This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Podcasting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of notable podcasts and podcast-related information 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.PodcastingWikipedia:WikiProject PodcastingTemplate:WikiProject Podcastingpodcasting
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Following WP:BRD, regarding this diff, some of these page changes are indeed for the better and removed overtly promotional language. Other changes are POV-pushing. Describing their ideological alignment in the lead seems fine, and some clearly promotional material was removed in the Vote Save America section and History section, which is good. But introducing allegations of "bias" into section headers is not WP:NPOV, and phrasing like "has been viewed poorly" is similarly not NPOV. Wikipedia is also WP:NOTCENSORED so we don't star out swear words. And it is objectively important to talk about fundraising totals and popularity, this is part of the core of the company's encyclopedic notability. I agree that promotional content still needs to be removed from this page. - Astrophobe (talk) 03:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi A11200, I am following up on our discussion on my talk page here instead, so that others have an easier time following the developing consensus and can take part if they wish, and so that anyone reading this in the future knows what discussions have taken place regarding the content of this page. You wrote
I believe it’s important to assess the bias of the page just as I would say Fox News is conservative. Also, loaded and subjective words/phrases need to be removed. It’s important to note that even numbers can act as promotional content since crooked media is trying to appeal to advertisers. That is one of the reasons that I added the source from media bias fact check.
I completely agree with you that it's important to note the partisan lean of media organizations when it's consistently described in multiple independent reliable sources. Here I don't think it's controversial, and I have no objection to stating their partisan position in the article the way that it is now (I did not revert a lot of your additions of claims that they are "left-wing" or "progressive", which I think are both true and relevant). So I think we're in agreement there. I also completely agree that loaded and subjective material needs to be removed, and I have begun working on that in ways that I think you are likely to agree with. But let me know as you still encounter material that should not be there. But there are two important places that I depart from you. First, the way to make a page neutral is not to introduce lots of harshly negative material onto an overly positive page; it is to remove the promotional material until the article is no longer promotional. Second, their numbers are what they are, and it is of no concern to Wikipedia how it affects their advertising. We don't pretend that the State Street Corporation manages less money than it does just because it makes the State Street Corporation look good; likewise, if they lost a ton of money, we would not conceal that either. We should report on the facts that are relevant to this organization's encyclopedic notability, no more and no less, including their viewership counts where relevant. So I suggest the path forward is where we clearly agree: to remove promotional material and see where we are then. - Astrophobe (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see the hosts of "Strict Scrutiny" listed in the "Hosts" section, but I don't see the actual podcast listed in the podcasts section. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it an official part of crooked media? It's listed on their website:
