Talk:Vox (website)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vox (website) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: http://www.dailydot.com/news/vox-explains-it-all/ http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/22/upshot-vox-fivethirtyeight-data-journalism-golden-age http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/vox-media-ventures-into-general-news-and-news-analysis-with-voxcom/2014/04/07/436902fa-be85-11e3-bcec-b71ee10e9bc3_story.html http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/apr/13/voxcom-melissa-bell-news-journalism http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/04/07/klein-launches-vox/7420053/ http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/vox-ezra-klein-110276.html http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/03/ezra-kleins-vox-is-already-being-labeled-left-wing-propaganda-by-conservatives/359709/ http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/13/media/nate-silver-vox/ http://www.mediaite.com/online/vox-allegedly-spikes-op-ed-for-implying-opposition-to-abortion/ Podcast Review of Today, Explained

A fact from Vox (website) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 January 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that The Economist compared Ezra Klein's aspirations for Vox, his new Vox Media news website, with John Keats's negative capability? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Vox (website).

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Websites: Computing Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing. Journalism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. Inkian Jason (talk · contribs) has been paid by Beutler Ink on behalf of Vox Media.

Having read this article for the first time it appears obvious to me that most of the "reception" portion is negative critique by conservative commentators. It would be good to get a more balanced picture of Vox's reception in my opinion.

Vox's sometimes farcical ideological bias is obvious to me even as a liberal, as are the condescending narratives put forth in many of their 'explanations'. FAIR has a piece [link fixed by 66.30.112.163 (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)] this year that shows how Vox often uses 'most experts agree' in many of their explainer videos and articles to advance positions without actual proof, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:8000:C700:CAE0:EBFF:FE16:F2D7 (talk) 05:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{Did you know nominations/Vox (website)}} czar ⨹ 03:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The citation for the statement that Vox is "politically liberal" all come from self-proclaimed conservative sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjacton (talk • contribs) 15:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All or virtually all of the voices in the "Political Stance" section come from the right. Does no one on the left--or the center--have anything to say about Vox's political stance? Nareek (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I consider myself center-left and I don't think classifying VOX as having a liberal perspective would be controversial. There are examples of liberal or non-conservative sources classifying VOX as "progressive/liberal": http://prospect.org/article/unbearable-whiteness-liberal-media http://theweek.com/articles/567586/gawker-meltdown-voxification-news-media http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/8/1536264/-My-guide-to-liberal-websites https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/08/the-sad-decline-of-vox-how-a-once-promising-media.html http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/04/does-the-left-have-a-smug-problem/479961/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:8504:109D:5C9E:E0B:1D47:44C3 (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored, but significantly shortened the Political stance section as it was too long and was WP:Undue weight. I removed some criticism from less-known blogs.

However, the section itself should remain. If you look at the other Wiki pages for sites like HuffPost, Daily Caller, etc., there is a "Political stance" section.

There have been complaints that most of the "Political stance" criticism have come from conservative or conservative leaning outlets. However, that does not mean it should be removed. For example, look at the article for The Washington Times. Most the political stance stuff comes from left-leaning outlets/commentators like Mother Jones or Thomas Frank, but that does not mean the commentary is not legitimate. I have also removed most of the commentary from conservative blogs or pundits, and kept only the ones from major news outlets.

I have left commentary and criticism regarding Vox's political stance from The Week, The Washington Times' Christopher J. Harper, and The Federalist's David Harsanyi. The Week is a well respected news magazine with many points of view, and is generally not considered conservative. Christopher J. Harper and Harsanyi are both well respected journalists.

If you can find any commentary regarding Vox's political stance from left-leaning outlets, please add it.

Marquis de Faux (talk) 05:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one for you: find any article, one, a single article, that is not left leaning, from Vox. They are almost all articles like this http://www.vox.com/2015/7/6/8900143/hillary-clinton-reporting-rules?yptr=yahoo in support of liberal views or candidates, or they are trashing conservative viewpoints/candidates. It is interesting that you want commentary regarding Vox's political stance, but you refuse to accept the fact that the answer lies within the articles themselves. They all support ultra liberal viewpoints, and shun anything conservative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.233.82 (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was asked above to find even a single article that is not left leaning. Elsewhere it said that all the viewpoints are ultra liberal. Here's a recent post that is moderate conservative: http://www.vox.com/first-person/2017/2/3/14487208/pro-life-abortion-movement John.boyland (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opening with three paragraphs of criticism (including from two right-wing ones) and only one supportive is incredibly imbalanced. Can literally three WP:RS supportive sources for WP:BALANCE not be found? Really? And can they not be interspersed?--Tenebrae (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly support adding more positive evaluations if they can be found. The existing criticism should be kept as it is, however, as the source from The Week (not a right-wing source) criticized the site's ideological founding, the second one from a noted conservative columnist criticizes the site's "explanatory journalism" concept itself, and the third criticism is from a notable and well-respected journalist and does not have to do with the site's politics or ideology at all but instead the accuracy of its reporting. All three offer unique perspectives. Marquis de Faux (talk) 03:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've significantly edited that section to try to give it more balance and give appropriate weight to various sources (I did not remove any of the sources). I agree that the section is tilted in favor of conservative media critics, so I've identified their ideological background to give some context on that. I've looked for some more positive reviews of the website and will add when located. I'm assuming there are more, and I think the section may unfairly give the impression it's a very unreliable, fringe website, which I don't think is accurate. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the reference to Vox's political stance from the top as it over-states the importance of this issue and I have tried to provide some more thorough sources to back up the liberal stance claim (rather than just offhand comments from journalists or pundits). Davidbrake (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I recently got into an edit conflict over citing a page from Vox.com in a living person's biography. The claim that Vox.com isn't a reliable source (for a BLP or otherwise) seems odd to me, and I'd like to know if any other editors have an opinion on this. (Note: I found a different source for that particular claim, so the edit conflict is over for now.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihirpmehta (talk • contribs) 18:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Describing a sentence describing Vox as having a liberal or left-leaning editorial perspective should not be controversial. Pretty much any source left or right agrees that it is left-leaning. I don't think anyone in the media disputes that.

Here's The Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/04/does-the-left-have-a-smug-problem/479961/ "left-leaning explainer site" Daily Kos http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/8/1536264/-My-guide-to-liberal-websites The Week http://theweek.com/articles/567586/gawker-meltdown-voxification-news-media

Marquis de Faux (talk) 03:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was moved down and toned down. The original sentence was Vox's articles have a strong tendency towards a liberal or progressive editorial perspective. That was a little "strong" for a lead paragraph (if you'll excuse my reuse of the word). I don't see a problem with including it somewhere, and it is. Perhaps a little bit more prominent would be acceptable. Neutrality, you were the one that removed it. Thoughts? --Majora (talk) 03:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marquis: All three URLs that you list are to opinion columns, not usable for statements of fact in Wikipedia voice. The article in The Week by Ryu Spaeth is already cited in the article, under the "Reception" section, with proper in-text attribution. (Note also that the Spaeth piece does not in fact call Vox liberal, but says that it has a "liberal audience" which is not the same thing). The Daily Kos link is to a post by a random contributor; those Kos diaries are user-generated. As to the column by Chris Bodenner in the Atlantic, that could possibly be used, but again, only with in-text attribution. Neutrality^talk 03:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that original language was POV and biased. Here's The Hill in a non-opinion news report: "Obama plans to take his case to the public later this week during a live-streamed interview with the liberal news website Vox." http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/312570-obama-pence-in-obamacare-showdown Marquis de Faux (talk) 01:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a secondary source for the YouTube channel section? Currently the only source is the channel itself. Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marquis de Faux. I have come to the talk page to discuss your latest revert here. I didn't realize the talk page already had discussions pertaining to describing this online publication as liberal, or liberal-progressive, etc., etc. So, I begin with noting that there seems to be a strong effort to characterize this website according to your view. "The Hill" article is not RS in this instance for describing Vox as "liberal".

First, as I noted in the edit history, this "Hill" article has nothing to do with the topic, so this appears to be synthesis. This seems to be an attempt to introduce a certain view of Obamacare into this article because it is the first reference, and it is in the introduction. Therefore, this reference is the one most likely to be read. Second, there is only a five word mention "...the liberal news website Vox", and this is not sufficient to generally or universally characterize this website as liberal.

Also, I don't appreciate this continual pushing of this issue, as seems to be happening according this talk page. I am guessing you are aware of UNDUE, NPOV, SYNTHESIS, and so on, and yet it seems you are persisting. Since it has been shown that the RS does not support this edit, I would appreciate it if you revert yourself. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Third - this "Hill" article has nothing to do with the topic and is therefore off-topic, and not useful as RS or as any kind of source for this article, especially in the introduction. This also is synthesis. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Quinn I would appreciate if you assume good faith and quit the personal accusations, as this issue is a legitimate issue that should be addressed. The characterization of the website as liberal leaning is not a personal view, but one expressed by many editors and many journalists, as has been well documented on this page. Given the multitude of writers from many perspectives characterizing the website as "liberal leaning", I am not sure why it would be UNDUE or POV to say that the website is "generally characterized as liberal or left-leaning" to summarize those perspectives. Is that inaccurate? "Continued pushing" is a result of repeated edit conflicts over this, so I brought the issue to the Talk page, which is precisely where issues like this are supposed to be discussed. I'm not sure what you mean by I am "persisting" or "pushing", the previous posts clearly show a constructive discussion on the state of the article and no consensus against adding the line. WP:Synthesis says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." In this case, the material was explicitly stated by the source, so I am not sure how that would apply. And given that The Hill is a reputable DC newspaper, I am not sure why it is not a RS. Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marquis de Faux This website may have been characterized as liberal leaning by Wikipedia editors but this is not RS that supports that view in this article. There are opinion pieces that have been brought into the above talk page discussions, so perhaps that is what you mean by many journalists. If there are a "multitude of writers from many perspectives characterizing the website as 'liberal leaning'" then please produce links to several of their articles here.

But please don't use opinion pieces because these have already been discounted above. Also, it is true this one, single, only source says Vox is liberal or a liberal website or something like that. But, it is only five words in an entire article that has nothing to do with this topic. Five words is trivial coverage; it is not significant coverage. And the fact that this is only one source means it does not carry the necessary weight to make this generalized claim about Vox, especially since there are only five relevant words.

Of course "The Hill" can be considered a reputable source but that fact clouds the issue in this instance. I could agree this is acceptable if the article significantly covered Vox, even though the article is about Obamacare. I would probably request another one or two sources, but this would be a good start. The reason the current situation is UNDUE is because with only five words in support of placing "liberal" in the lede, this is a marginal view, without more RS. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles are going to be opinion pieces, and while opinion pieces cannot be used as the objective voice of Wikipedia, they CAN be used in the proper context and are properly attributed, per WP:BIAS. The reason why I mentioned "multitude of writers from many perspectives" is to establish that writers commenting on the bias of VOX come from many perspectives, not just my view, or views from conservative sources. Obviously, this would involve opinion articles, as "many perspectives" would not be very relevant if only straight news articles were allowed. Here is Michael Lind, who is a reputable writer, writing in Politico for example, describing Vox as a "center-left website Vox purports to "explain the news," embodying the ethic of Wilsonian technocracy" http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/05/17/executive-power-congress-jackson-wilson-215144 .

Given that there is 1. An objective RS article that describes Vox as liberal, 2. many RS opinion pieces that can be used within the boundaries of WP:BIAS that support this view and 3. No RS articles disagreeing with the view, it can be concluded that RS supports the position that that the *general view* of Vox is that it is a liberal or left-leaning website. The article does not state outright either that Vox *is* a liberal website, but that it is *generally considered* to be one, which RS sufficiently supports. If more nuance is added to the wording, such as "The website is generally considered to have a politically liberal *or left-leaning* perspective", or even "many writers consider the website to have a politically liberal or left leaning perspective", I would not have a problem with that either. Marquis de Faux (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am going "study" or "research" your latest reply, then I will get back to you. I apologize if I came across as accusatory in my first post in this thread. That is not a good way to start a conversation. And moving on...-- I do not see one line passing mentions in two articles - "The Hill" and "Politico" as RS that describe Vox as liberal.

What I mean is, one line passing mention, five-word passing mention, and so on. Personally, I am interested in coverage of Vox in articles that show its liberal bias, which may include coverage of reporters and editorial staff and so on. What I have read in articles that cover Vox is that it is the "new" thing in news coverage because it is a technology platform that produces news. This is in contrast to a newspaper that adapts technology to post reported news. If it seems difficult understand the distinctions, I think you are not alone. In any case, I think the upshot is - this coverage does not state "liberal" or "conservative". Let mes see if I can find those articles. I think there are at least two. And I am reviewing WP:BIAS and taking into account opinion pieces. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rs24 - your edits to this article have been reverted by no fewer than four editors — myself, Sro23, Majora, and Snooganssnoogans. You have reverted 10 times over about a month, against consensus. Please stop.

Your edit has two parts, both of them bad. First, you took the Nieman Lab interview, removed the part that accurately summarized it, and inserted text that is a misleading summary - no explanation. Second, you keep inserting a link to a District of Columbia Board of Elections link containing Klein's party registration. The link makes no mention of Vox, and so it bears no relevance here. This is not an article about Klein. Read WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Neutrality^talk 05:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, when you tried to move the part that was actually supported by the sources, the readers leaning liberal, they removed it without comment. I would actually agree with that part being included since that is what is supported by the source. That seems like a great compromise to me. I guess they just want to have it their way or no way at all. --Majora (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Majora Thanks for the comment. I'm willing to compromise. It's hard when citation standards are selectively applied.

Neutrality You are selectively applying stringent citation standards that are indefensible because there are pages that have described other publications as left-leaning and right-leaning with the same types of sources. I also don't appreciate you breaking the continuity of this consensus-building by moving this discussion from the Vox (Talk) subsection to one that antagonizes me. I and others have cited credible sources (ones upheld by Wikipedia) that support the description that Vox is at the very least a left-learning site and at most a liberal website. Regarding the Nieman Lab interview piece, you say I "inserted text that is a misleading summary" Do specify please. If I erred, I'm happy to work in correcting that. Again, I don't know your motives but I question your judgment of rejecting phrasing and edits that exist on other pages and that are supported by similar sources. On Klein's party registration. The District of Columbia Board of Elections does not bear relevance to Vox as a new site, but that's not the implication of the citation I made. The citation is to further substantiate the fact that Vox is a left-leaning site that is led by a member of the Democratic Party who campaigned for Howard Dean, wrote about Democratic politics for years and earned an identity as an entrepreneurial liberal journalist. It's the same context that has been applied to conservatives Bill Buckley and Andrew Breitbart on the pages for National Review and Breitbart, respectively.

Prior to me, there were people who cited several articles that substantiated Vox's reputation as a liberal website, even by other cited liberal sources. Moreover, you keep rejecting the same types of sources that are used on other pages to substantiate claims of conservative or liberal bias. I and others have made and have been willing to made concessions and find consensus, but you've made this process onerous and unproductive. Either let's work together on this, otherwise myself and other users will agree on the consensus with which we arrive and apply the changes with responsible diction. If you revert these changes without a willingness to compromise, this will be escalated. Please cooperate. Stop moving the goal posts. Offer a solution that adds the political context this page needs and that is commonplace on several other pages of publications across the political spectrum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rs24 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The DC Board of Elections has no relevance here and is WP:SYNTH, as has been explained. Nobody doubts that Klein is liberal, but that is not directly transferable to Vox. Look, if you have the sources, post them here, and I'll take a look. Neutrality^talk 04:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would support, for example, the following text:

Under the "Audience" section. Data released by Facebook on media shares on the network by self-identified moderates, liberals, and conservatives shows that Vox articles was most commonly shared by self-identified liberals and moderates.^[1]

Neutrality^talk 04:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality Apologies for the delay. I can live with the addition of the Slate piece to what is already on the page, but in accordance to other pages for liberal and conservative publications, surely there can be a way to incorporate it into the leading paragraph. In addition, I say Klein's political ideology matters because it's an indicator, like it is for other publications' pages, from what perspective the website covers its stories. Even beyond the acknowledgments in several sources that they are a liberal site, it doesn't take more than browsing their headlines that cover the news from a liberal perspective.

Here are other publications acknowledging Vox as a liberal website: ^[1]

This is from conservative-leaning newspaper Washington Examiner, though it's certainly not more biased than Slate which is openly a liberal website. ^[2]

This is from The Hill where the characterize Vox as a "liberal news website". ^[3]

Here, in the Atlantic, Vox is described as a "left-leaning explainer site".^[4]

Let me know what you think and how we can come to an agreement.

Rs24 (talk) 22:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Kos and the Washington Examiner are not reliable sources that we can cite. The Atlantic article is an opinion blog post, so it's not citable for a statement in Wikipedia's own voice. (Such sources can be used with in-text attribution (I.e., "John Doe of the Times believes X") but cannot be used to make a factual statement. So all we are left with is a brief one-line mention in the article in The Hill. Neutrality^talk 00:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence reads "Vox is an leftist American news...", and I wonder if someone could fix it? (I angered an admin the last time I edited the page, so I think it's better if I don't edit anymore.) Thanks! Dawn Bard (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's been covered. Thanks! Dawn Bard (talk) 03:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello. As part of my work with Beutler Ink, I've been working with Vox Media to propose improvements to the company's Wikipedia article as well as related pages. I have a few suggestions for improving the accuracy of this article, which I've outlined below:

1. Currently, the first sentence of the "History" section reads, "Ezra Klein left The Washington Post in January 2014 for a position with Vox Media". More specifically, he left to found Vox, per this source. I propose updating the sentence to say, "Ezra Klein left The Washington Post in January 2014 to found Vox with Vox Media". Here is markup for the inline citation, if helpful:

<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/04/07/klein-launches-vox/7420053/|title=Ezra Klein launches news site Vox.com|date=April 7, 2014|first=Roger|last=Yu|work=USA Today|accessdate=July 26, 2018}}</ref>

2. The same section has the sentence, "Elizabeth Plank was hired in 2016 as a political correspondent." She has since launched her own series/platform with Vox Media called Divided States of Women. If editors think her work since joining Vox is relevant, please consider extending the sentence to the following: "Elizabeth Plank was hired in 2016 as a political correspondent, and has since launched her own series with Vox Media called Divided States of Women." This source confirms the claim, and following is markup for an inline citation:

<ref>{{Cite journal|url=https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/vox-media-launching-video-series-focused-women-1046001|title=Vox Media Launching New Video Series Focused on Women|first=Jeremy|last=Barr|date=October 5, 2017|work=The Hollywood Reporter|accessdate=July 26, 2018}}</ref>

3. I propose adding mention of Vox's Netflix series, Explained, per this source. Here is a short and neutral new sentence to consider adding to the "Content" section: Vox's first television series, Explained, debuted in 2018 as part of a partnership with Netflix." Again, here is markup for the inline citation if helpful:

<ref>{{Cite journal|url=https://www.fastcompany.com/40575395/voxs-netflix-ambitions-are-just-the-beginning|title=Vox's new Netflix show is just the start of its video ambitions|date=May 23, 2018|first=Cale Guthrie|last=Weissman|work=Fast Company|accessdate=July 26, 2018}}</ref>

4. In the "YouTube" subsection, there is a "citation needed" tag for the sentence, "The themes covered in the videos are usually similar to the themes covered in the regular, written articles on the website." This source does not use the word "theme" specifically, but explains that video content takes the form of "original, explanatory journalism" and says the video and writing teams "frequently collaborate". Editors can use the following markup for an inline citation, if appropriate:

<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://digiday.com/media/vox-com-tripled-youtube-viewership-one-year/|title=How YouTube latecomer Vox beat the odds and built a big channel|first=Sahil|last=Patel|date=May 15, 2017|work=Digiday|accessdate=July 26, 2018}}</ref>

5. Currently, the "Readership" section says Vox had 54.1 million unique visitors, per this source. However, the source is actually referring to Vox Media, not Vox.com. I propose removing this sentence altogether. This source says, "In July [2014], according to Quantcast, Vox had 8.2 million unique visitors.", if editors prefer to add an accurate claim about Vox.com traffic, consider replacing with: "Vox received 8.2 million unique visitors in July 2014.", or similar. Markup for the inline citation:

<ref>{{Cite journal|title=Here's What You Need to Know About Politico's Coverage of Vox, in Two Charts|first=David|last=Weigel|work=Slate|date= August, 23 2014|accessdate=July 26, 2018|url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/08/23/here_s_what_you_need_to_know_about_politico_s_coverage_of_vox_in_two_charts.html}}</ref>

I do not edit the main space directly because of my conflict of interest, so I'm seeking assistance from volunteer editors to review these requests and update the article appropriately. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lordtobi: This request is not specifically related to video games, but you recently assisted with a couple other Vox Media-related requests, so I was wondering if you might be willing to take a quick look at these improvements as well. This request may look long, but really the claims and proposed changes should not take long to review. No problem if you're not interested, and thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Replying to remarks in chronological order.

1. Possibly a bit of context should be given here; Klein was planning to launch a new site but failed at the WaPo, so he turned to Vox in January; a new site was approved, and he worked towards the site's launch until it came on April 6, 2014.
2. Here it should probably say when this series began, and if found the source, why.
3. "First" sounds like more are planned. Is this the case? If not, consider rewording it.
4. Seems good.
5. Seems good.

All sources appear to be reliable. Lordtobi (✉) 17:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lordtobi: Thank you for reviewing this request. I will reply to your 5 points in the same order:

1. From my perspective, this is more detail than is necessary (and "failed" has somewhat of a negative connotation), but ultimately you and other editors have the final say in how this article is updated. My suggestion is to keep focus on Vox, and not Klein or WaPo. What's most important is that Klein founded Vox after leaving The Washington Post.
2. I'd be fine with replacing "has since" with "in 2017". This would make the sentence: "Elizabeth Plank was hired in 2016 as a political correspondent, and in 2017 launched her own series with Vox Media called Divided States of Women."
3. Others may be planned, but I'd be fine with removing "first". This would make the sentence: "Vox's television series, Explained, debuted in 2018 as part of a partnership with Netflix."
4. Thanks.
5. Thanks.

Thank you for updating the article appropriately. Inkian Jason (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the point in stating what Klein did at WaPo should give context to why he joined Vox Media. It does not need to say "failed", but his proposal was turned down at WaPo, so he sought a new publishing company to launch his website at. Lordtobi (✉) 05:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lordtobi: Ah, I see what you mean. I'd be comfortable with wording like that, if you wanted to go ahead and update the article? Thanks again! Inkian Jason (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Inkian Jason: I expanded the occasion to multiple sentences, as it revolves around a key factor of the site's creation. Please check out the revised version in the live article and lt me know if this is what you had in mind, or whether and, if so, how it should be rephrased. Lordtobi (✉) 21:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lordtobi: Thank you for taking another look and updating the article appropriately. I will review your edits. In the meantime, I did notice the misspelling of "newsper's" if you have a moment to correct. Thanks again! Inkian Jason (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Typo fixed. Lordtobi (✉) 18:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lordtobi: Thank you. Also, I think "turned" should be "turned down". Inkian Jason (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Updated with this edit. Thanks. Inkian Jason (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

6. There are two different sections both labeled "Reception." The first one mentions only awards that Vox has been given. The second section only mentions criticisms or controversies of Vox. Could we either rename each section accordingly or come together with a different way to resolve the labeling, like combining them or something? Right now this makes the article a bit confusing. 2601:648:8300:35FD:2C32:C0AF:8EE5:67D6 (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed the section about awards to "Accolades". Regards. Lordtobi (✉) 22:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello again! I am back with an additional edit request, which I am submitting on behalf of Vox Media. Currently, the article does not mention which of Vox's original programs have received Emmy nominations. Following is wording, sourcing, and markup for community consideration:

Original programming by Vox has been recognized by the News & Documentary Emmy Awards, which are presented by the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. In 2017, the documentary 2016 Olympics: What Rio Doesn't Want the World to See was nominated in the "Outstanding News Special" category, Vox Pop was nominated in the "Outstanding Arts, Culture and Entertainment Report" and "Outstanding Graphic Design and Art Direction" categories,^[1] and The Secret Life of Muslims was nominated in the "Outstanding Short Documentary" category.^[2] In 2018, Borders was nominated in the "Outstanding Video Journalism: News" category,^[3] and Earworm received nominations in the "Outstanding Graphic Design and Art Direction" and "Outstanding New Approaches: Arts, Lifestyle and Culture" categories.^[4]

The proposed wording may be applicable to the "Content" or "Reception" sections, or even a standalone "Recognition" section, which I've seen in other Wikipedia articles. The inline citations direct readers to official Emmy announcements as well as supplemental secondary coverage. I don't edit articles directly because of my COI, so I'm looking for volunteer editors to review and add whatever wording they feel is appropriate, if any.

@Lordtobi: Pinging you in case you're willing to help with this request as well. Thanks again for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Due to time constraints, I will have to pass for the moment. If this not taken up by anyone else in the meantime, I can have a proper look on the weekend. Regards. Lordtobi (✉) 19:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, User:Lordtobi. Happy to wait until the weekend if no one else replies. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Inkian Jason: I added the content you proposed to the Content->Reception section. Is this a good fit for your cause? Lordtobi (✉) 09:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lordtobi: Yes, thank you for reviewing this request and updating the article. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that Vox is a "left leaning" source, or a website that is "mostly liberal" is ridiculous. Vox is a liberal news website. All you have to do is take a look at some of their videos, they have an obvious liberal bias and slant. Nothing wrong with that, but it should be clearly and strongly stated in this article. ForkInThePath (talk) 05:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added an "Incorrect Stories" section to the Vox article. The section includes two instances of incorrect stories by Vox. Do not remove the section or the instances as they are both true, and well sourced. You can however change the wording a little bit to make it more coherent. Obviously, if you have more instances of false articles by Vox, then please add them. ForkInThePath (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted this for now. Obviously, this was a bold edit (hence your declaration on the edit summary and here), and I'm assuming good faith here. But, publications making mistakes isn't in itself newsworthy -- it happens all the time, and not every case needs to be included in an encyclopedia entry on that publication. These, if included at all, should be actual "controversial" or deliberate problems. Both of the instances you listed include corrections by Vox, and it's not clear to me that they are particularly newsworthy. Regardless, consensus is needed if it's to be re-added. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 07:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding onto this, the citations provided were likely unreliable (as most self-proclaimed fact-checking sites are), so this should only be re-added if they are covered notably by other reliable sources. Regards, Lordtobi (✉) 07:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ForkInThePath has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 01:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WIkipedia is now a propaganda outlet devoid of any neutrality, the fascist moderators have insured that, breitbart and gateway pundit are listed as far right in the introduction paragraphs and then are locked, Vox nor a single solitary leftist media outlet is listed as far left and when they are the fascist moderators delete it and lock the articles, you aren't fooling anyone you laughable propagandists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.246.28.34 (talk) 04:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any statement made on this article, as well as on any other article, requires reliable sources. While it can seem obvious to a third-party observee that they adhere to the left, the statement that they are "far-left" is not presented in other reputable sources, and only few ever went as far as to address its political standing. The two we do have are clearly listed in a section only talking about the editorial stance of the site; one says "liberal-leaning", the other "mostly liberal". As there is no consensus among all sources, and there are just two sources, this is not mentioned in the lead section. These are Wikipedia's basic guidelines, and any hostile attempts to add unverified statements are shut down here, and anywhere else. Lordtobi (✉) 07:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lordtobi, great answer. Since these types of comments show up here regularly, let's use it as something to point back to as these continue to crop up going forward? – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 21:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The statement

Vox's mission is to "explain the news", meaning it strives to make sure its readers "understand what just happened" by providing "contextual information that traditional news stories aren't designed to carry."

is presented as if Vox's stated mission is verified as factual by Wikipedia. The only reference given is Vox's mission statement. I proposed a clarifying phrase, "According to Vox,...". This was reverted by Galobtter with the explanation "The quotes make that clear enough, and missions are from the mission statements of the organization". I see no reason why quoting "explain the news" implies that the content of the statement "Vox's mission is to 'explain the news'" comes from Vox. You would not put "Apple users 'think different'" in Apple's article and then say the quotes make it clear that Wikipedia doesn't think Apple users think differently. Moreover, Galobtter's argument is merely that the clarifying phrase is redundant. Not that it is misleading or otherwise problematic, just that it is (supposedly) already clear from the context. If that is the case (which I have argued it isn't), what is the harm in a clarifying phrase? When the alternative is leaving the source of a fact ambiguous? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.61.17.186 (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add "According to Vox" to "Vox's mission is to "explain the news", meaning it strives to make sure its readers "understand what just happened" by providing "contextual information that traditional news stories aren't designed to carry." The talk page for a well reasoned argument that the current language is an inappropriate use of wikipedia's voice to adopt a corporate mission statement. Why have the proposed edits been reverted without justification? 73.114.21.8 (talk) 01:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's usually fine to just quote the source, though the source was published by the article subject. I reworded the sentence and included the requested attribution. Quotes are not necessary as we can just put it in a concise manner without copying first-hand material verbatim. Lordtobi (✉) 07:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am saddened that a few radicals continue to make Wikipedia a joke by interjecting their own agenda into its pages. In the case of this page on Vox, it is in trying to keep people from presenting Vox in it's true form. Why that is, I have zero idea. Vox is absolutely 100% a far left leaning website. It's not even debatable. Why some insist on shutting this down is sad, pathetic, and those individuals, regardless of their contribution to Wikipedia, should be expelled for doing the one thing that you're not supposed to do here, and that is to advance your own personal agendas. As this continues, this is not only why I never contribute monetarily, but discourage other from doing so. Why support a website financially when people continually make a page inaccurate, or less then accurate, on purpose.

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/vox-news-media-bias https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings

90% of those who have been polled on what Vox is have declared it. Vox is left leaning in a bias way, ergo far left. Of the 10% who say it's not, there answers in general lean left, ergo a clear bias in those 10% to present Vox in a different light. (Sounds like some of the people here.) This website, dedicated to presenting all news from the left to the right to the center has not only declared Vox to be left leaning, but radical left. And they should know as that is literally their job, and unlike in the talk pages of Wiki, they do so without prejudice.

From there website:

"Vox has a Left media bias. In Sept. 2018, the AllSides team conducted an extensive editorial review and decided to shift Vox from a Lean Left to a Left media bias rating.

The AllSides team found that Vox consistently writes favorably about Left-leaning policies and never includes a Right-leaning perspective. Articles on Vox.com have tied President Trump to fascism, and its "Explainers" section almost never includes Right-leaning opinions or viewpoints. Vox's Explainers provide only one side of an issue, making it seem as if the information provided is all readers need to know, when in reality, Right-leaning individuals would likely include other facts or make different points about the topic. This prevents readers from getting a holistic understanding of the highlighted issues.

AllSides notes that Vox often frames news and issues as if the Left perspective is the only perspective, and its hard news articles include commentary that is subjective in nature. Vox often blurs the line between news and editorial. One AllSides team member noted Vox "seems like advocacy outlet for the Democratic Party, showing all the "news" you'd like to hear as a Democrat.""

The debate that was unnecessary to begin with, is officially over. Allsides website, an EXPERT in the field, AN EXPERT, after conducting the kind of polling that is rarely seen in anything, as most major polls use a tenth or less sample size then was used here, and after an extensive editorial review, have declared it...

Vox is unabashedly left wing, and zero percent right wing.

Can we please make this article accurate? I shouldn't have to ask that. I shouldn't have to BEG for Wikipedia to have an article be accurate, but can we, pretty please with sugar on top do our job here. It is both saddening and disenfranchising to have to beg to get what Wikipedia should just always have to begin with. An accurate article free of personal agendas.

• BTW? Why is calling it a far left website even a problem for some? That is the one thing I don't even get here. I for the life of me just can' figure that out??? The federalist is unapologetically far right. It's not a problem for them or its readers. Why this bias, intense, unyielding, radical agenda, to not present Vox as left wing? Isn't that the people who pay their bills? smh

Thank You. Deepintexas (talk) 07:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AllSides does not have a "far left" rating, only a "left" rating, so we cannot use AllSides to justify labeling Vox as a "far-left" website. The quote from an AllSides team member that Vox "seems like advocacy outlet for the Democratic Party" is also evidence against the "far left" label, since the Democratic Party is not a far-left political party. However, I added a sentence to Vox (website) § Editorial stance mentioning the AllSides "left" rating. Biogeographist (talk) 12:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepintexas: we describe The Federalist as conservative. Doug Weller talk 13:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AllSides does not have a "far left" rating, only a "left" rating, so we cannot use AllSides to justify labeling Vox as a "far-left" website

— Biogeographist

Actually they use a five level chart, so that is a lie. But let's put that aside for a moment, shall we.

https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings

Because ranking websites as simply as left or right, is no more helpful to our readers then describing food as hot and cold, or good or bad, we as editors have an obligation to set aside our own personal agendas, and provide the public with as accurate a description as possible on every single article concerning every single news website.

Just saying a news website is left and right is obviously no real help at all. We must do our best to make sure that when a reader clicks on that article, they can have as the most honest information possible, so that they as its readers can know which way that website in fact leans, and yes, even how much.

This is important because news websites can greatly influence a person's knowledge or lack of it on every facet of life.

To do otherwise is to say that Wikipedia is not so much a trusted source for real info as just the narrative that a few people want to spin articles in whatever direction they personally see fit.

So clearly we must make sure that every new sites article tells them not if there just center, left or right, but YES if they lean further to the left or right then a more unbiased news site would.

That is to say farther center then a website with little to no agenda, as opposed to a website that absolute has an agenda beyond providing news.

Quotes from Allside on Vox. This info was gathered from an unbiased comprehensive study that included input from over 26,000 users:

"never includes a Right-leaning perspective", "Vox's Explainers provide only one side of an issue", "Vox often frames news and issues as if the Left perspective is the only perspective" and "seems like advocacy outlet for the Democratic Party, showing all the "news" you'd like to hear as a Democrat."

Obviously as intelligent people here, if a group of people….I don't know…..let's say like the editors at Allsides, were to take EVERY news site and rank them from left to right based on their own content, then some would fall farther from the center then others. Some would be all the way to the left or right. Let's call those websites….I don't know…..far left or far right. As in farther away then others from the center. You know, extremely valuable information for the readers here on Wikipedia.

Information that they absolutely deserve to have!

Now… Since YOU have taken the lead on determining who is just left and right, as opposed to far left and right, then explain it to us this.

1. Which news sites ARE… IN YOUR OWN PERSONALLY OPINION, on the far left and far right of new websites? As opposed to the comprehensive and exhaustive EXPERT research done at Allsides that would suggest otherwise? *remember, they use FIVE LEVELS. Not just three.

2. How did YOU PERSONALLY determine which news websites are or are not far left or right? As opposed to the exhaustive studies done by Allsides?

Remember, we have an obligation to provide this very info in the articles to our readers. They are depending on us to give them this. They deserve it. We can not let them down!

3. How did YOU determine that news websites like Vox or The Federalist do not fall far enough left or right as those websites that you are no doubt going to mention? Naturally the rest of us need this kind of info to help guide the rest of us going forward. Seeing how I guess we are going to ignore the comprehensive, unbiased studies done on a website dedicated to such a thing. Tha website being Allsides.

Seeing how YOUR answers to these very fair questions will end up shaping the narrative of EVERY single article for EVERY single news website, I hope YOU will provide the rest of us with these answers post haste.

I, and everyone else, anxiously await YOUR OWN personal criteria, as opposed to just using an unbiased website like Allsides, a website that uses experts , and THOUSANDS of users, to comprehensively answer this important issue… and not only literally spells it out…. but then puts it on a five level chart.

Thank you for stepping forward and taking the lead on this. It's much appreciated. Deepintexas (talk) 05:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? "Everyone else" and myanswers will - what's the point in responding to you? Other than to say that discussions on Wikipedia have concludes that allsides.com isn't a source we should be using.[1] Doug Weller talk 06:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that we "Can't" or are "Forbidden" from using Allsides Or are you simply saying that a very select few, have made a determination that we maybe "shouldn't "use it.

As in, by all means we can use it if we so desire, as Wikipedia has not actually banned it as a source, and just because some don't like it, don't mean that everyone else has to stop using it?

Are you suggesting that Allsides is a banned source and unuseable?

Please clarify this for us so that we can move forward on a topic that isn't just a topic, but is probably the most important topic in this article, as evident, but the numerous discussions on it. However as inconvenient those discussions may be for some, because at the end of the day, no matter what you think about one website or another, questions still need to be answered. My extremly fair and important questions do not cease to exist, simply because one website may, or may not be banned. Please clarify the exact status of this website on Wikipedia, as to me, it simply seems to be "discouraged" by a few people. Thank You Deepintexas (talk) 08:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to explain who everyone else is in "I, and everyone else, anxiously await YOUR OWN personal criteria," and how this is going to work: "Seeing how YOUR answers to these very fair questions will end up shaping the narrative of EVERY single article for EVERY single news website". I won't discuss allsides.com with you anymore as there is a noticeboard for that at WP:RSN, you can take it there. Doug Weller talk 08:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepintexas: could you please indent your posts correctly so the reader has a chance to know who is saying what? See WP:INDENT. It becomes even more mystifying when you use quotes from other users with no indication that you're quoting, as at the top of this. Please don't do that. Nobody coming fresh to this discussion can follow it without a deep dive into the history. I agree with Doug Weller that discussion here has probably run its course in any case, but please consider my request if you go to WP:RSN, and on discussion pages generally. Bishonen | talk 10:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

As others said above, discussion of AllSides as a source belongs at WP:RSN, not here. When I said AllSides does not have a "far left" rating, only a "left" rating, so we cannot use AllSides to justify labeling Vox as a "far-left" website, it should be clear that I did not mean that AllSides has "only one" rating; I meant that AllSides does not have a "far left" rating in addition to a "left" rating. AllSides uses a left–right spectrum of five ratings, but they do not use the label "far left", only "left", and their description of "left" does not include the words "far" or "extreme" so we cannot use their "left" rating to justify labeling Vox as a "far-left" website. Biogeographist (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bishone, thank you for pointing out to my mistakes in editing this talk page. I appreciate it! Even though I have been editing the main articles for eleven years now, thousands of unsigned minor edits actually, you probably noticed that I have managed in that time to avoid the talk page. I have found the talk pages to be mostly just a frustrating attempt for a few to impose bias and agendas into articles. This is why I did not do a good job on indenting, and quoting. But rest assured I have watched some video’s, read some websites, went back and reedited the page, and I think you will find I am quickly getting back up to speed. Hopefully I have figured it out now. Thank you for pointing out my mistakes.

As far as you and Doug thinking that this has run its course though, I’m afraid I could not disagree more. I am actually all too aware of the deficiencies that clearly still exist in this article, and are allowing for a clear bias to dominate articles like this one here on Vox, and I will not shirk my duty in helping to correct them. I can see now what the real problem is, and I will work tirelessly through 2020 to help do my part and fix what is clearly a systemic issue. I am rapidly learning the “hoop jumping game” and am beginning to see that I will need to take a different approach in the future. Thank You.

Thankfully my wanting to help make this page more accurate and better is the heart and soul of Wikipedia, and I have no doubt no one will use any behavior to keep anyone from contributing, regardless if they personally feel everything is just fine the way it is. Who knows, maybe we can all together make this article so amazing, that it will be a featured article! Yeah!!!Deepintexas (talk) 10:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepintexas: I'd appreciate it if you'd answer my questions above. That would show good faith and that you are serious. Doug Weller talk 16:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you for real? Are you serious? I never said YOU, was YOU Doug. Never. If you had bothered to read even the beginning, clearly I was speaking to Biogeographist. I even quoted him and he even responded back to me now on that post, and because he did, and had ever opportunity to say what he wanted back at me, I considered it a closed matter with him, hence why I never said anything back to him.

I fail to see how anyone else could think otherwise, other than either not reading the post, which sucks as why write if people respond without reading, or I also have to consider that you are so narcissistic, that you think the word you, means specifically you, whenever I use the word you.

But you are claiming I directed it directly at you? I defy you to show me where I ever mentioned your name in that post. I defy you to show me how it was in any conceivable way directed specifically at you? Remember, I quoted Biogeographist, my questions were clearly directed at what he had to say, and he responded back to it. But go ahead and show me where I ever directed it specifically at you. I’ll wait………. But since you think that YOU is YOU, then allow me to retort as if I did mean YOU.

You didn’t answer a single question of mine, but I have to answer your questions now? Oh Really? After you posted this to me?

Seriously? "Everyone else" and myanswers will - what's the point in responding to you? - Doug Weller

But after you responded back to me like that for no reason, I now owe you answers for some reason? Hmmm Oh really?

Doug, I don’t take you seriously at this time. When you are falsely accusing me here, in a way that makes zero sense, how could I. That’s not a personal attack, but just my feelings based on your responses to me on this and in general. This is insane and in my opinion shows that you have never had a desire to work with me constructively. Why else would you make that post about you, despite all the evidence to the contrary, and then respond back to me as such. Clearly you think every post is directed at you for some reason and I can see that’s going to be something I will have to deal with if I wish to participate in this talk. But I absolutely will do my best to work with you going forward, that I can promise. Even if at this time, I have no reason to believe the same about you.

Listen, I’m man enough to be honest. Have I allowed my emotions at time to get the best of me in here? Yes, and for that I apologize to anyone I have offended, specifically Biogeographist. My frustration though is not only in that this article is clearly biased to many, but that I mistakenly thought that making it more accurate would be far more welcomed. I now see that this is not the case, and that is my bad and I admit that.

Biogeographist If I have offended you, I’m truly sorry and apologize for it, it was not my intent, and will even start a new section to make this apology more visible if you require it. I'm extremely sincere in this. Just let me know, otherwise I will consider it closed.

But in the process of it all, I have also seen exactly why I have avoided these talks. This thread is a master class in why so many legitimate users in the Talk archive page get so frustrated, and yes I did go back and read it. Take my attempt to find out if a word is banned. Even though it is a simple question, it is sluffed off to a bureaucratic discussion group that not only does not answer the question, but I see now is where words and sources go to die. The discussion on Quackwatch shows that if people don’t want a website to be used, then they will make sure that they discuss it to the minutia, for forever. And it won’t even necessarily be by people who are in this group. Sorry, but that page is the halls of congress. But it is an eye opening lesson, and one I have learned.

In fact this whole thread has been very eye opening on so many levels. I have learned tons. I really have, and will apply my lessons going forward. Thank You!Deepintexas (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this conversation has gotten heated, so let me provide a viewpoint that seeks to balance the concerns and considerations of the two sides in accordance with my interpretation of Wikipedia policy. I agree that there may be systemic bias going on when right-leaning news organizations like Fox News are labelled conservative from the get-go, while Vox is not labelled in the lede with a viewpoint at all despite sources in the editorial stance section of the article describing it as left-leaning. However, it is important to recognize that words like "far left" and "far right" may bring bias, and we should be very careful about using them. For instance, "far left" could conjure visions of violent communist militants, while "far right" could evoke images of Neo-Naziism. Thus, a strong consensus among reliable sources would be needed to justify a label of "far left" or "far right" being placed in Wikipedia's own voice.

The AllSides rating ^[1] provides some evidence that Vox is strongly biased towards the left. As cited by User:Deepintexas, an AllSides commentator noted that "seems like advocacy outlet for the Democratic Party, showing all the 'news' you'd like to hear as a Democrat."^[1]

Being strongly biased towards the left, however, does not automatically justify a "far-left" rating. A media outlet that strongly supports the centre-left would not be "far left", since it would not support actual far-left ideologies like communism. Given that the Democratic Party (United States) page, based on editorial consensus, presents the Democratic party as a liberal but not far-left party, the AllSides article does not justify a "far left" label. This is based on the same reason why we would not say Mitt Romney is far right: though he strongly believes in right-wing beliefs, his right-wing beliefs belong to the centre-right, and not to the actual far right.

I do believe, however, that it would be justified to label Vox as "liberal" in the lede, per the example set by articles like Fox News, given that the editorial stances section cites reliable sources labelling Vox as liberal, and that per WP:LEDE, article ledes should summarize the content of the article body. Jancarcu (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly not far-left, but I wonder why there is no clear "left-leaning" or "liberal" in the "Vox is an American news and opinion website owned by Vox Media", only vague "Vox has been described as left-of-center and progressive". Aren't there enough reliable sources for this piece of information? Are there RS that disagree with left/liberal label? What sources are required for it - media bias websites, opinions of experts from top media, what else? Both types are available in the article. @Jancarcu: maybe we should add it to the lead section in a more direct form? Wikisaurus (talk) 08:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Their recent article Karen: The anti-vaxxer soccer mom with speak-to-the-manager hair, explained is clearly racist, it says that some names perceived to be white are used to insult white people and provide Twitter links. They also attack a specific individual in this article for being white and having a "white" name. IMO, the first line should define Vox as a racist website. Yurivict (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not judge for itself whether a website is racist; instead, we report on what WP:reliable sources say in a rational and balanced way. To make the judgment on our own so would be WP:Original Research, and for good reason. Let's say Bob thinks Vox is racist, and Joe thinks it is not. If we were to go by original research rather than reliable sources, we'd be unable to decide anything, and if a decision were made, readers would have no reason to trust that that decision is based on something other than the editors' own opinions. Jancarcu (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The editorial stance section doesn't seem to contribute much. Would it be a better idea to move its two citations up to the lead instead? I'd like a second opinion on this before making such an edit. 400spartans (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I turned off my ad blockers to see if there was a comment section on their site for an article. Nope. I then clicked on their Contact Us link and looked through the choices to contact them to see if there was any way to leave feedback to the author of an article. Nope. I had some constructive conversation to add and I found it odd they would not give an opportunity to reach back out on particular stories in any fashion. Editorial feedback has always been a part of journalism. Otherwise, it is not democratic. I just wanted to point that out.Jawz101 (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the implications of this would be for this page, and would note that generally well-respected sites like the Associated Press also don't have comment sections as far as I'm aware. On a personal note, though, I do find their attempts to silence their audience transparent and insulting and so there may be more to what you're saying. They recently published a heavily advertised series called "I'm Glad You Asked" which contains videos with provocative titles like "How Racist am I?." These videos all had ratings disabled on them, but ratings on comments are still present and it's very clear from the comments (the ones that weren't so negative to be deleted outright) that many of these videos were overwhelmingly poorly received by the broader YouTube audience they reached, compared to the more controlled audiences they cultivate on their site and regular videos. They seem incredibly keen on damage control and it wouldn't surprise me if they strategically silence feedback because they're aware of how polarizing their pieces can be. Nonetheless, I'm no expert and even if I were, I'm not sure this would be relevant to the article. Again, this is just a personal frustration that you might be interested in based on your comment here. 98.113.91.134 (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "Analysis of bias" section is currently all sourced to the primary sources themselves. Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable, AllSides and Capital Research Center are not listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and there is no consensus in regards to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. If it is notable, it should be easy to find secondary coverage and provide mention of such analysis in reliable sources. Davide King (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has responded yet, and in light of Doug Weller's comment here, I hope they can address this. If I am correct, at the very least we should add 'Better citation needed' tag. Some of them, such as MBPF, may be removed as unreliable. If analysis of bias is so notable to warrant such a section, it should be easy to provide better sources. Davide King (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was all added (except for the adjective "conservative" by an inexperienced editor in October. I've deleted it, see my edit summaries. Doug Weller talk 14:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says that, for allsides.com, "high-confidence ratings are generally reliable as they are reviewed carefully by experts". Why are you removing the website as "not a reliable source"? Ghost of Kiev (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because the script I use marked it as unreliable which it often is. Doug Weller talk 21:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is true, we should be able to find a better source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably reliable in this case but I’d like attribution and at least one more clearly reliable source. Doug Weller talk 09:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of things saying Vox is left-leaning, like https://www.influencewatch.org/for-profit/vox/ . Politico says that "Vox is really partisan commentary in question-and-answer disguise" and "often looks more like a right-wing caricature of what a partisan media outlet dressed up as an explainer site would look like." It even says their were "subtler Scientology recruitment films" than Vox's interview of Obama. How many sources do we need to say that Vox is liberal outlet? Ghost of Kiev (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We use the exact words that RS use, as the fourth sentence does. Llll5032 (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We should note the descriptions used by WP:BESTSOURCES instead, if they are available. There are two descriptions already in the top paragraph. Llll5032 (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Title says it all 162.235.56.28 (talk) 03:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, do you have reliable sources to back that up? Dumuzid (talk) 03:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]