Talk:One America News Network/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Disambiguation

A disambiguation page is needed for OAN as a way to find this article and others with the same acronym.--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done. TNKS! -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Size of the audience

Over time, the last sentence of the article will change (comparing the viewership to Al Jazeera, and giving the reference as only "it is believed".) -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Consider this to boost the new network: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3168926/Tomi-Lahren-22-rants-live-TV-Obama-s-tip-toe-efforts-against-terrorism.html -- AstroU (talk) 10:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

All the article says is that her speech (though completely unfounded) was viewed 755,000 times on YouTube. YouTube wouldn't count towards TV viewership. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 05:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Watching their show this morning, their pomotional spot says (as of this date) they are carried on 150 cable systems. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on One America News Network. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140427021403/http://online.wsj.com:80/article/PR-CO-20140424-911416.html to http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20140424-911416.html/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130315100204/http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/13/the-washington-times-extending-reach-cable-network/?page=all to http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/13/the-washington-times-extending-reach-cable-network/?page=all

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Charles Herring

Charles Herring, the force behind a media company carried on 150 cable networks and no Wikipedia entry? https://www.linkedin.com/in/charlesherring --Wikipietime (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is some good info on Charles Herring: https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/One-America-News-Network-Reviews-E859149.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bananahammockman (talk • contribs) 06:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Create an article if you feel like it is merited. Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

OANN vs OAN

In the article, should the network be referred to as OANN or OAN?

Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

IP numbers, let's talk

The reverted text[1] is reliably sourced (Washington Post, Snopes, the Independent, Buzzfeed). The edit summaries of the IP numbers are deceptive in the extreme: two IP numbers claim that these four sources amount to "one editorial" when there's absolutely no editorial cited. The last IP number says the text isn't neutrally worded, which is just nonsense. The IP numbers appear to be familiar with Wikipedia lingo, yet they all have less than 5 edits between them until they started to whitewash the page in question. If their intent is to deter me from editing this page, it's not going to work. In fact, these edits are inspiring me to spend more time building this Wikipedia article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The cited article looks like one company taking a shot at a competitor. I moved it to the bottom of the article, but it really should be sourced from a non-biased resource. - An “IP number” from Illinois.

They aren't competitors, they have very different audiences. Doug Weller talk 10:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Is this considered state run media?

Should we characterize One America News Network as State media because it's a pro-Trump news network and because Trump is now President of the United States, should this be categorized as state media/propaganda for the Trump administration? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddediteddie (talk • contribs) 03:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

No, we go by RS. If an RS describes it as state media, we attribute the claim. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2017

Please change...

One America News Network (abbreviated as OANN), also referred to as One America News (abbreviated as OAN), is a conservative pro-Trump American cable news television channel, launched in 2013, that is owned by Herring Networks, Inc.

to...

One America News Network, commonly referred to as One America News (abbreviated as OAN), is an American cable news television channel that is owned by Herring Networks, Inc.. The network is headquartered in San Diego, California, and operates a news bureau in Washington, D.C. and New York City.

because the previous edit is factually incorrect and is politically charged in an effort to defame the subject. Maddygardner3 (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The conservative and Trump stuff can be covered, but having it in the first sentence is clearly bad formatting. Look at other news networks for example like Fox News. The ideology stuff also does not replace the fact that it is headquartered in San Diego and has a news bureau in Washington D.C., which is pretty standard stuff for the first sentence of a news channel. Not sure why that is gone. Marquis de Faux (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC about sentence describing coverage instructions of specific subjects by owner Charles Herring in the lead

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus for inclusion of the proposed text in the lead section. The possibility of including it later in the article or removing other statements in the lead section should be addressed by the normal editing cycle. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Does the source cited support this statement, and does it merit the inclusion of it in the lead section? "Charles Herring, the owner of the channel, has ordered producers to promote certain types of content, such as pro-Trump stories, anti-Clinton stories and anti-abortion stories, and ignore stories about Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election."

Fisher, Marc. "An inside look at One America News, the insurgent TV network taking 'pro-Trump' to new heights". Washington Post. Washington Post. Retrieved 9 November 2017.

Marquis de Faux (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose This sentence describing specific directions on specific stories is clearly WP:Undue weight and all of the stuff it mentions is already summarized by the conservative stance in the lead. The lead summarizes the contents, and is not supposed to give specific instances. Doing is also very inconsistent with the leads of other news channels such as Fox News or MSNBC which both clearly have had editorial directions on specific issues in the past, but obviously that is not highlighted in the WP:Lead. Also seems to be WP:Recent regarding specific election matters. Anti-Clinton, pro-Trump, and anti-abortion all fall under normal conservative ideology. Marquis de Faux (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Include Merely saying that they are conservative/pro-Trump covers a lot of ground, from center-right to far-far-right. This is not a widely known network so specific examples are helpful to assessing just where they stand. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• Include. It's notable that a network is being ordered by the owner to cover certain types of content and ignore other content. A news outlet may have conservative leanings is one thing, while this kind of interference is something else. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• Not LEAD - fails WP:LEAD as it is just a single source and not DUE proportion of its article or coverage or even the proportionate to how much the Washington Post one article had it. Put right-lean in top as commonly said and media bias fact-check.com. This bit should be smaller and down in the article. Markbassett (talk) 06:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Does not follow WP:LEAD guidelines or match similar articles of news organizations that have an editorial bias. Should be relocated to the "Trump presidency and access" section.--Bigeyedbeansfromvenus (talk) 08:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:LEDE arguments above. The lede paragraph relies on a single source which is not used elsewhere in the article. Sources should be incorporated appropriately in their relevant sections then where applicable summarized in the lede. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
• Not LEAD Agree that it's relevant to the page but doesn't belong in the lead section. Rewrite and add further down in the page. Comatmebro (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• Include -- otherwise, the statement "OAN states a goal of delivering credible national and international news coverage throughout the day while its prime-time political talk shows illustrate a conservative prospective" should also be removed. Without the sentence that is the subject of this RfC, the lead would give WP:UNDUE weight to the claims by the network. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

We can remove that as well. This is still not LEAD. Marquis de Faux (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended discussion

Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, it does not matter how well known the network is, it is important that Wikipedia articles maintain consistency and follow the correct encyclopedic format. It is clear that highlighting specific examples like this is the lead in this case is not only unnecessary, but wholly inconsistent with the formatting of Wikipedia. Anti-Clinton, pro-Trump, and anti-abortion all fall under typical conservative ideology, which is already summarized in the lead. "Minimizing Russian stories" is also consistent with most conservative outlets. The Washington Post article simply attempted to highlight the network's conservative coverage, which is already described in detail. Marquis de Faux (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Marquis de Faux, and oppose the inclusion of this passage because it does not meet WP:LEAD guidelines which govern the formatting of similar articles. I would agree this falls under the umbrella of usual conservative media hijinks. Beyond the formatting issue, no one expects FNC to cover Russiagate quite as heavily as CNN. Similarly, it's not expected Jeff Zucker would be telling his staff at CNN to focus on Uranium One. It's worth keeping in the "Trump presidency and access" section, but not appropriate for the lead.--Bigeyedbeansfromvenus (talk) 08:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I thought the author sounded familiar. Fisher wrote this particularly unflattering piece on Sean Hannity, also in the Style section. "Style" seems to be a mix of news and opinion on Arts and Entertainment. I would give it less weight than the Post's news coverage, print or online. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Huffington Post blog source - Marty Kaplan

I was tempted to remove this Huffington Post blog source from the article [2] until I saw it was written by Marty Kaplan who holds a prestigious position at the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism[3] which USA Today ranks as one of the top journalism schools.[4] Instead I think should be expanded. This comment is a note to myself as much as any editor who is interested in expanding it. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Roy Moore sexual misconduct report controversy

The first paragraph of this section is cited to two sources both of which only mention One America News in passing:

• Newsweek - The rumor was recycled by ... One America News Network
• The Daily Beast - One America News Network even aired the news, citing a “report.”

I removed this citing undue weight. It was restored. I would like others to comment.

The Washingtonian, which describes itself as "the region’s top source of information for dining, shopping, entertainment, and personalities", is clearly not RS. Objections should be presented at RSN. In the meantime I have removed it. I note for those editors who are Washingtonians their header advertises your last chance to enter their "cute dog contest."[5] James J. Lambden (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

(1) The Washingtonian has won several National Magazine awards, including for its news reporting.

(2) One America News is small time. No RS is going to dedicate wall-to-wall coverage of its activities. If three RS covers the activities of this small time outfit, that's due weight.

(3) A news outlet promoting hoaxes and smearing those who come forward with sexual assault accusations is blatantly due weight.

(4) You removed text sourced to the Washingtonian, which quoted a One America News reporter calling a hoax Twitter account a "former Secret Service agent and Navy veteran" and even had a video where reporter says what she was quoted. This is easily verifiable, yet removed.

(5) This is more WP:HARASS from James Lambden who follows me around and mass-removes text and source for spurious non-policy based reasons. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The reliability of The Washingtonian should be established at RSN. I found no previous discussions suggesting it was reliable. The veracity of the quote "former Secret Service agent and Navy veteran" is not the issue. The issue is insufficient weight as it is only reported in The Washingtonian. Article talk pages and edit summaries are the place for personal comments. Stop. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Should be removed quickly. Clearly insufficient weight as pointed out by James Lambden AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 03:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

This was brought up here... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_The_Washingtonian_a_reliable_source? And has been agreed that it does meet RS standards. Removal for that is not whole or correct. ContentEditman (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Using the same source twice doesn't make it two sources

I was sent here to find reasons we'd use Allan Smith of Business Insider twice for the same thing. I see none. So I removed the second one again. If someone would use the British version over the Singaporean, I don't mind. But it should be one or the other. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Political bias alert

A politically biased person is posting unproven conspiracy theories that OANN promotes conspiracy theories. This is obviously an unproven anti-conservative opinion. Just because you have negative feelings toward OANN doesn't mean it's news is a conspiracy theory. The bias by someone who posted that is blatant and appalling. If I say the news channel you like to watch is a conspiracy theory that is also my opinion. Even though I believe many to be extremely corrupt and biased I'm not listing all of their accusations on every page, despite video proof of them lying. Give the conspiracy theories a rest and leave your bias out of this page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.102.225 (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Anon, your edit replaced text which cites multiple reliable sources with a statement of opinion citing a YouTube upload of a Russia Today broadcast about CNN which literally doesn't mention OANN. If you have reliable sources, post them here for discussion. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Political bias and slander

Several false claims are being made slandering OANN and the journalists who work there are conspiracy theorists. The chosen wording displays extreme political bias and prejudice, and is unbecoming of an encyclopedia, and in some cases, the references being linked do not support the claims being made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbiliosBetters (talk • contribs) 05:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, not false balance. Your opinion that these are false doesn't make them false. Which sources do not support these claims? Grayfell (talk) 05:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The impropriety of biased language in encyclopedia articles is not controversial. references [8, 9] are supposed to prove that OANN promotes conspiracy theories, but they do not. Your opinion that OANN promotes conspiracy theories does not make it factual AbiliosBetters (talk) 06:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@AbiliosBetters: This source calls specifically refutes multiple stories published by the network, while this one says it often promotes conspiracy theories. These sources clearly support these descriptions. Grayfell (talk) 06:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

So we shouldn't say that that liars lie, that hoaxers hoax, that fake news is fake news? Or that Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist? Basically you don't understand or like our policies, but that's your problem as you're not going to be able to change them. Doug Weller talk 06:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Alex Jones has nothing to do with OANN, or anything else here. Vanity fair is not a reliable or unbiased source of information, and biased language has no place in an encyclopedia article. That really should not be controversial. I understand your policies perfectly: you are propagandists, pure and simple. You slander OANN simply because you do not agree with their political views. I simply wish to remove biased language and false information AbiliosBetters (talk) 08:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

You don't like our policies, go somewhere else. We follow what the sources say, and of course bias has a place - I'd expect a mainstream encyclopedia to be biased against pseudoscience, racism, etc. Most sources will have a point of view, which is another way of saying they will have some sort of bias. Alex Jones was an example of an article where we use what you would call biased language. Doug Weller talk 19:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

This statement that OAN supports falsehoods and conspiracy theories is opinion and not fact. No reliable sources. It should be removed

The channel has been noted for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories.--KEpstein2012 (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

References

...except for the two sources you just copied to this talk page? Calling sources unreliable and describing this as an opinion is not persuasive. The sources are reliable according to Wikipedia's standards and disagreeing with something doesn't transform it into an opinion. Grayfell (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Every news channel gets a story wrong on occasion. To state "noted for promoting falsehoods" implies a consistent pattern, and citing two examples is not a sufficient source for identifying a pattern. Cite some review to substantiate such a broad claim. - anon.

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2019

Change right-wing to conservative in the opening sentence. This current text shows unacceptable bias. 199.19.251.16 (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DBigXrayᗙ 20:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Changes

Dear All:

I am a paid editor, please find my disclosure here.

I noticed something in the last sentence quoted below from the lead paragraph:

The channel has been noted for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories.

I recommend this instead, “The channel has quite often promoted conspiracy theories.”

===Reasons===

1.   The citations used do not directly support the material and do not conclude that the channel promotes falsehoods and conspiracy theories and breaches WP:VERIFY

2.    “It has been noted”, is ambiguous because of its context. “Noted” is an adjective and implies here that it is “Well known and esteemed”, both citations do not claim that this is a well-known fact or is esteemed. The literal meaning of this phrase here could be, “it is observed”, or “it is written down”, however, that meaning implies that it is an offence that requires some kind of action and is noted by some kind of authority. Therefore, the tone and expression is not encyclopedic as per WP:PURPOSE

3.   The phrase, “it has been noted”, and the word, “falsehood” seem to be opinions and not facts as well as judgmental in terms of language, therefore they are in breach of WP:YESPOV

4.    The word, “falsehood” seems like an unnecessary detail that may have been added to overwhelm something negative WP:WEIGHT  Both of these expressions are not part of a quote from the 2 sources used in this claim.

I am attaching a quote from both citations for your convenience below:

Citation number 9: Subtitle “One America News Network is known for supporting the President”

“The network has become known for reporting Mr Trump’s claims about everything from how the mainstream media was biased for covering audio tapes from Entertainment Tonight of then-candidate Trump using lewd language to speak about women to the crowd size at his inauguration.”

Citation number 10: Subtitle, “Unearthed tweets from the director centering on pedophilia and rape prompted the termination. Gunn has since apologized”

“Jack Posobiec, an on-air reporter for the conservative channel One America News Network, which often promotes conspiracy theories”

As you can see, the first citation does not supplement the claim, the second citation does not conclude – as the claim does. The second citation claims that America News Network quite often promotes conspiracy theories.

Thank you so much for your time. I hope to work with you to make this article better.

Kind Regards

Saad Ahmed2983 (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

References

There are countless examples in the article where the phrasing repeats two similar terms in an effort not just to "double the point", but also to fulfill the practical purposes of sentence-craft and readability. I dont see how this example is any different. Seeing as how enforcement of a blanket "one descriptive term per claim" requirement would be challenging upon the article, making its sentences less descriptive and more plain, the best way forward for this proposal is an WP:RFC.  Spintendo  06:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you again for your help. Saad Ahmed2983 (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC about the last sentence in the lead page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the sentence below be changed because it doubles up the claim and does not represent the citation’s claim in its true context?

The channel has been noted for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories.^[1][2]

Should a blanket of “One claim per citation” be implemented to ensure neutrality? Saad Ahmed2983 (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Dear All:

I am a paid editor, please find my disclosure here.

Extended content

Please find my personal findings below. ===Additional observations that may require attention=== 1.   The citations used do not directly support the material and do not conclude that the channel promotes falsehoods and conspiracy theories and breaches WP:VERIFY 2.    “It has been noted”, is ambiguous because of its context. “Noted” is an adjective and implies here that it is “Well known and esteemed”, both citations do not claim that this is a well-known fact or is esteemed. The literal meaning of this phrase here could be, “it is observed”, or “it is written down”, however, that meaning implies that it is an offence that requires some kind of action and is noted by some kind of authority. Therefore, the tone and expression is not encyclopedic as per WP:PURPOSE 3.   The phrase, “it has been noted”, and the word, “falsehood” seem to be opinions and not facts as well as judgmental in terms of language, therefore they are in breach of WP:YESPOV 4.    The word, “falsehood” seems like an unnecessary detail that may have been added to overwhelm something negative WP:WEIGHT Both of these expressions are not part of a quote from the 2 sources used in this claim. I am attaching parts from the citations that mention One America News Network. Citation number 9: Subtitle “One America News Network is known for supporting the President” (the subject matter is not part of the claim made in the article) “The network has become known for reporting Mr Trump’s claims about everything from how the mainstream media was biased for covering audio tapes from Entertainment Tonight of then-candidate Trump using lewd language to speak about women to the crowd size at his inauguration.” Citation number 10: Subtitle, “Unearthed tweets from the director centering on pedophilia and rape prompted the termination. Gunn has since apologized”  (the subject matter is not part of the claim made in the article) “Jack Posobiec, an on-air reporter for the conservative channel One America News Network, which often promotes conspiracy theories” Please note, the first citation does not supplement the claim, the second citation does not conclude – as the claim does “. The second citation claims that America News Network quite often promotes conspiracy theories. The citation is vague on this claim, therefore that material should also represent the same. Additional Notes 1. The body of both articles do not conclude that OANN promotes falsehood, the body mentions that it promoted news that may have been conspiracy theories, there is a difference between, "often promotes conspiracy theories" and, "The channel has been noted for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories" (please see above for further clarification) The claim is grossly misrepresented. While craft and readability is vital for good readership, the dispassionate, encyclopedic tone should take precedence over "doubling up the sentence". Saad Ahmed2983 (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Thank you so much for your time. I hope to work with you to make this article better.

Kind Regards,

Saad Ahmed2983 (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The disputed sentence is fine and should not be altered. VF says OANN "often promotes conspiracy theories"[6] and the Independent characterises OANN as a "conspiracy network". Furthermore, the body of the Wikipedia article highlights a number of instances of falsehoods and conspiracy theories. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose change - two sources cited directly link OANN to the promotion of conspiracy theories (via the quotes "often promotes conspiracy theories" and the label "conspiracy network", respectively), and thus it is an accurate use of encyclopedic, neutral prose to write that OANN has been "noted" for promoting conspiracies. Furthermore, a third source [7] criticizes OANN's employment of a journalist the source charges with "pushing conspiracy theories". Add to this the dozen or so sources cited in the article criticizing OANN's reporting style and habit of interviewing conspiracy theorists, and the sentence in question is justified.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose change, but drop the citations. The sentence does not need to be changed as it's a neutral summary of content that appears in the body. However there is a confusing text-source integrity problem because Saad Ahmed2983 is correct, the sources cited in the lead section do not support the statement that OANN has been noted for promoting falsehoods, only that they have been known for supporting conspiracy theories. The appropriate solution to this problem is to simply drop the citations, which are not required anyway. R2 (bleep) 18:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Fine by me to drop the cites from the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose change, drop citations Doug Weller talk 09:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support change of the word "falsehoods" to something more neutral, and keep both citations I agree with R2, that in order to have a verified statement that the Network "promotes falsehoods" the claim statement would have to provide a reference which proved that the Network promoted something which did not happen. This essentially requires the source to prove a negative — something which can be done, but with more difficulty. Instead of calling this "promotion of falsehoods", the language used should be changed to state what is known, that the Network's coverage of Seth Rich was never substantiated. I disagree with the interpretations of MOS:LEADCITE stated here which say that references are not needed. The verifiability policy advises that material in the lead which is challenged or likely to be challenged should be supported by an inline citation. Spintendo  23:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Notes

Has this editor never heard of fact checking websites like Snopes? These are examples of reliable sources, cited in our article, that verify that OANN has promoted falsehoods: [8][9] I don't know what's so "difficult" about that. R2 (bleep) 23:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The two references that you have provided do not verify the statement that OANN has promoted falsehoods, the citations say that OANN has reported a claim that is partly false (not promoted, they do not advertise conspiracy theories). The first citation clearly mentions, "Mostly False" to the claim, "A 13 percent increase in police-recorded crime in England and Wales is linked to a rise in 'radical Islamic terror.'", furthermore, the citation also says some part of this claim was true, "The number of arrests relating to "international terrorism" and the number of terror-related homicides and attempted murder offenses increased in the year ending June 2017; crime as a whole increased by 13 percent.", so the citation says that OANN has reported something that was partly false and not backed by evidence. No where it claims that OANN promotes falsehoods. The second citation is again misinterpreted - California State Assembly member Travis Allen made the claim, OANN only asked a question and reported the answer, here is an example from the second citation, "California Assembly Bill 2943 does not mention the Bible, Christianity, or religion at all, so when Allen claimed that the legislation would “literally” prohibit the sale of the Bible, he was stating something that is demonstrably and clearly false." Saad Ahmed2983 (talk) 11:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support change of the word "falsehoods" to something more neutral, and keep both citations I agree with Spintendo, that material in the lead which is challenged or likely to be challenged should be supported by an inline citation Saad Ahmed2983 (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose change, but drop the citations. Citations not required in lede per LEADCITE. OAN is clearly described in the body and in RS as promoting conspiracy theories and falsehoods (evident by searching for "false" in tue body and examining the cited sources).Icewhiz (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose change. Regarding the citations, they are not strictly necessary in the lead, and we can take them out if people really want, but I would advise leaving them in (or replacing them with a collection of better ones from the article) because this is a statement that is likely to be challenged. In situations like that I feel it's best to leave cites in the lead to ward off frivolous challenges over the lack of cites and to give more serious challenges an immediate idea of the sorts of sources that they need to answer if they want the sentence changed. Sources in the lead for potentially-controversial sentences also provides readers who might be uncertain about the statement an immediate sense of what it's based on without having to skim over the entire article. --Aquillion (talk) 06:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose change - "Falsehoods" is already neutral. A non-neutral term might be "lies" or perhaps "bullshit". Media companies are expected to fact-check, and if they publish false or completely unverifiable stories as true, this is functionally the same as promoting them. Sources in the body cite multiple specific examples of falsehoods and conspiracy theories, so this is a fair summary of the topic. Per Aquillion, I think sources should probably stay, with the understanding that the formatting can be adjusted as needed. Grayfell (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose change. When a channel is created for the sole purpose of promoting falsehoods and fake news, and RS expose that fact, we write what those RS say. They are the RS, not OAN. If the OP doesn't understand that, they shouldn't be editing here. They lack the necessary competence to do so. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Please read my comments again, it seems that editors have conflicts of interests of their own, in which case they should disclose it. Saying that "vWhen a channel is created for the sole purpose of promoting falsehoods and fake news" is a personal claim and not present in any of the citations. If they are, Please show them. Can you please explain how you came to this conclusion because I do not see any source claiming that? Saad Ahmed2983 (talk) 09:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Saad Ahmed2983: Why are you unwilling to disclose who exactly 'Unlinked Corp' are, who are paying you to edit this article? PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

This is not the right venue for this discussion, please leave a message on my talk page.Saad Ahmed2983 (talk) 10:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC about the political label, “right-wing” in the lead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the Term "right wing" be removed? Saad Ahmed2983 (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)

Survey

• No. This is a non-starter. "Right-wing" is supported by a reliable source from CNBC, and there are more out there as well. The political orientations of media outlets are absolutely critical and must be included in their lead sections. The arguments made by the paid COI requestor are most definitely not consistent with community standards. R2 (bleep) 18:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• No. Of course not. OANN is right-wing as per many reliable sources, and we almost always list such a political bias in this context. 207.239.164.66 (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• No. RS say it's right-wing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• No. Per RS sources. Might be a snow close.Casprings (talk) 04:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• No. It's well-cited, which is all that matters. Regarding the complaints below, we do in fact describe Fox News in the lead with the sentence Fox News has been described as practicing biased reporting in favor of the Republican Party, the George W. Bush and Donald Trump administrations and conservative causes while slandering the Democratic Party and spreading harmful propaganda intended to negatively affect its members' electoral performances. But the description of OANN is even more unified and to-the-point than that, so it makes sense to state it in the article voice further up. Regarding the concerns that it could "alienate" OANN viewers or affect the appearance of neutrality, that is WP:FALSEBALANCE - per WP:NOTCENSORED, we're required to go with what the sources say, even if some readers might find the result objectionable. Obsessing over the appearance of neutrality or what specific groups of readers think actually makes articles less neutral by discouraging us from accurately reporting what the sources say. --Aquillion (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• No. Per sources. Just FYI, the paid editor who started this RfC and apparently does not know who he's working for has canvassed editors to this RfC. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
• Someone SNOW close this and warn/explain to this editor how RfCs and canvassing works, and that they should not disruptively spam forty some odd talk pages to advocate for their employer. GMG^talk 11:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
• No.. Waste of editors time. I agree it's Snowing. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
• No The article clearly shows that it is indeed right-wing, as does many reliable-sources. Kiwifist (talk) 13:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
• No I was also canvassed to comment here, but I'm rather perplexed as to why. At first blush, I cannot see any neutral reason to doubt that OAN is (in the opinion of independent reliable sources) right-wing, conspiracy theorist, "taking pro-Trump to new heights", etc. At second, third and fourth blush it becomes even clearer. That they launched with the stated intention of being center-right does not change what they are. Their desire to project a more balanced image has similarly little impact on reality. Snow close is similarly obvious here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
• No. Gamaliel (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
• Suggestion. I was asked to comment on this RFC, although I'm not totally sure why. Anyway, although I don't see any reason to remove it, I think it would be better served by some rewording. I've always felt that "left-wing" and "right-wing" are so vague that they can't accurately convey what they mean to a reader, and they're never as preferable as specifics. For example, "Republican", "Conservative", and "pro-Trump" are all more preferable terms than saying "right-wing", which is broad and imprecise. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
• No reliable sources describe OANN as right-wing, whereas no non-primary sources have made a case contradicting this description. WP:NOTCENSORED also has to be considered in this RFC; while they eventually amended their statement, the OP initially asked [10] "Should the political label "right wing" be removed because it is factually incorrect, offensive and alienates OAN's audience?" Unfortunately, this sentence is in direct contradiction with WP:NOTCENSORED, as said policy makes it clear that whether an audience is offended or not is not the concern of Wikipedia.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
• NoI was asked by the editor staring this RfC to comment. The request was entirely neutral. I totally agree with what SamHolt6 and SummerPhDv2.0 say above. Doug Weller talk 16:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by requestor & responses

Dear All:

I am a paid editor, please find my disclosure here.

Please find my personal findings below.

Additional observations that may require attention

Important---Please note that OAN's political Ideology is not Right-Wing, they are Criticized for being right-wing in all of the sources - however, the article claims that they are right-wing, this is misleading and not consistent with similar articles on Fox news and cnn, they are not described via their political ideology but through their mission and vision - so why different for OAN?. I am sharing an example:

Look at source 11 on Wiki. The source is an article from “The Daily Beast”. The article directly quotes Charles Herring, President of OAN.  The article states:

“It is getting really hard to find just the reliable, credible, fact-based news with substance,” said Charles Herring, president of Herring Broadcasting, in an interview from CPAC, where he was setting up for the announcement. “The second component is to provide a platform where more voices can be heard, voices that are ignored, libertarian and conservative voices.”

Is it neutral to not include this and only include the negative parts?

What's negative about saying a media outlet is right-wing? This is factual content. No one is proposing including "OANN sucks" or similar. R2 (bleep) 18:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Additional points

1.      This is a political label and is alienating OAN's audience

2.      The reference used here is irrelevant to the subject

3.      Note that CNN and fox news are not described as a “left wing”, “liberal” or “progressive” channel.  Such labelling is not appropriate and is factually misleading 4. It seems that only the negative parts of the sources are being used. OAN's vision is nowhere in the article, please note that this article is about OAN so is it not necessary that the article also defines the vision rather than labelling the channel? 5. Saad Ahmed2983 (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Additional discussion

• There are many problems with this. Please carefully review WP:RFCBEFORE. Why are you starting an RFC with no prior discussion? Further, starting multiple concurrent RFCs with a COI for specific issues is inappropriately bureaucratic. First discuss and attempt to gain consensus. If this fails for some specific reason, only then should you start and RFC. I would strongly advise you to withdraw this RFC for now and reopen this only if absolutely necessary. In this case, "necessary" doesn't mean that you failed to persuade others, it means there is some specific reason to think that consensus has not been reached despite goof-faith efforts.

As for the issue itself, there are also many problems. Just for starters, this is not neutrally phrased. Please review Wikipedia:Writing requests for comment, specifically A good rule of thumb: another editor who doesn't know your opinion shouldn't be able to guess it from reading the question. This RFC fails badly at this test. It's absurd to claim that right-wing is "highly offensive", and this kind of vague claim undermines the credibility of the RFC, among other things. Grayfell (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging @Saad Ahmed2983: to respond to the analysis above.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. This should be closed. The OP doesn't seem to understand policy. We don't care if some content is "highly offensive". That feeling is in "the eye of the beholder". It's their problem. We document the facts, including the unpleasant ones. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your replies. I agree that this should be neutrally phrased, I will change that. I used the phrase "highly offensive" because many other channels are not described this way, only OAN is. I would also like to steer your attention to the previous RFC request, there are legitimate inconsistencies throughout the article and my comments were not answered. I understand that wikipedia cares about documententing, but not at the cost of cherry picking information from sources and not presenting the true meaning. I am a little confused here, I attempted a discussion but was directed to use an RFC? Thank you again for your guidance. Saad Ahmed2983 (talk) 09:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't know who directed you to start an RfC, but Greyfell is correct, it would have been better to start a normal talk page discussion first. Regardless, I personally am satisfied with the current, neutral wording of the RfC and do not object to it proceeding. I cleaned up the discussion to make it easier for others to participate. R2 (bleep) 18:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Needed: Better citation for footnote 1

The first paragraph contains the wording "is an American right-wing[1]..." However, I think that the citation does not support the assertion made. Also, I notice that the article for CNN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN does not call it "left-wing" even though many of its supporters would sheepishly agree it's "left-wing". (the word "liberal" does not even appear in the CNN article, either). The implication is that CNN is purely centrist, and not left-leaning at all. (the article for MSNBC has 10 uses of the word "liberal".) This sounds like bias. Years ago, CNN used to be an actual news channel. These days, it's nearly "all politics, all the time". Shouldn't there be a consistent treatment of the media? Slyfox4908 (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

For some reason, how CNN is described comes up a lot, but that's not how Wikipedia works. This isn't a forum for discussing other topics. Consensus for CNN is decided at Talk:CNN following an evaluation of reliable sources on CNN.

OANN doesn't have an established history, but it does have a clear political slant, and sources will reflect that. We define a topic according to how sources define it, not how sources define other, superficially similar topics.

The source very clearly supports this term: 'A White House correspondent for One America News Network, the right-wing media outlet that sided with Trump over CNN in a recent lawsuit, reported earlier Monday about the plea bargain.'[11] I'm guessing it's far from the only source which supports this point, also. Grayfell (talk) 02:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2019

No page found for "KlowdTX" or "Klowd TV" although broken link exists on this page (OANN). I believe it should exist under Category of Broadband TV. 168.244.4.61 (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the mention, as the reference was KlowdTV's website. Wikipedia isn't a directory for non-notable commercial services. If a reliable, independent source exists, this could be restored with that as context. Grayfell (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Request edit on 13 May 2019

{{"The channel has also been noted for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories.[9][10]" The first citation [9] links to a page that does not support this claim in any way.}}

_{(The above requested edit was made by clicking on a link in an automatically added notice.)}— Preceding unsigned comment added by Murandin (talk • contribs)

Well, it does state: Jack Posobiec, an on-air reporter for the conservative channel One America News Network, which often promotes conspiracy theories.... O3000 (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Murandin: pardon? Quoting, "Jack Posobiec, an on-air reporter for the conservative channel One America News Network, which often promotes conspiracy theories". We know that it is talking about the network, as it uses a "which" as opposed to a "who", the latter of which would have been used if the description was being attached to Posobiec.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

That is stated in the article, but there is no support given for that statement. It is only given as an off-hand comment, which is itself inappropriate in the context of the article as the story on which OANN reported was correct in this case. Murandin (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Murandin: right. That the One America News reporter (Jack Posobiec) was correct in reporting on a story does not change the description (quoted above) the article attaches to One America News. More importantly, please note that Wikipedia is built upon sources considered to be reliable; Vanity Fair is one of these reliable sources, as we can assume its editorial staff and writers do their due diligence. Should you think the article is lacking, the exchequer is on you to bring the matter before the reliable sources noticeboard and have the article in question declared to be unreliable. You can also contact the author or Vanity Fair and ask them to retract the article. Pending one of these actions being undertaken, the source is considered reliable per policy. SamHolt6 (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Can someone add archiving?

There are four-year old discussions on the page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Pro-Trump

The statement that OAN is "pro-Trump" is not appropriate in the lede (or arguably anywhere in the article). Does the article about MSNBC describe the network as "pro-Obama" or "pro-Hillary Clinton"? This language should be removed. -BattleshipGray (talk) 03:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@BattleshipGray: Do reliable sources claim this about MSNBC? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth (talk): Did you see MSNBC's coverage of the 2016 election, with Rachel Meadow crying as she stated how shocking and horrible it was that Hillary was losing, and then lost, the election? Yes, of course, reliable sources claim MSNBC is left-wing and pro-Hillary Clinton and pro-Obama. -BattleshipGray (talk) 03:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@BattleshipGray: Would you please link to the reliable sources which say this? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth (talk): I'm sure I can, but it might be a while. Unlike some editors here, I have to get to sleep, then go to work at my real job. -BattleshipGray (talk) 04:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Please do when you can. We go by what reliable sources say, not by the personal perceptions of our editors. Please post those RS citations here before you make changes to the article based on the,. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, the sources have to say that the whole network is "pro-Obama" or "pro-Hillary", not that Rachel Maddow, for instance, is. The whole kit-and-kaboodle. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@BattleshipGray: Thank you. Good luck at work. Looking forward to reading through the sources you bring to the table. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Reliably sourced. It's this fringe network's sole claim to any kind of notability. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Content

This section is entirely devoted to negative coverage of the channel's content. While there may be more coverage of OAN's errors and controversies than other media outlets, this section is clearly not a neutral examination of their "Content". This seems to be a general issue where Wikipedia trusted sources only cover right wing/conservative news outlets negatively, but there are certainly better sources for what OAN's content actually consists of than partisan criticism from Buzzfeed, The Daily Beast and The Guardian. An accurate section going over what OAN actually covers and in what formats would be more accurate and make the article seem like less of a series of attacks on the network's politics.

Well, you lost my attention when you rolled The Guardian in with Buzzfeed and The Daily Beast. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

This isn't meant to be an attack on the credibility of the sources, although Buzzfeed and the Daily Beast clearly have issues there. It is questionable when every source for an article that is effectively a list of Controversies is sourced from media outlets that are highly opinionated and of a strong political slant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atxwi (talk • contribs) 23:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

It's clearly at attack on the ability of those sources to report accurately. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The content section is a good summary of the kind of content produced on this network. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Description as Jewish-Hungarian

In the section discussing the network's coverage of George Soros, the hyphen in "Jewish-Hungarian" should be removed. Soros is Hungarian-American. "Jewish" is irrelevant to his Hungarian national origins and should not be included in a hyphenated adjective, if at all. It implies a prejudice. In the context of this article, it probably makes sense to include his religious affiliation when explaining the antisemitic remarks and conspiracy theories advanced about him. In that manner, "Jewish Hungarian-American" (no hyphen after "Jewish") would be more correct. Jack Falltrades (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Documentary production

Rudy. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/us/politics/giuliani-europe-impeachment.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share Tinybirdie (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Following the sources

I have reverted the removal to very-well-sourced, longstanding content that described the channel as right-wing. We follow the sources here, and this removal lacked any basis in encyclopedia policy. Neutrality^talk 15:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Request edit on 9 December 2019

I find this article to be bias against OANN rather than giving facts. From what I understand to be the standards of neutrality of Wikipedia, I request an editor's review from that perspective. As a conservative, I am frustrated that none of the recent lies ABC news has committed are not listed on their page but that all of the errors in judgement the OANN staff has made are listed. This is an example of the bias I am referring to. Thank you for your consideration.Gilmichelini (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

_{(The above requested edit was made by clicking on a link in an automatically added notice.)}

Reply 9-DEC-2019

  No actionable request  

• Thank you for your message expressing your concern over the article's WP:BALANCE. Ensuring that Wikipedia articles are free from bias is an important issue that requires monitoring by all editors.
• However, the {{request edit}} template that you've used here is exclusively utilized by editors who have disclosed a conflict of interest with an article they wish to edit. In this case, unless you work for OANN, there can be no conflict of interest on your part — as conflicts of interest in this milieu do not extend to political persuasions.
• You are invited to continue the discussion here on the talk page about your concerns with other local editors. The {{request edit}} template is not needed for that discussion. You may also wish to broadcast requests for discussion regarding the article's POV and any balance issues at the talk pages of the WikiProjects which govern this article. Those projects are usually listed at the top of an article's talk page.

Warm regards,  Spintendo  21:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Oleksandr Onyshchenko, add content?

Regarding Oleksandr Onyshchenko

• Pro-Trump Network OAN Tried to Get This Ukrainian Millionaire a Visa Before His Arrest; The Trumpiest of TV channels tried to bring a peddler of Biden dirt to America. The Ukrainian went to jail instead. Updated Dec. 11, 2019

X1\ (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

See Trump–Ukraine scandal. X1\ (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Is the term conspiracy theory neutral? It has a negative connotation in my experience. I think that people call something a conspiracy theory when they believe it is not true. If so then the term is a violation of the requirement to be neutral, correct? Sam Tomato (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The question is not whether we can or cannot label farfetched and extreme claims as conspiracy theories. The question is whether the claims have been unambiguously established by many independent sources as such. Conspiracy theory certainly is a loaded term, and where such claims are found to be conspiracy theories, it indeed is non-neutral to refer to them as anything but.

It stinks to have right-wing sources that have a poor record of credibility, considering that I am also right-wing. Of course, not all of them are like that, and we do need to remind ourselves that mainstream does not mean progressive. I would prefer that a well-known right-wing source also call out OAN, but sadly that is what polarization is. Based on my experience, the mainstream critics seem to be at least truthful in saying that OAN is not the best, and unfortunately for us, they are correct to label them as conspiracy theories. I do not deny that conspiracy theory is used in a slanderous way, but I do deny that we ought to avoid using it. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 04:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

NPOV issue?

It is quite obvious to any honest bystander that this page is being moderated by radical leftists and any moderate or consensus edit will not be permitted if it presents a balanced view of the channel. OAN is a traditional or conservative channel but they are not a "radical right" network portrayed in this page. They provide international news from reuters, AP and other well established news agencies. It would be nice if some real adults started treating this page with the same balance that other left wing news channels like CNN, MSNBC, WASHINGTON POST and The Young Turks get.

B575 (talk) 13:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Which part of the article do you believe is being "moderated by radical leftists"? We take bias very seriously, and no, we are not reverting edits that adhere to NPOV. OAN is known as Trump's favorite network, and for a good reason: he is treated almost perfectly. Trump has slammed Fox News for occasionally covering him negatively even when it reasonably should. At the same time, he is seen consistently praising OAN as delivering "fair coverage and brilliant reporting." It may very well be comparable to Breitbart, The Gateway Pundit, InfoWars, and numerous other THC-injected jibber-jabberish gobbledygook such as Occupy Democrats. On the other side of OAN, it does provide plenty of straight and neutral reporting. It is not uncommon for news stations to mirror stories published by others, including those that may damage the mirrorers' ideological causes. For that, I do agree that the network is not entirely bad, although I do strongly advise caution when proceeding to read some of its stories.

If you have concerns about the article, calling out other editors as being pretentious adults is not the way to do it. I also have concerns about the article myself, but it has more to do with how the contents are being presented and that they possibly violate WP:NOTNEWS. Some of it could also be trimmed down to the point where only the most notable examples are covered, as opposed to indiscriminately listing every one of them if the fact that the network often spouts out falsehoods will already cover all of them implicitly. By the way, MSNBC, The Young Turks, and columnist sections of some others such as CNN are described (appropriately) as being progressive. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 05:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Radical right description

The description radical right in the lead is not sourced. There are a large number of sources listed but none of them either contain the words radical right nor do they contain the description of radical right listed in the linked radical right Wikipedia page. If editors wish to label OAN as radical right that's fine but it needs to be sourced. Otherwise it needs to be reworded or deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:DC00:1580:E0FB:6B32:CF2C:C5AF (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I have looked through the sources cited and (unless I am missing something) you seem to be correct; none of the sources cited refer to or describe OAAN as "radical right". I will remove the description momentarily. SamHolt6 (talk) 04:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Because it's a somewhat objective report on something noteworthy (and not in a negative context) the station has done

— btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 05:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

POV Pushing

While OAN is certainly right wing, there is an obvious bias against OAN here. The several instances of excessive citations are overkill. More balance is definitely needed to safeguard Wikipedia's wp:npov policy. To improve balance, the article could describe their interview with Ukrainian prosecutor.— btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 19:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Reserving any judgement on NPOV, I'm a bit confused about how describing their interview with Shokin would countervail the perceived imbalance (?) --Replysixty (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Replysixty: Viktor Shokin? What do you mean by countervail the perceived imbalance? X1\ (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, user btphelps appears to suggest that describing OAN's interview with Shokin would "improve balance" against "obvious bias". My question is how would referencing or describing this interview address btphelps' bias concerns one way or another. --Replysixty (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Just what counts as "far right" these days?

The channel is classified as "far right" here, because (among other things):

"OAN is known for downplaying threats posed to the United States by Russia"

In what world is that a far-right position? NOT stoking up the fear about a foreign country is far-right? Let's say Russia is indeed threatening the USA: Such a position could be described as "naive peaceniks" or something, but "far right" is really something.

"In April 2018, while on an al-Assad regime-led tour of the area of the Douma chemical attack, an OAN correspondent claimed there was no evidence that a chemical attack had occurred."

Wait, wait, opposing meddling in the mid-east is far right nowadays?! Does that mean George W. Bush (Afghanistan, Iraq) and Fox-News during that time were actually far left? If not, what's the difference? Saddam was also dictator with blood on his hands (chemical attacks and all). Yet neither Saddam nor Assad have ever attacked the US.

Seriously, the people who bring up these points: How would you classify today the books of Chomsky and Vidal? They must be border-line fascists according to the new standards. 91.65.9.82 (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

We use reliable secondary sources, not our own opinions. O3000 (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

And? And I don't dispute that "reliable sources" reported that OAN sides with Assad's side of the story or whatever, the point is, just why the heck is a that a "far right" position all of sudden? It's not like these reliable sources actually wrote this wiki page. As I said, if such positions (non-interventionism in the mid-east apparently?) are "far-right" now, then Gore Vidal's "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace" should be considered as fascist now given this definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.9.82 (talk) 01:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Find reliable secondary sources for whatever you want changed. O3000 (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Far left leaning, opinion sources, quoted as “proof”

Rant O3000 (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The opening statement that OANN is a far right leaning News Source is an opinion by far left leaning, de-bunked News sources. (1,2,4,5,6) are not legitimate sources of “News” ABC,NBC and Daily Beast are pure Left Wing Propaganda. The Pew Accuracy Ratings of “News” Organizations slams the 5 sources quoted above as less than 30% accurate. This Wikipedia Article on OANN is nothing but a hit piece. Also, I suggest the authors of this “ Piece” do a YouTube search for the 60 Minutes Interview with George Soros. The Man’s own words condemn him. 2600:1017:B80D:BB38:D537:40AB:807C:14F2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Fairness in Descriptions

One America News Network is labeled far-right yet MSNBC is labeled as an American news network and CNN is labeled as news-based. According to Politifact, CNN is 100% mostly false and MSNBC is 100% "Pants on Fire" According to Media Bias/Fact Check both CNN and MSNBC are labeled as Left Biased while Fox and OANN are labeled as Right Biased. Thus the terms far left should be added to the descriptions of both CNN and MSNBC.13:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Mncole1959 (talk)<https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/?s=CNN><https://www.politifact.com/personalities/cnn/<https://www.politifact.com/personalities/msnbc/>

Mncole1959 said: According to Politifact, CNN is 100% mostly false and MSNBC is 100% "Pants on Fire". Umm, look again. Politifact only had one CNN and two MSNBC factchecks. That means they only found one CNN quote mostly false and two MSNBC quotes pants on fire. Also, Media Bias/Fact Check is not a reliable source. In any case, WP:OTHERCONTENT. O3000 (talk) 13:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

See https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/ for example. Guy (help!) 13:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Review WP:RSPSOURCES, Mncole1959. X1\ (talk) 01:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Curious that your "only" edit on wp is here , Mncole1959. See Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. X1\ (talk) 02:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2020 for OANN [One America News Network] availability.

OANN is available on KlowdTV as well as their on APP. Please add this to their page. 1jonqpublik (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

KlowdTV itself does not appear to be a notable product. Declined. Zaathras (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

conservative/far-right

Sources support both conservative and far-right thus I've made this edit. If this should be discussed, let us discuss. Bus stop (talk) 01:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Objective3000 as they object to the edit. Bus stop (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The thing here is that "conservative" describes party politics or agenda, this penchant for applying to to non-(overtly, anyways) political entities like media outlets is a oddity of Western media. You're basically declaring OANN to be part & parcel of conservative politics in America, which as of 2020 is the Republican Party. If that's the message of the sources cited, then, hey, thumbs-up. ValarianB (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Far-right is ultraconservative, that is a subset of conservative. "Conservative or far-right" makes no sense. "Conservative, far-right" is redundant. "Conservative" and "far-right" are both correct, and why sources can be found for both. But "far-right" is more descriptive as it is narrower. O3000 (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

It is The Washington Post's opinion that OANN is a "conservative cable outlet". "Rion and her employer, a tiny conservative cable outlet known as OANN, appear to have gotten special permission from the White House, in violation of the guidelines." That source is from yesterday. Bus stop (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

That's a media editor, not a political editor. That doesn't mean they don't think it isn't far-right. O3000 (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@O3000: Since conservative and right wing are not the same, their extremes aren't either, hence conservative far-right is not redundant. Progressive far-right does also exist for example and is usually even worse. --Xario (talk) 10:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

There can be a few commonalities between some progressives and some on the far right. But, I have never seen the term "progressive far-right" in any RS. The term makes no sense. O3000 (talk) 10:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

defined as Far-right in the U.S. / Radical right (United States) per multiple RSs

classification as "news"

The discussion below focuses on the wrong distinction. It's not disputable that OANN is far-right. More saliently, OANN's classification as "news" is misleading and should be removed. News, and not OANN, is intended to inform, and consists of information about current events. As the rest of the article painstakingly details, OANN is information of a biased and/or misleading nature used to promote and publicize a particular political point of view. It should be referred to as "propaganda," not as "news."

radical right wing

The Guardian newspaper describes OAN as "more right wing than Fox [News]"

X1\ (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Clearly editors WANT to label OAN radical-right at the same time the neutrality is in question. Another win for wikipediocracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B10C:3221:1CFD:DAA0:CDE4:3782 (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

We follow what the RSs show, not by wp:OR. X1\ (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The fact it's "far-right" is easily sourced. I'd appreciate it if anonymous IPs stopped edit warring on this article. Volunteer Marek 23:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: I agree it would it help to lock-out the short-term (single purpose) accounts and related IPs, to decrease "busy-work". X1\ (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Y X1\ (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

You're relying on the Guardian to label something biased? --2600:8805:A980:470:85F3:253A:694B:A41C (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

You're just pick picking out one RS, why? X1\ (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree with @SamHolt6, "radical right" is synthesis. In addition, it is possible evidence of POV pushing by @X1, who needs to be careful that they do not continue this pattern. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 05:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Btphelps: SamHolt6 isn't in this thread. Are you attempting to threaten me with your needs to be careful comment? X1\ (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Isn’t Nunes suing these purveyors of false reporting you site as sources to label a news source from across the aisle you prefer? Since the Russian collusion investigation resulted in zero evidence of any American citizen that worked in President Trump’s campaign colluding with Russians and just this week the DOJ dropped their case against Russians indicted for their troll farm activity can I assume correctly that I will find “promoters of “leftist conspiracy theories” anywhere in the wiki page of MSNBC, CNN or the NYT or WP? Ekimsnevets (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

According to the DOJ, the DOJ case was dropped to avoid outing of tools and techniques that they used to discover the Russian interference in the 2016 election. As for Nunes lawsuits, read this:[12]. O3000 (talk) 11:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Are the two previous comments a separate thread, or intended to be in another thread? X1\ (talk) 05:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

No clear consensus on 'far-right' descriptor

I've tagged the claim the OANN is far-right as disputed, because there is no clear consensus, and the sources are dubious to credibly assess the political spectrum of the OANN. For there to be a WP:RS for this, it needs to be an independent assessment, such as from reputable media journal, like Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. Aeonx (talk) 10:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

There is absolutely no requirement that we only rely on peer-reviewed research as RS. ABC News and NBC News describes OANN as "far-right". Nothing has been presented to show that this description is erroneous. The body of the article is entirely consistent with this description, noting how OANN is further to the right than Fox News, hires far-right conspiracy theorists, and is renowned for trafficking in falsehoods and deranged conspiracy theories. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Aeonx, we go by what RSs say; and they say both. So we include both here.

Aeonx, see WP:TPYES. X1\ (talk) 04:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, maybe it would be better to keep the RSs that some described as "excessive" that you deleted, as premature. X1\ (talk) 04:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, maybe we should create a bundle citation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

There is no clear consensus, the sources dispute whether it I far right or not, and it's not at all clear they are reliable and informed to make such a judgement on determination of a network's political bias. Aeonx (talk) 08:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The cited sources – ABC News, NBC News, The Daily Beast (RSP entry), and Vanity Fair (RSP entry) – are reliable for the claim that OANN is "far-right". No sources here show that OANN is not "far-right". — Newslinger talk 08:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, the cited do not explicitly state "far-right" with any sort of justification or analysis, there are assumptions being made in that one referrs to it as further right than Fox News. By contrast, several bias review sites capture OAN in the "skews-right" or "right-leaning" rather than extreme right bias; both here bias review sites are more independent that the current cited sources, [13] and [14]. Also I can not see any consensus within the talk page. Just a bunch of bias editors, that are not taking a factual and encyclopedic approach. I feel like several editors are trying to start an edit war, I am not. I am merely flagging for discussion a problem that I can not see resolved in any way yet. Aeonx (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Neither of those sources are RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Explain. I find them more reliable than the current cited sources which are simply opinion pieces from non-independent news competitors. Aeonx (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Ad Fontes Media is still a self-published source at this time. AllSides uses user-generated content ("Community Feedback: 1,344 ratings"). In contrast, news organizations including ABC News and NBC News are generally reliable under WP:NEWSORG, and the other two sources have also been considered generally reliable in past discussions. — Newslinger talk 12:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

"AllSides Media Bias Ratings are based on multi-partisan, scientific analysis. Unless otherwise noted, this bias rating refers only to online news coverage, not opinion pieces or TV, print, or radio content.", they use UGC to gauge public agreement of their rating, not to generate the rating itself. Generally reliable, not does apply when they are providing an assessment on a competitor network. They don't pass independence test. Aeonx (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I've started a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of Ad Fontes Media and AllSides at WP:RSN § Ad Fontes Media and AllSides. — Newslinger talk 13:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Aeonx: This RfC needs to be reformatted to comply with WP:RFCBRIEF. Your RfC statement in Special:Diff/950707421#No clear consensus on 'far-right' descriptor is non-neutral, as it is not a question, but a set of accusations against other editors. The section heading also needs to be changed to a neutral heading. — Newslinger talk 12:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Abort This is not a proper RfC. It is an accusation against other editors. It is also misplaced. O3000 (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• There is indeed disagreement. Some of this is due to the rapid lurch to the right in OANN in the last 18 months or so, so careful sources are lagging. The consensus in all recent reporting is that OANN is far to the right of Fox News, but the right in US politics is now so far to the right that the distinction is almost meaningless. Once putting brown children in concentration camps became mainstream, there's not really very much further to go, is there? Guy (help!) 20:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Excessive citations

As previously mentioned, per overkill, excessive citations are not appropriate and reduce article readability. "In controversial topics, sometimes editors will stack citations that do not add additional facts or really improve article reliability, in an attempt to "outweigh" an opposing view when the article covers multiple sides of an issue or there are competing claims." Editors need to select a few strong citations and remove the others. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 01:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

On contentious pages, it's better to have many citations rather than fewer so as to prevent tendentious editors from wasting everyone's time by disputing the accuracy or RS status of 2-3 citations, or making claims that something that is obviously DUE is UNDUE. It's better to create a cite bundle than to delete the citations. This is a page which is likely to features constant vandalism from new editors and IP editors, as well as tendentious editing from regular editors. Many citations save everyone a lot of trouble. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

The reason why there appears to be "excessive citations" is they used to be separately defining "right-wing[1][2] to radical right wing.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9]" The citations were combine even though, building upon what Snooganssnoogans has said, they were there for different reasons. X1\ (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The tag was added by Btphelps 19:47, 30 December 2019, after SamHolt6 incorrectly removed the multi-RS backed "radical right wing" 04:39, 30 December 2019. Also see above section. X1\ (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@X1\: I saw my name pinged. The issue is that none of the sources cited in the lead refer to the news network as being "Radical right" or part of the "Radical Right". Where is this description coming from? SamHolt6 (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@SamHolt6: as stated before, Far-right in the U.S. Far right in the United States and Radical right (United States) are used interchangeably. X1\ (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, see Far-right politics § United States. X1\ (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@X1\: the sources cited are all WP:RS, and as an encyclopedia we expect said sources have done their due diligence in reporting. We should not interpret or synthesize what the sources stated, and as such the label of "radical right" should stay removed as none of the sources use it, instead choosing to use terms like "far right". As others have said above, we avoid WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and should reflect the sources cited as closely as possible. SamHolt6 (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Makes no difference. X1\ (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@X1\, I have no desire to engage in a conflict with you about edits to this article. I can't find other examples of articles with three instances of excessive numbers of references in the same article. When I culled the large number of citations, I attempted to select relatively balanced reliable sources. You've restored them all, including obviously left-leaving sources like the Guardian and Buzzfeed. Not my opinion, just what I found when I look when I looked for third-party verification like that for the Guardian and Buzzfeed. I requested in the edit summary that anyone wishing to restore the excessive comments bring it here to the Talk page. You disregarded that. While you mention WP:BRD in this edit summary, you have not faithfully engaged in discussion about the number of excessive edits, merely insisted that "on contentious pages, it's better to have many citations rather than fewer so as to prevent tendentious editors." There doesn't need to be anything contentious about the OAN article. It's an obvious fact they are right-wing in their views. You are bringing the contention to the article by the nature of your edits. I believe you have shown evident POV pushing:

• You added the phrase "radical right-wing" to the article twice here and here without a supporting reliable source even after it was removed by other editors who discussed it with you on the talk page
• Your insistence on twice re-adding a "further" tag to an article about Donald Trump when his veracity is really not relevant to this article about OAN here and here.

I think your behavior is tilting towards an edit war. Please respond to these concerns. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 07:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Btphelps: regarding your I requested in the edit summary that anyone wishing to restore the excessive comments bring it here to the Talk page. You disregarded that by making a series of edits without discussing it here first, not me. X1\ (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Btphelps: you appear confused as Snooganssnoogans made the commment (fragment) on contentious pages, it's better to have many citations rather than fewer so as to prevent tendentious editors. X1\ (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Btphelps: if you want to discuss Veracity of statements by Donald Trump, create a separate thread for that tangent. X1\ (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Btphelps: attempting to rehash "far-right/radical right" is beating a dead horse as this has been repeatably shown in RSs as has been commented on this Talk page and in my ESs multiple times now. Drop the stick. X1\ (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

"The channel targets a conservative and right-of-center audience"

Concerning the lead sentence "The channel targets a conservative and right-of-center audience," I think it is fair to say that the channel no longer targets that demographic as it once had. The references are dated before Trump had announced his presidential bid and subsequently risen to fame, and it is sad because OAN used to be much more credible. The opinion shows were far from perfect, but the news reporting was at least satisfactory. Nowadays, I think we should drop that sentence and categorize the article with Far-right politics in the United States. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 11:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

"Citation needed". ValarianB (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this should be dropped. There's an abundance of more recent sourcing which clearly shows that the channel tries to outFox Fox News and attract the most far-right devoted Trumpist crowd. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Sounds right to me too, Snooganssnoogans and Gamingforfun365. X1\ (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Gamingforfun365, hard to disagree. Another casualty of the clustering effect of right-wing media as noted in Benkler's Network Propaganda. Guy (help!) 14:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Like so many Wikipedia pages that have anything that appeals to conservative Americans it is in much need of updating to remove what was called “conspiracy theories” 2-3 years ago that have since become indisputable fact by anyone that is not completely l left wing biased. Wiretapping of Trump for example everyone knows was an expression used by Preside t Trump to mean spying in his campaign. Is that any longer disputed? Didn’t Veritas capture audio and video of a prominent Planned Parenthood manager stating that abortions and sales of fetus body parts was high in their agenda or was that my lying ears? Wikipedia would have a lot more credibility if it wasn’t mostly authored by folks with an equally leftist bent as the conservative media sources they put their version of facts on then put their lock on. Why can’t they simply provide factual information such as who when where they are founded and that they are conservative or right wing and spare us the “known as promoters of conspiracy theories” and “alt right or white supremacist” connotations?

If there is some scandal or controversy that is undisputed based on a verdict or anything more substantial than opinion then its inclusion would also be worthwhile. Ekimsnevets (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

No, Trump’s campaign was not wiretapped and the Project Veritas video was deceptively edited to push a completely false narrative. Also, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the White House leading expert on infectious diseases, did not fund creation of COVID-19. O3000 (talk) 11:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Are the two previous comments a separate thread, or intended to be in another thread? X1\ (talk) 05:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2020

Request removal of the term "far right wing" and replace with "conservative" news outlet. Even the references provided don't support the far right wing label. DknightInFV (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC) dianeInFV

 Not done. I've reviewed the given references at your request. 1. "documentary series by far-right network One America News Network", 2. "One America News Network, the far-right television outlet", 3. "works as a correspondent for the far-right One America News network", 4. "The decidedly far-right news channel", 5. "One America News Network, a far-right outlet". All of the references seem to explicitly support the label. Regardless, the formal consensus in the two month old RFC above seems settled. Kuru (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

By that logic Kuru if I get 5 people to say you're a WHITE supremist then that becomes your label. Pretty low standard. Owen Molloy (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The standard is reliable sources as spelled out at WP:RS -- not 5 guys. O3000 (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The label,"far right wing" is a subjective description. Wikipedia should be the one source that stays neutral and should never have the appearance of being biased.... but that's just my opinion. DknightInFV (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

Delete "far-right" and associated references and replace with "independent" using reference https://www.oann.com/about/ Owen Molloy (talk) 02:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

We do not use an organization's description of themselves. Instead, use go by what [[WP:reliable sources say. See my response to the edit request immediately above this one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The main issue is that none of the cited sources using the "far-right" descriptor have themselves used accurate sources to make that description. The sources cited are opinion only. "Far-Right", as described by Wikipedia itself has connotations of Nazism. Owen Molloy (talk) 06:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

There are many things on the far-right of the political spectrum. Nazism and Neo-Nazism are two of them, but there are others. But just because something is on te far-right doesn;t mean that it's related to Nazism, just as being yellow doesn;t mean that something is a banana. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The main point Beyond My Ken is that the sources cited are opinion only. No source is used within the cited source to give the description any credibility. If the cited sources defined "far-right" then they would be credible. Owen Molloy (talk) 07:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Owen Molloy ChiCubsfan44 (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

One America news is not a “far-right” “pro-Trump” news source. It is an unbiased, fairly new, good news channel. These biases shouldn’t be allowed to be put in by the editors of Wikipedia. This hyper-partnership is destroying this country. 2600:8801:C500:9DA:211A:5657:989B:8FE (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

We report what WP:reliable sources say about the subjects of our articles, and their descriptions of OANN say "far-right" and "pro-Trump" (why else do you think Trump called on their reporter in his news conferences whenever he got the chance?) If you have citations from reliable sources which say that OANN is "an unbiased ... news channel", please share them here. Also, read the discussion above #RFC on One America News Network - Application of bias descriptor, in which the WP:CONSENSUS of editors was to leave the descriptions as is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2020

Change far right to right leaning 75.165.88.174 (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per above section from yesterday. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2020

Oann.com is described as a "propaganda channel". "Propaganda" is someone's opinion, and should be replaced with "News", "information", or "news and information". 2600:1700:2F00:15E0:803:A744:538E:76C (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done The subject has been described as such by multiple reliable sources. GMG^talk 13:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2020

The description of the news organization as “propaganda” is an attempt to delegitimize the station. The article repeatedly states that the station is Pro Trump and uses conspiracy theories. All one must do is look at the entry for CNN and see the bias used against One America News. The article is not a fair and accurate description of One America News and should either be taken down or edited by someone who is not a left leaning hypocrite. Aclarion (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

There is a clear agenda here to paint OANN in as harshly of a light as possible as part of a political spat. You can hate the network all you wish, but you have no business editing Wikipedia. We know what you are doing.

• I do not consider myself either left leaning or a hypocrite. When a source is garbage, and is widely described as garbage, Wikipedia describes the source as such. GMG^talk 14:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2020

Change “Far right” to “conservative” 2601:1C0:CD01:8430:1442:6BD3:3B5B:EFEE (talk) 06:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Can't use existing source for new addition. El_C 06:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2020

You have ONS listed as a 'far-right' news source. This is completely false as they are just conservative and should be labelled as such. Please amend this detail as it is very misleading. 78.144.204.23 (talk) 06:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done. This is well sourced and has been discussed here at length previously. Guy (help!) 06:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)