Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


@ValarianB: Are you seriously suggesting that Britannica is an unreliable source for the claim of liberal bias? If Britannica, which is more professional than Wikipedia, considers this bias a notable enough aspect to feature in the first paragraph of their article, then why should we not do the same here? Considering allegations of liberal bias make up a huge chunk of the article, it makes sense to note the allegations in the lede. But I wouldn't mind also saying in the lede for balance that others in the past have claimed a conservative bias instead. X-Editor (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It will not be appearing in the lede, this is a perennial, SPA-fueled agenda item. If you really want to add it further down in that section, that probably won't bean issue, though IMO it is a little redundant. ValarianB (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ValarianB: Just because it has been discussed and rejected in the past doesn't mean that it should continue to be rejected if new reliable sources come to light. The perennial proposals page itself says "Consensus can change". Saying that the only accounts trying to add this content are single purpose is also extremely bad faith. You have also failed to rebut my argument regarding Britannica. X-Editor (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bias can only be defined in relation to a standard. The standard for WP content NPOV is clear and it is foundational. It's the world that's biased, not Wikipedia. Chew on that for a minute? SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO: You failed to rebut or respond to most of my arguments and I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say. X-Editor (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that. Maybe review some of the past discussions of this and think it over and we can resume in a day or two. SPECIFICO talk 21:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO: Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you to explain why my arguments are wrong, not me. Even the perennial discussions article says "Consensus can change". X-Editor (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no. Please read WP:BURDEN if you believe you have verification for the liberal bias bit. I have rarely edited this article, so I'm afraid I can't be of much further help to you here. SPECIFICO talk 21:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO: The Britannica article I'm referring to says "MSNBC is generally considered to be liberal or left-leaning.". Sorry for not linking it. X-Editor (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you describe Fox News as "an American multinational conservative news and political commentary television channel and website based in New York City" but wouldn't describe MSNBC as left leaning or progressive? It is as left leaning and progressive as it gets. This looks a lot like discrimination on Wikipedia's editors side. You discredit Fox News by labeling them as having a predetermined position on the news they report, and therefor you voice an opinion, and not a fact. In my opinion neither should be labeled as conservative or progressive in the lede (as those are opinions and not facts), but if one is so should the other. (talk) 08:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not labeling MSNBC as a liberal news source goes against wikipedias guidelines. Articles should be written from a neutral standpoint. Denying MSNBC is a liberal news source would only be done by those with a liberal bias themselves. This page needs to follow wikipedias own guidelines and properly label MSNBC as liberal news. (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The perennial proposals page itself says "Consensus can change". Well, feel free to make your case and try, my friend, but you don't get to just add it unilaterally and then sputter with indignation when reverted. As I've stated before, the reason why it does not need to be stated in the lede is that being "liberal" or left-wing" in America is the mainstream PoV. Stating "MSNBC is liberal" is about as useful as saying

"Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a white American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president...

to Donald Trump. This will never be a question that hinges on sourcing, but rather relevance and purpose. ValarianB (talk) 12:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ValarianB: Comparing white skin colour and political bias sounds like a false equivalence. There is already precedent for adding political bias in article ledes like Fox News and There is no precedent for pointing out white skin colour. While it is true that liberal and left-leaning are mainstream positions in the United States, the same can be said for conservatism (There are tens of millions of conservatives in the United States), yet conservative bias is still pointed out in Fox News' lede and Salon's lede. It's also important to point out that not everyone is familiar with US politics and since WP is global and not American, we should explain political bias to those who are unfamiliar. The edits I made to the article also didn't add the liberal description upfront, it was added a few sentences later in the first paragraph. X-Editor (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that's cuz FoxNews has the word News in its brand but it broadcasts conspiracy theories, whackadoodle retired petty government factotums masquerading as expert commentators, and false information fed directly to it by various politicians? That could be part of the difference. SPECIFICO talk 22:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO: You're engaging in whataboutism. This isn't about Fox, this is about MSNBC. You've done nothing but completely ignore and dismiss my arguments backed up by an RS that you've also ignored. I'd rather end this discussion here than continue. X-Editor (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You yourself and nobody else introduced Fox News into this thread. If you continue to make personal remarks and misrepresentations, you're unlikely to change the clear lack of consensus for your views. SPECIFICO talk 01:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO: Since this is clearly going nowhere, can we both agree to end this discussion? X-Editor (talk) 01:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:CONSENSUS. You started the discussion. You found nobody agreeing with you. The discussion continued only to give you a chance to make your case. SPECIFICO talk 02:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"You found nobody agreeing with you" That's why I'm ending this discussion. X-Editor (talk) 02:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply false. You're showing extreme point-of-view bias and you need to reread Wikipedia policies on POV. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MSNBC has repeatedly said in court that it is not primarily a news network but a political commentary network. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, not sure what the point of that is, but if you want to refer to this network as "liberal" we need reliable sources to support that. People have tried and failed for years. If you can do so, power to you. 331dot (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Politico, Newsweek, NYT, Washington Post, Salon, and several other sources say that MSNBC is liberal or Left-wing or progressive. All of those terms imply the descriptor, 'liberal.' We need to interpret sources without bias and that means treating terms like 'progressive' as implying terms like 'liberal'. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sensible thing to do is to include the word "liberal" in the introductory sentence in the article. It's settled fact that MSNBC is liberal. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop sticking your comments in-between the posts of other users. These are threaded replies those people made to each other over 6 months ago, and you just make it confusing. If you have a point to make, do it at the bottom of a discussion. Now, no, it is not a "settled fact" that MSNBC is liberal. Reality is liberal, and those who fall to the right of that tend to not like it. This is not a question of finding reliable sources, it is a question of relevance. Zaathras (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Facts stand on their own and exist independently of people's politics. First of all if reality were liberal, it wouldn't change any statement about MSNBC's political orientation; it would merely imply a conformity with reality. Secondly, if you want to make blanket statements like "reality is liberal", you need to provide evidence for such an assertion. You have failed to provide a single shred of evidence for that assertion. It is a settled fact that MSNBC is liberal, as sources ranging from Salon, Newsweek, Politico, and implied on page 16 of this court opinion, "Herring Networks v. Maddow"( CessnaMan1989 (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That primary sourced random judicial opinion more or less vitiates whatever claim you are making about MSNBC. The issue for this page however is that while at present, some of the talk show hosts on MSNBC express "liberal" views, the channel is a news organization that adheres to established journalistic norms and is backed by NBC News, also RS. That's not the case with Fox, OAN, et al. SPECIFICO talk 14:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, a news or political commentary organization is defined by the general leanings of its reporters and commentators. "Backing" by NBC news doesn't change the political orientation of MSNBC. Also, what evidence do you actually have that MSNBC adheres to journalistic norms and just what norms are you talking about? Political bias is pretty normal in journalism and commentary is quite different from journalism, as it has a totally different set of norms. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the case, which is hardly random but rather one of the most famous cases associated with MSNBC and recent America media in general, asserts that the views of the network's primetime lead are so well known to have a liberal bias that the programming is not intended to be news but mere commentary. This decisively implies a court acknowledging that MSNBC is liberal. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As other editors have noted in past discussions, the majority of the news media has a naturally-leaning progressive bent. We don't need to cite the bloody obvious. So, read WP:BLUESKY at your convenience. Zaathras (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very different argument than the one you were making before, and it is also one that doesn't seem to be particularly strong at first glance. There are tons and tons of right-wing news organizations, and even Google, which has usually tried to filter out most of these organizations, struggles to do so. 99% of the population will say that the sky is blue. I don't think 99% of the population will assume that a news channel is liberal unless the article explicitly states otherwise. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)It isn't really different at all, no. As someone else once pointed out in an earlier discussion, the lede of Donald Trump does not state that he was the 43rd white president. You may peruse the archives of this talk page, and see nothing you're offering here is new or novel. And no, there aren't "tons and tons of right-wing news organizations", there are a handful. Conservatism does not lend itself to sustainable media presence. Zaathras (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're now making a totally different argument. You've gone from saying that MSNBC isn't liberal but that "reality is liberal" to saying that the lack of a political descriptor in the introduction of an article about a news network implies that it is liberal. There are way more than a handful of conservative news sites.
Donald Trump is not known for being White. MSNBC is known for being liberal. Particularly, MSNBC is a liberal alternative to conservative Fox News. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your lack of comprehension of my words is a "you" problem, I'm afraid, not mine. MSNBC is "liberal" inasmuch as media itself is inherently progressive and forward-reaching, which is anathema to conservatism. Conservatism seeks to keep what is in place, to maintain the status quo. The core of honest journalism is to investigate, to seek, to uncover truths that other wish to conceal. The nature of journalism, and media, is to progress. So, agaon, there is no point in stating the obvious. MSNBC's notability is simply that it is a media outlet, period and full-stop. Zaathras (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the simple fact is that you're making two totally different and contradictory arguments. If you don't understand that, too bad, but you're saying on one hand that MSNBC isn't liberal, and, on the other hand, you're saying that it is common knowledge that MSNBC is liberal so it shouldn't be mentioned in the introduction. MSNBC is mostly known for its liberal commentary and the court opinion proves it. Meanwhile, have you provided any actual evidence for any of your contradictory assertions? CessnaMan1989 (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your simple inability to understand here will no longer be replied to. Zaathras (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then your lack of a remotely coherent argument shows that MSNBC should be described as a liberal news network(or news and political commentary network) in the lede. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 02:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The news is not "liberal". Much of its commentary is progressive, not conservative. But it's long had conservatives and neocons featured as well. SPECIFICO talk 18:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A political commentary show having opposing views on it doesn't change the orientation of the host network. Just about every major political commentary show puts opposing views on there as a foil for the audience. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not "opposing views". Hosts and featured personalities. Just one example, Joe "I was a congressman" Scarborough, a Reaganite throwback, and a history of the likes of Tucker Carlson, Michael Savage, et al. SPECIFICO talk 15:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait what? You are acknowledging msnbc is liberal, then defending it saying that is the main stream point of view? Who are u to decide what the main stream point of view is? If msnbc is liberal then it needs to be labeled as such. Wikipedias own guidelines stress each article should be written from a “neutral” standpoint. The fact your response goes against that shows you probably shouldn’t be editing any wikipedia articles because you from a bias point of view. (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The household names that some editors may call "right wing news sites" are not news sites. They are cable drama that do not adhere to journalistic standards, or in most cases not even the literary standards of fine fiction. SPECIFICO talk 18:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like it or not, at least enough of those "right-wing news sites" are "news" in the general sense of the term that an omission of a news network's political leanings doesn't necessarily imply that it is liberal or left-wing. As for your other claims, they're completely irrelevant to the topic, particularly the one about "fine fiction." This is about MSNBC's political leanings, not what makes fiction high or low quality. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know which news sites you're thinking are news sites? I suspect they are ones that WP considers deprecated as not reliable news sites. Meanwhile, MSNBC gets its news reporting from the NBC news organization, which is RS and well-established for journalistic practice. Some of the discussion shows are left-leaning on MSNBC, but then others, like "morning Joe" are stocked with raving Reaganites and recycled republicans. SPECIFICO talk 20:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what you consider them, they're news sites. The New York Post, The Washington Times, Breitbart News, may all push debunked conspiracy theories as news, but they're still news sites and right-wing. The fact that MSNBC has a few opposing views on doesn't change the orientation of the network, just as those right-wing news sites probably have liberals on sometimes. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is Dancinig with the Stars also a news broadcast? How is it different from OAN and Fox evening programming? SPECIFICO talk 21:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've only seen Dancing with the Stars a couple of times, but I don't think it intends to convey or present general facts outside of the scope of its contest. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same as evening and much other Fox Media. SPECIFICO talk 22:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are right-leaning, thus outliers within the general media realm. There's really nothing more to say here, as this just begins to go around in circles. The label "liberal" will not be appearing in the lede of this article. Zaathras (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are right-leaning, but they are very much within the general media realm. They aren't particularly "outliers". Right-wing sites are about 40% of the news sites, which is why the term "liberal" should be appearing in the lede of this article. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MSNBC - Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion[edit]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding Just wanted to get some other opinions on this and have some discussion. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "MSNBC".The discussion is about the topic MSNBC. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Add the word “liberal”[edit]

It is not right to have “conservative” in Fox News wiki page but not note MSNBC being very liberal (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are not the first person to ask this. Please provide independent reliable sources that describe MSNBC as liberal. Such sources do describe Fox News as conservative. 331dot (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: The section on controversies is sourced. The lead should summarize the whole article, so the fact that it has been labeled as "liberal" by specific sources should be mentioned in the lead. Janhrach (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is described there is only one small aspect of the article- and describes which sources deem MSNBC liberal. To make that claim in Wikipedia's voice, it must be shown that the preponderance of reliable sources describe it that way, not a limited few. 331dot (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: To be clear, I am concerned mainly about Britannica. I don't know if its claim is reliable or not, but I think the claim is notable, given that it is Britannica. I do not mean that MSNBC should be labeled as liberal in the first sentence, but I think the claim should be mentioned (as a claim) later in the lead. Janhrach (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but the mention of Britannica is just one line and its seems disproportionate to call out one line of the entire article in the lead- leaving aside wondering why Britannica should be specifically called out at all. 331dot (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand now, mentioning Britannica specifically would be undue. If we would want to mention more sources, but all objectively, we would arrive where we are now – to a separate section on bias claims. So I withdraw my suggestion that criticism should be mentioned in the lead. Anyway, thank you for your arguments. Janhrach (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe adding the word progressive is appropriate. MSNBC is described as more left-wing than the Washington Examiner is, yet the Washington Examiner article still describes WE as conservative. MSNBC is absolutely left-wing, and the word progressive should be added. DocZach (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DocZach, I agree whole-heartedly on this. Even the issue of what passes as a reliable source on WP is flawed, and contributes to the imbalance of labels on this site. I personally feel the sources in this article that points toward labeling MSNBC as a liberal-leaning channel is sufficient to add this (much like Fox is labelled "conservative" in the first sentence of that article, but the political leanings of the community in general on WP is such that this won't change. SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 13:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to say this, but it is so clear that in mainstream progressive network articles like MSNBC, there is a group of left-wing editors who will fight to the death to avoid any left-wing verbiage from being added. This bias needs to be investigated. There are countless sources that have already demonstrated the progressive lean of MSNBC, but it stil hasn't been added. (talk) 05:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That the edit you want has not been made does not mean that there is a vast left wing conspiracy here(nor am I "left wing"). I have no problem with making that edit if it can be shown that the preponderance of reliabke sources use that term to describe MSNBC. That hasn't been done yet. See the numerous prior discussions on this topic, such as the one at the bottom of this page(currently). As I said there, I have no specific interest in keeping the use of that term out of this article. 331dot (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said below, most people who want to use liberal on this page seem to want to do so in revenge for conservative outlets being named conservative(where appropriate sources do so). 331dot (talk) 07:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, would this source provide any basis for a source regarding MSNBC's leaning? Pardon my ignorance if not, I'm not totally clear on what sources are reliable and which aren't, but I don't know if I would call the desire to include "liberal" on this page is necessarily revenge. I think it's more based on the desire for consistency, since it's widely accepted that MSNBC is on the polar opposite of Fox News in regards to its leaning. Even articles like Joy Reid and Rachel Maddow, the subjects of which have shows on MSNBC, are labeled as "liberal" political commentators. This isn't the place for it, but I'm going to mention anyway, the issue of what the community deems as a "reliable" source. It's not exactly a secret that the admin class and general demographic of editors lie on the left side of the spectrum, so it's understandable that users might be discouraged with trying to involve themselves in a project that dismisses what many see as reliable sources, simply because the community doesn't see it that way. Just my 2 cents whether this is the place for it or not. SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 14:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Joy Reid and Rachel Maddow are labeled liberal because they are liberal. Why not mention Joe Scarborough who has been on MSNBC for 16 years, starts each morning with a four hour show, and who during his congressional career received a 95 percent lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Objective3000, that's already mentioned in the article here, in its own subheading. Didn't seem necessary to bring up again. That doesn't really refute anything else I said, just one sentence. SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 15:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to refute the claim to me. And may be part of why reliable sources do not call MSNBC a liberal network when so much time is devoted to conservatives. Whatever the rationale, we follow RS. (BTW, please don't ping me in responses.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency is only relevant if sources treat MSNBC and Fox the same but Wikipedia does not. Then yes, we should be consistent. We are not consistent for consistency's sake, but because sources are. 331dot (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, I know. My biggest gripe with WP lies with what the community deems a "reliable source." Coverage on this site is as skewed as many media outlets are, with the exception of widespread, established outlets like NYP, FNC, Washington Examiner, which aren't seen as "reliable" by the WP community, somehow. It's not exactly a state-level secret. I have (what I feel,) legitimate concerns about the long-term health of WP based on that, but I'm only one person, so my opinion and viewpoint doesn't really matter. Just wanted to offer some support for DocZach, because I believe they raise valid points that others have, and have been dismissed. I also understand this is a larger debate among the community, and I can understand some users' frustrations around it. SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 15:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually believe NYP is reliable? I see the paper a couple times a week in the grocery line and am aghast at the sick headlines. In any case, this isn't the correct page for this discussion. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Objective3000, probably about as much as any other newspaper with a similar circulation. I don't put stock into their "headlines," nor was I arguing for their specific inclusion. Plenty of publications put out bad headlines. Whether any one person is "aghast" by headlines also doesn't really matter, that's a personal opinion. I'm not trying to be combative, here. And since all I'm getting in response are cherry-picked portions of my statements along with dismissiveness of what I'm trying to say, I'll let it go. SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 16:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NewsGuard has declared MSNBC unreliable[edit]

Add mention that NewsGuard has declared MSNBC to be an unreliable source of information and of poor journalistic quality. NewsGuard has been quoted directly for its assessment of various other news organizations in other articles, so there is consensus in favor of such an inclusion. Here is the link. 2A02:810A:12C0:598:6950:4A0D:9D02:60F3 (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please show other articles where this is discussed. 331dot (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned briefly in WaPo. More in depth coverage in Variety just on MSNBC's Morning Joe, which quotes NewsGuard as saying e.g. "the hosts and guests have conveyed false and misleading information on a range of topics". Endwise (talk) 10:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to other Wikipedia articles that discuss NewsGuard and what it thinks of them. Who are they exactly? Are they recognized as an authority on judging journalistic quality? I want to know why their opinion should be specifically called out in this or any article. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 381#Is NewsGuard reliable for checking accuracy of news sites? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Their news reporting is NBC News. The opinions are a different matter. SPECIFICO talk 01:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Check the page Newsguard. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example of their negative factors for MSNBC: NewsGuard states

In addition, articles written for the MSNBC website wrongly declared that New York Post stories about Hunter Biden’s laptop were false (and have continued to be published uncorrected on the site).

Which stories? The ones that say what? SPECIFICO talk 21:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal bias[edit]

Does anyone actually think MSNBC does not have a liberal bias? Leaving out liberal news organization, is a great example of why wikipedia people think Wikipedia is extremely bias. That and the multiple harvard studies also show this.

Do the right thing and add liberal in the intro paragraph. There is no reason not to other than someone having their own political agenda and using wikipedia as a way to promote it. This is really bothersome. Anyone with a political bias should not be editing wiki pages. Even wikipedias guidelines state articles need to come from a neutral stance. Clearly that guideline has been broken here. (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone has a political bias, so not allowing that would leave no one left to edit. Wikipedia does not require a "neutral stance", it asks for a neutral point of view.
Please offer independent reliable sources that describe MSNBC as liberal. You aren't the first to request this and won't be the last, but no one has yet to offer such sources. 331dot (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources aren't really the issue. IMO. The majority of legitimate, mainstream American media leans liberal or progressive, so there is no need to note the leanings MSNBC. Fox News is an outlier, hence the "conservative" descriptor. Zaathras (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a need to note the leanings of MSNBC. Wikipedia notes Washington Examiner as conservative, when it is only rated center-right according to, when MNSBC is rated completely left.
See DocZach (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That website has been brought up before, but it's only one website and is there any reason to consider it authoritative on this subject matter? 331dot (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To call it "liberal" or "left" in Wikipedia's voice, the preponderance of reliable sources would need to describe it that way. Otherwise we could certainly note in the article text something like this website's opinion, if there's some reason to consider it authoritative or otherwise call it out in particular. 331dot (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
THE PREPONDERANCE of reliable sources describe MSNBC as left-leaning, liberal, and/or progressive:
It would be a blatant violation of NPOV to not label it as such, but to label less-biased organizations such as Washington Examiner as conservative. DocZach (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't examined all of these yet, but blogs rarely are considered reliable sources. In my experience with this article most people trying to describe MSNBC as liberal or left wing in Wikipedia's voice offer opinion pieces, not journalism or something scholarly/academic, as evidence. I do note that the allsides mentioned above is a good start, and their views could possibly be included as their views, if they are recognized as authoritative on this topic.
We go where appropriate sources go; Fox and the WE are described as conservative because sources do so. It misunderstands NPOV to say "X should be done to Y because it's done on Z too". 331dot (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The description of Fox and WE as conservative are almost always described in opinion pieces as well. The best way to find out the political bias of a news source is usually AllSides, or some form of independent review site. DocZach (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not gonna happen. Zaathras (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're going to need to explain more than just saying "not gonna happen." DocZach (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. This is a perennially-pursued topic, mostly by IP editors, one-offs, and single-purpose accounts, and it has been solidly rejected by actual editors who have participated in discussions. The onus is on you to gain consensus for a change here. Zaathras (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a "one-off" writer. I have been contributing to numerous articles of a vast variety of topics. DocZach (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't say you were. I characterized past "users" whom you currently happen to be echoing. Zaathras (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaathras Looking at the edit history of this article, you seem to have been restricting and reverting the liberal/progressive descriptor over and over again, and then calling it a "consensus." Precisely what consensus? Clearly, there is no proper consensus. The vast majority of independent reliable sources state that MSNBC is a liberal and progressive news site. DocZach (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I and many others, yes. This is what most editors have decided upon. Zaathras (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A consensus isn't simply a majority of editors. And, if disputes have been happening for such a long time, then clearly there is an issue with the article. I recommend you read, the essay written by the co-founder of Wikipedia, which describes this. DocZach (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As stated already, the "disputes" are mostly by non-actual editors. Just passers-by. As for Larry Sanger, he is a MAGA-adjacent talking head personality who overstated his "co-founder" claim, and tried but failed to field his own Wikipedia competitor project, leading to ensuing bitterness. His opinion carries zero weight here. Less-than-zero, honestly, as citing him hinders your argument, not advances. Zaathras (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't asking you to respect or agree with Larry Sanger, I was asking you to read his essay if you hadn't already. Nevertheless, I assume you already have, so I am going to proceed.
The preponderance of reliable sources state that MSNBC is a liberal news organization. I already have provided many of them above. DocZach (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs don't count, two of your sources are blogs. The others are mostly opinion pieces that reflect the views of the writer(usually conservative writers), not a neutral judgement based on evidence. That's not the case with outlets like the Washington Examiner(under "history" and "content and editoral stance") and Fox News(under "political alignment"). 331dot (talk) 09:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know I'm not going to win here because there's so many people persistent on keeping a liberal/progressive descriptor out of the article, so I don't really have much else to say other than the fact that I strongly disagree.
I think it reflects poorly on Wikipedia to have "conservative" classifications on sources that are barely recognized as right-leaning, but when it comes to MSNBC; which is widely recognized as the most left-wing mainstream news program per Pew Research, AllSides, and a plethora of other sources; all of a sudden we aren't adding the liberal/progressive classification in the lead at all. And, just to note, the sources describing Washington Examiner as "conservative" are also either blogs, opinion articles, or written by journalists and authors who are well-known for their left-leaning stances.
I think the bias on many of these Wikipedia articles for news programs speaks for itself. It's unfortunate, but I can't really do anything because it seems that there is generally a tendency for the majority of editors on Wikipedia to lean progressive on many contentious issues, which reflects in the writing style of many articles as well. DocZach (talk) 09:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not specifically interested in keeping such a descriptor out, I'm interested in such a thing being properly sourced. Most of the people who want to do this seem interested in doing so based on revenge for conservative news outlets being identified that way, not based on proper sources. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please take up issues with conservative news outlets on those respective article talk pages, though you aren't the first and won't be the last, so I suggest you examine the archives of those talk pages. 331dot (talk) 12:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, I assume you already have, so I am going to proceed. Well, you know what they say about assuming things. No, I did not and have not read the opinion of a far-right provocateur, any more than I would listen to a Steve Bannon podcast. There's really nothing else to discuss here, as you're taking the same, tired route of others, particularly with the misunderstanding of how reliable sources are determined (hint, it isn't by ideology). Zaathras (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already said that I don't have much else to say. You can keep the article how you want it, I just disagree. I know however much I try to explain, it'll still not be implemented. DocZach (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, I'll probably propose it again in the talk page down the line, when I analyze more reliable sources. DocZach (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you do, please WP:AGF. Attacking the motivations/biases of other editors will not convince. Is Rachel Maddow liberal? Of course and we say so. But it's difficult to label an entire network as liberal when it starts each day with four hours of Joe Scarborough, a lifelong Conservative who during his congressional career, received a 95 percent lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union, He has been an MSNBC host for 16 years. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]