Talk:Politico

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Politico 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.

Article policies

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

Archives: Index, 1: 90 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Journalism Mid‑importance

	Journalism portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

United States: District of Columbia Low‑importance

	United States portal 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.
	Washington, D.C. portal This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Low-importance).

Virginia Low‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia 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.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Websites: Computing Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

This article refers to a periodical that doesn't have its ISSN information listed. If you can, please provide it.

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Their edits to this article were last checked for neutrality on 22-3-2018 by AgnosticPreachersKid.

MSwiatkowski (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.
216.250.232.21 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Beaujon, Andrew (July 17, 2020). "Politico Says It's Doing Pretty Well During the Pandemic". Washingtonian. Retrieved July 18, 2020.

Politico's "take" on Freedom of Speech

Respect for Politico publishing Shapiro, and standing by its position of doing so; yet Politico retains its "leans left" status, as exemplified by over a hundred of its staff actually putting their disdain for publishing the 'right of center' Shapiro perspective. Journalism used to be about presenting facts as facts, and opinion as opinion. If those hundred politico staff have lost their journalistic objectivity, they should be released. There are plenty of 'left' news organizations to employ them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.111.41.146 (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have not read this entire article ... nor this entire "Talk:" page; but the part I did read, seems interesting.

I came here after reading https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/10/29/inside-the-online-cesspool-of-anti-semitism-that-housed-robert-bowers-221949 ... an article which could be interpreted as implying that Politico does not like the idea of "freedom of speech" for certain "speakers" ... those individuals or groups whom Politico -- (or some other 'arbiter' of thought or opinion) -- disagrees with.

Am I reading it wrong? Or does Politico seem to be arguing that the part of the U.S. Bill of Rights that mentions -- (right in the First amendment!) -- "Freedom of Speech", should apply only to some speakers, but not to all speakers? Politico seems to focus [in that article] on one web site -- Gab -- where ... apparently, some of the "Free Speech" that appears on that web site, is of a kind that Politico may dislike and/or disagree with.

Is Politico saying that, in their opinion, any web site should restrict the "Freedom of Speech" of users who hold opinions that are "controversial" or otherwise objectionable in some way -- ? --

This issue has been nipped in the bud by Axel Springer Company (publishing BILD) buying Politico. They are system conform in the way the Murdoch media are. No more controversies in that area. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:894F:A4B4:BEF:26B2 (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Politico is not suggesting, there, that someone from the government should censor all -- (or maybe just a certain kind of) -- "bad" speech^{[or perhaps writing ... in the case of written words on a web site]}, they still seem to be arguing that a web site has -- (or, it "should" have) -- a responsibility to restrict or otherwise 'answer for', content that they allow to be hosted on their platform.

Could this be "related" to some of the recent controversy over section 230 -- ? --

PS: I think I can guess what Deborah Lipstadt would recommend. I think she would be for "freedom of speech".

Thanks for your patience, since (a) this may have become kinda long and rambling, and (b) I have not even checked, yet ... to see whether this article already mentions (or comments about) Politico's "take" on "Freedom of Speech".

Any comments would be appreciated.
Any comments? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Politico cookies

It has become commonplace for websites to give readers a choice of which cookies to accept, but this choice is offered on the politico site in a way that I don't understand. For some reason, their buttons are not marked "off" or "on", nor even with a "green button". There's no realistic way of reaching these guys anymore, so can anyone here say what it should be -- with actual reasons, i.e. how you *know* that's right. (Does anyone know why Politico would choose an obscure system when it would be just as easy to use something more obvious?) alacarte (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Issues with the Collaboration with Welt on COVID-19 global response criticisms section

Why is there this emphasis on this particular article? This article did not have much, if any, newsworthy impact, and it and the writers that contributed to it did not win any awards. The current owner of Politico, Axel Springer, has a history of promoting anti-vax sentiments (https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/06/axel-springer-politico-media-scandal-germany-bild/), and I have not seen evidence from credible sources that the Gates Foundation is responsible for misconduct. Also, this section leaves out the detail that Die Welt is a tabloid also owned by Axel Springer, and there isn't even a link to the the Die Welt page. This section also sticks out from the rest of the article since it lacks links altogether and reeks of astroturfing. 2600:1700:2000:E960:915F:67A5:E782:A411 (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Наверное в стиральной машине можно засолить грибы ..

Это я о современной политике пытаюсь порассуждать .. 176.59.206.201 (talk) 01:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of the employee "pledge" to Israel and the transatlantic alliance

I am a new Wikipedia editor, but I have been a longtime reader and donor. This is actually the first time I have ever been so stunned by an article that I felt the need to say something. I'm sorry, but I am a journalist by trade, and including this alleged pledge to Israel and its allies is beyond unnecessary for the first section of a page. In terms of politics, at least as the public perceives it, this is likely not relevant. Is this not the kind of content that should be placed in the controversy section? This just seems odd and targeted. 37.170.126.129 (talk) 01:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]