Talk:Vox (website)

Bias in reception portion

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)

DYK nomination

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

Biased critical session

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)

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)

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)

Political stance section restored

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)

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)

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)

Non-neutral section

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)

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)

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)

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)

Vox.com as a source

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)

Sentence describing Vox as a liberal leaning website

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)

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)

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)

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)

YouTube channel and secondary source

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)

POV again

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Rs24

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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

References

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:

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

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

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

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

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

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)

References

Typo in the first sentence

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)

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

Proposed improvements

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)

@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)

• 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)

@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)

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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

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

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

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)

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

Emmy nominations

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, and The Secret Life of Muslims was nominated in the "Outstanding Short Documentary" category. In 2018, Borders was nominated in the "Outstanding Video Journalism: News" category, and Earworm received nominations in the "Outstanding Graphic Design and Art Direction" and "Outstanding New Approaches: Arts, Lifestyle and Culture" categories.

References

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)

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)

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

@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)

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

Liberal Vox

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)

Incorrect Stories section

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)

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)

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)

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

This is yet another propaganda article

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.