don't do it too often). Anyway, yes you are right, Mr. Breitbart's very occupation necessarily entailed controversy, but I still don't think it's the right title for the section, because it unnecesasrily gives his work a negative connotation. I think we could use a better term. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
"Notable Issues" would do quite nicely. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I guess, upon further reflection, it is unbiased to say that these were controversies. My reaction against the title has as much to do with the fact that it makes it look like Breitbart's actions were controversial (i.e., that he was a negative figure in many people's eyes, which is too editorial IMO), rather than stating he created controversies with his actions (i.e., that he was a social gadfly, which isn't too editorial IMO). I know that sounds like a picky distinction, but it is important one. If anyone has other wording that gets the idea across without making it sound like "Breitbart was bad" (which is how controversy sections sound), please advise. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
As a journalist, I'll say that his behavior was very controversial among us. The methods he used typically pushed the boundaries of ethical journalism, and in the edited video case went WAAAAAAY beyond the boundaries. So I'd argue the he both created controversies and was controversial. I'd also remind some above that this isn't a forum for general discussion, let's try and keep the focus on the article itself. -- Alyas Grey : talk 02:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Break for readability... delete if the above comment is replied to. -- Alyas Grey : talk 02:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Glad you commented here - is it unethical to edit videos? So is it unethical that Katie Couric has never released uncut tape of her interviews with Sarah Palin? Or is it only unethical in certain circumstances? Kelly hi! 02:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Has Ms. Palin ever claimed that she gave answers during that interview that were edited out? In fact, to make your analogy fit, the tape would have to be edited so that you could only hear Couric, and with only Couric's word to go on that she couldn't name a single newspaper she had ever read. And that's before you get to the part about the police being called. I don't even know how you would fit that into your analogy... Seriously, I don't listen Rush, Drudge or Fox News, so I don't know what sort of nonsense you've been filling your head with, but do you honestly believe these two situations are equivalent? Has conservatism crippled your mind so badly that not only can you not think, you can't even try anymore? 71.189.63.114 (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
"Notable Issues" would do quite nicely. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
C'mon, we're going waay off topic. Do you want to see me rhetorically asking "Is it ethical to shoot a gun?" (Please, don't respond to that, I beg of you!) Unless there's a source showing the scuminess of AB (of which I have no doubt, not that anyone should care) we've got nothing to talk about, so let the Katie-was-doing-it-too stuff stay on the playground where it belongs. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
For the sake of consensus, it's important to counter unsourced assertions. Brietbart's "scuminess" (sic) was nothing other than what all other sources in the American press do - he was just the only one criticized for it. It only takes an example for a thinking person to see that. Kelly hi! 03:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Either is OK and neither is misleading. I'll let consensus sort it out. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Let me restate so I don't waste a vote. I like Controversies but can accept Notable issues. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Controversies

Shouldn't there be one added to this section on the recent Bono tape snafu? Or is that just for Breitbart the website and not for Breitbart the man since this took place after his death? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.205.222 (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Think you just answered your own question. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

CPAC 2012 confrontation entry

The current entry reads as follows:

Just weeks before his death, a video emerged taken by Emily Crockett of Campus Progress showing a visibly enraged Breitbart screaming at Occupy D.C. protesters who were protesting outside the Conservative Political Action Conference at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel. Breitbart is seen being held back by security as he shouts at the protesters to "behave themselves" and "stop raping people", in addition to repeatedly calling the crowd "freaks and animals". The one minute, 27 second video quickly went viral and was circulated throughout media outlets all across the United States.

The source used does not say the following:

  • "Just weeks before his death..."
  • "...a video emerged..."
  • "...showing a visibly enraged Breitbart screaming..."
  • "...is seen being held back by security..." (Note: He was being guided back inside, not held back. Watch the video.)
  • "behave themselves" and "stop raping people"
  • "The one minute, 27 second video quickly went viral...etc"

Now, if we were to edit the entry down to what the source actually reflects, you end up with something like:

A video taken by Emily Crockett of Campus Progress shows Breitbart yelling at Occupy D.C. protesters outside the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel at the Conservative Political Action Conference. Breitbart is seen being guided back inside by security as he shouts things like "freaks and animals" at the protesters.

Is that really a notable controversy? No, not at all, which is why I have completely removed it again. If this somehow finds its way back in to the article, I strongly urge it to be brought inline with something along the lines of what I put just above, or I doubt it will last in the article. - Xcal68 (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

It was a very notable outburst from Breitbart which ignited lots of attention because it demonstrated very clearly his tendency to radical reactions and expressions, which, as in many other cases, was based on misinformation which he obviously believed. He was admittedly a right wing radical who seemed to get his information from only right wing sources.
OTOH, you are quite right that the wording wasn't NPOV and your version is neat and suitable for use. That ends up making it a very short comment which should be included. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
In addition, that version leaves out the reason for the "Righteous Indignation" behind the incident: the stream of documented rapes, thefts, murders, etc at Occupy protests that get less media coverage than signs held by LaRouchies at Tea Parties. There is widespread disgust amongst U.S. conservative bloggers about this. Covering this topic in a way consistent with Wikipedia's rules would be difficult, so it's best to just leave it out. Cheers, CWC 14:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Although I see no reason for mention of this video in WP, I think this is a very poor comment. Sexual assaults have been reported at Occupy sites, but no protestor has been convicted and the rate is no more common than in the general population, and hardly surprising with all these people living in tents. There are zero documented murders at Occupy protests, not "streams." There was one murder near one protest in Oakland. Neither the shooter nor the victim have been shown to have any relation to the protest. The statement that there exists a "stream of documented rapes, thefts, murders, etc at Occupy protests," is irresponsible and doesn't even belong on a Talk page in WP. Or were you just channeling Breitbart?173.56.43.127 (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
You are correct. The right wing media has a distorted coverage of the Occupy movement and exaggerated things, even things that weren't actually connected with the movement. Breitbart's "righteous indignation" was a misguided reaction based on this misinformation, and the resultant reaction to Breitbart's outburst was indeed righteous because of the unfairness of the whole situation. The reaction was to be expected, considering Breitbart's own tactics, which were never balanced, but admittedly often based on deception, which was exposed several times. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Need a more reliable source for a controversial claim like that - the given source is just a blog. Kelly hi! 20:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
The text used in the article isn't controversial, but is based on nice, NPOV wording by Xcal68. The website is reliable enough and has a rather large editorial staff. It was a well-known and highly publicized action by Breitbart, for which he was roundly criticized. As such it deserves mention, which happens to be quite short and neutral. Keep in mind that there is no BLP issue here either. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
What quality information is this brief paragraph supposed to convey to our readers about Breitbart? I'm no fan of the guy, and I realize he doesn't technically fall under WP:BLP after his death, but this still seems to me like a backhanded way to disparage the guy. So he exited a conservative event to briefly bark at some protesters ... why the edit warring to have this spotlighted (with its own header no less) in his Wikipedia article? Xenophrenic (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Because it was a major, embarrassing, controversial act that probably wasn't covered at all (IOW buried deep) by right wing media, but was all over the mainstream and liberal media? That's why it's in the "controversies" section. The blurb needs to clearly state the reason/relevance for why it's in that section, and it's precisely that wording which you just deleted. Should we also include more sources about this to strengthen the case, or was the previous version good enough to do that? We can keep this short and simple, or enlarge it quite easily. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I deleted wording that was not conveyed by the cited source. Should we include sources that convey the information that we are adding to Wikipedia articles? Did you really just ask that? Of course we should. High quality reliable sources, please; sources that convey the significance and importance would be nifty (aside from the fact that they are also required). I still haven't seen justification for its inclusion, so anything that you can provide to remedy that would be very much appreciated. If the event (this is the first I've heard of it, by the way) is "all over the media", as you say, then this should be easy. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Needed: RS's to establish notability, such as NYTimes, WaPo, or something of substance. DClist is not one. It is Gothamist site which currently has as its features, a bluegrass festival, a Lyndsay Lohan piece, and photos of the White House correspondents dinner and its relationship to Instagram. In the case of the Breibart video, DClist also did no reporting in this case. That was done by a progressive student site. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, we agree completely. (I suspect my wording was a bit clumsy....;-) The part you deleted is essential for context, but does need sourcing. It was a media event at the time, but you might easily have missed it if other things were on your radar right then. It certainly wasn't the only thing happening. Those who watched Breitbart and the OWS movement certainly noticed!

I'll start by adding a few sources here and then we can work them in. I have already discovered that even Fox and other right wing sources mentioned his actions, but rather than being in controversy with the actions, they used their short coverage as an opportunity to agree with it and further criticize the OWS movement, so they're not really important sources for this section (since they'd be off-topic). Those which considered his actions controversial are more useful, and we can simply stick to the most notable ones, including official blogs (which we're allowed to use here), without resorting to using the more radical and lesser known activist blogs:

Just for interest on this talk page, the following provides a possible explanation for his behavior (alcohol), and a very likely one:

...which points to this video documenting that he was drinking wine at the time and warned of how bad it would look:

  • [http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/no-vagrancy-cpac-refuses-to-be-occupied/ 'No vagrancy': CPAC refuses to be Occupied. Exclusive video shows Andrew Breitbart's furious confrontation with protesters], World Net Daily, 02/11/2012

I think we've got enough to work with here. We can now flesh out the mention with more of his actual words and a few descriptions of the confrontation from these sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Well done. Now, if we could use one the better sources above and ditch DCist ( I would also forget about WND, it has a deserved bad rep), I think that would improve the section. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Will do. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Done, and in a manner which keeps the entry small by grouping multiple sources into one ref. That reduces clutter in the body of the article, while giving readers the opportunity to do their own research. If anyone thinks the entry is too small (and it is), that could be solved by adding more from his rant, and more descriptions from the sources. It could easily be fleshed out a bit more to make the situation more palpable for readers. Right now it just barely demonstrates a "controversy". One doesn't get the feeling from reading that one gets from actually hearing and seeing how it went down. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Being "palpable" is not a WP issue, but notability is. Crockett is not notable-her bio makes it clear that she is an amateur- but, the video, because attention given it, is is notable. The hotel name does not matter either. Also, we can't insinuate he was drunk by publish the simple fact that he had a drink in hand. It's borderline defamation. We need a secondary ref (not WND) that goes beyond insinuation. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
We shouldn't manipulate the sources in such a way that the event appears to be something it wasn't, neither better nor worse. We should be faithful to the sources. You have removed so much of the content and reworded things in such a way that one would hardly recognize what really happened. You've turned it into a "duh". The sources use descriptions which should have been used, but you changed the meaning. He wasn't just led back in, but had to be pulled back in, pretty much against his will. He would have continued if they didn't. Wikipedia isn't claiming he was drunk or drinking, it is documenting that RS wrote that such might be the case. We just report what they wrote. Removing such context isn't right.
Notability isn't an issue here. (It's an issue for the creation of articles.) We document the event, who was involved, who recorded it, where it happened, and what happened, IOW we provide the context. We ask the Five Ws: Who is it about? What happened? Where did it take place? When did it take place? Why did it happen?
It would have been a lot more constructive and collegial of you to mention specific issues here and we could have developed a better version. If my version misrepresented the sources, I would be happy to solve that problem. Did I do that? Please be specific. Use policy-based arguments. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Rather than get into more discussion here (likely to produce more heat than light), I'm proposing a more constructive way to deal with this below in a new section, so let's continue there:
Brangifer (talk) 04:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

CPAC section rework

Per this diff, here are the two versions:

Before
  • In February 2012, a video taken by journalist Emily Crockett of Campus Progress shows Breitbart yelling at Occupy D.C. protesters outside the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel at the Conservative Political Action Conference. Breitbart is seen being guided back inside by security as he calls the protestors "freaks and animals" and tells them to "stop raping people". The video went viral and was discussed on numerous sources.
  • Another video taken just as his rant began, shows him being advised against going out with a wine glass in his hand, and him protesting the advice.
After
  • In February 2012 a YouTube video showed Breitbart yelling at Occupy D.C. protesters outside a Washington D.C. hotel hosting a Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). The video showed security escorting Breitbart back to the hotel while he yelled at the protestors "behave yourself", "freaks and animals" and "stop raping people".

What is good and what is bad about these versions? Were any sources misrepresented, or any left out?

Let's develop a third version we can all be satisfied with. Please use specific wording/quotes which can be improved. As an aid, let's keep the Five Ws in mind: Who is it about? What happened? Where did it take place? When did it take place? Why did it happen? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Specific points

1. "..a YouTube video" seems like an attempt to demean the video. Yes, nearly every video ends up on YouTube, but it was part of the journalistic work of covering the event, and as such the "Before" version is more accurate. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

2. I have no particular objection to leaving out the name of the hotel. The "After" version is good enough on this point. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

3. Both versions fail to mention that he yelled for some time before security attempted to get him away from the situation. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

4. The "Before" version uses sources which discuss another video. This is completely gone in the "After" version. This video provides the context of what preceded the actual confrontation. As such, it should be placed before the other content, just to keep it all chronological. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

5. Lest one think that mentioning that he was drinking wine is a negative thing, it actually gives him "an out" (an excuse) for behavior which all agree was way over the top. Even for Breitbart it was pretty strong; not totally out of character, but still enough to raise more than a few eyebrows. As such this context is useful information for readers to have. We don't actually say he was drunk, but we should report what the sources say about it. His friends realized this wasn't a good thing and tried to warn him, but to no avail. The words are clear enough. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Controversy

What established Breibart ODC incident as a controversy? As it is, the section reports the facts, but doesn't give it the context of controversy, or even establish that there was a controversy. We just have an a-hole behaving badly. Big deal. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It was a controversial action that got a lot of attention. It is rated among his most controversial actions and as such deserves some mention. If you'll just read through the sources provided, you'll see it was anything but a boring event.
As the section now exists, yes, the context has been removed. That's not right, and you have had a major hand in pretty much whitewashing the section, so don't blame anyone else for its current state of affairs. It was fine before you started messing with it. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Nah The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't throw around accusations of "whitewashing" when you are the lone person advocating the section's mere existence. - Xcal68 (talk) 05:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I've learned to let expressions of butthurt slide on by, they're not worth much attention. Anyways, I found a David Carr ref that does establish the CPAC as a controversy. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Subject's cardiomegaly

Are there are any available reliable, secondary sources that explain Breitbart's cardiomegaly? Bearian (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Is this a Breitbart quote or author opinion?

The last paragraph under "Early Life" begins with:

Listening to "AM [radio] professors" like Rush Limbaugh helped Brietbart refine his political and philosophical positions. . .

Is the phrase about "AM [radio] professors" a quote of Breitbart's or is it a creation of the author? If it's a quote, it should say so. If it's the author's phrase, perhaps some less slanted, less confusing, and more accurate term could be substituted, like "AM radio hosts", AM radio shows", or AM radio politicians". Thanks, Wordreader (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Seeing no objection here to Wordreader's sensible suggestion, I decided to be bold and make the change. Naturally, if a citation can be found for the previous wording, it ought to be reinstated, properly cited. 190.124.162.159 (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Commentaries

The first line, "Breitbart appeared as a commentator on Real Time with Bill Maher and Dennis Miller." is suffixed with, [when?]

Wikipedia's list of Real Time with Bill Maher episodes[2] shows Season 3:4, #4 with Barney Frank, Richard Belzer, Andrew Breitbart, Irshad Manji, Camille Paglia March 11, 2005

Season 7:4, #145 with Sarah Silverman, Michael Eric Dyson, Andrew Breitbart, Steven Pearlstein March 13, 2009 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JoQthEBl6U

Season 8:18,#190 with Richard Tillman, Andrew Breitbart, Amy Holmes, Seth MacFarlane, Ann Druyan September 24, 2010

Season 9:14, #11 with Deval Patrick, Laura Flanders, Andrew Breitbart, Mark McKinnon, John Waters April 29, 2011.


And a Dennis Miller post[3] indicates Thursday, Aug 18, 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.218.42 (talk) 04:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Opposition To Communism

I have heard Brietbart speak out against communism. Does anyone object to adding the category American anti-communists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.130.50.1 (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Death

Hello. I have added this section to the article twice, and it has been taken down each time:

In his obituary of Breitbart, Rolling Stone columnist Matt Taibbi wrote: " . . . no homage is complete without a celebration of the whole man, and the whole man in this case was not just a guy who once said, “It’s all about a good laugh,” but also someone who liked to publish peoples’ personal information on the internet, hack into private web sites[4], tell lies in an attempt to get his enemies fired[5], and incite readers to threats[6] against his targets and their families, including death threats."[7]

I am writing to ask why this has been removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.96.211 (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed it because it looks to me like you're attributing opinions to Taibbi. The references you're adding to apparently corroborate Taibbi's statements aren't written by Taibbi. This looks like WP:OR to me, as it seems to be an individual/original interpretation of what Taibbi may have meant in his statements. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Clearly, this is Original Research. Not appropriate. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2010/07/amen_canard.single.html
  2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Real_Time_with_Bill_Maher_episodes
  3. ^ https://www.facebook.com/DennisDMZ/posts/134358469990910
  4. ^ Chen, Adrian (October 15, 2011). "Meet the Guy Who Snitched on Occupy Wall Street to the FBI and NYPD".
  5. ^ Gerstein, Josh (March 1, 2012). "Shirley Sherrod's suit against Andrew Breitbart likely to continue".
  6. ^ "Andrew Breitbart Incites Violence Against Liberals, Says Military Will Back The Tea Party Up". September 18, 2011.
  7. ^ Taibbi, Matt (March 1, 2011). "Andrew Breitbart: Death of a Douche".

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Andrew Breitbart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Qery re death

Please forgive if I'm doing this wrong. I almost never get into this section. Story says he collapsed in the morning. This site - assuming it's a faithful copy of the actual coroner's report - said they got a 911 call about him collapsing while walking on 2/29 at 11:36 pm and he was pronounced at 12:19 am on 3/1. (Also documents a blood alcohol of 0.4%, not 0.04%, but that's a typo; the accompanying toxicology shows 0.04%.)

98.230.216.52 (talk) 02:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

http://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Celebs/breitbart,%20andrew_report.pdf

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.128.188.200 (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Death section

In the second paragraph of the "Death" section, an IP changed "Unsubstantiated conspiracy theories arose about his death" to "Still not proven theories arose about his death". This is problematic per WP:FRINGE, suggesting that the conspiracy theories that he was murdered are in any way legit, and just "unproven". The neutral way to handle it is to call it like it is, unsubstantiated. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi. This is user Democraticfreethinker. Editing from an ip because surprise! got a ban. I have assumed good faith with you, then waited for discussion as you said. I find that I am repaid with false accusations (of which I would like you to show evidence, please). Coincidentally I wanted to tell you that I was still waiting for you to give an argument as your comment so far was all smoke and no fire. I am open to hearing one answer for you, if not, you'll be pleased to hear that you just drove off yet another editor from wikipedia (their number isn't exactly going up these days, is it?)
I didn't block you. Take it up with the admin who did. If you're abusing multiple accounts, it was appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure you didn't have anything to do with it, right?

Well please look at this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zzuuzz&oldid=754310724 So please enough with lies and if you talk with Zzuuzz for accusing people, go talk with him to show me your evidence, and if not, an apology from you both. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.78.16.204 (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

He blocked your account before I posted that message. I saw your block as due to having multiple accounts, and I'll trust an admin over you. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, for the record the account was blocked by me before any other communication. It's normal for admins to make surprise duck-blocks, and for other users to ask admins for clarification. The similarities between these new accounts and Spanish IP addresses is a bit of a no-brainer. Once logged in we ask people to stick to one account. If you want to make it this account, now that that's clear, we can agree to those terms for unblocking. Just log in and post a request, and we'll deal with it over there. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I expect an apology here admitting all your misrakes and on your user page. Then we can talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.143.50.198 (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing to apologise for, so it's not going to happen. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Of course not. It's perfectly normal what you did, I'll put an example: I see a chinese editor. Then right after another chinese ip edits: They're related, there's no way I can be wrong! I demand an apology until you demonstrate how and why is my ip related to that of those multiple users — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.78.17.120 (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

If you wish to communicate with me further, please address my talk page. If you wish to make a complaint about my admin actions, WP:ANI is where you'll find the boomerang of justice. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I prefer to have adiscussion in an open way on a public page instead of among your gang in a restricted surveilled page controlled by them. Are you maybe telling me this because you fear transparency and openness? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.78.16.171 (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andrew Breitbart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andrew Breitbart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Andrew Breitbart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrew_Breitbart/Archive_2&oldid=1178828271"