Talk:Politico

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)

Why is it not relevant? 2603:8080:3EF0:7930:10CF:FA61:D740:B6B6 (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Good point. I've removed it from the lede. --Hipal (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Chabad-Lubavitch Story

There is no solid source listed listed for the discussion of the Chabad-Lubavitch article which backs up the claims. Rather, there are two Israeli-aligned sources. Which is fine, but not as evidence that it was "widely criticised"--which JTA, the much more solid source, doesn't claim. Without adequate sourcing, should the section be removed? Be-Plants (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Gallup/Knight Foundation survey for political ideology

I'm cringing a bit at the reference, but assuming that no one will argue that it's unreliable:

The polling was used to identify the sources that they list, Politico being one. The ideology classification comes from the procedure described in the report, based upon ratings from AllSides and Media Bias/Fact Check. As such, I think it is safe to say that the categorization applies to American political categories only, and that needs to be clear in the article content. As far as what other context is appropriate for it, I think Centrism_by_country#United_States would be inappropriate, Centrism fits, as does Political moderate. Is there something more appropriate? Rationale for a preference between centrism vs political moderate?

Without more context, and more coverage specific to Politico, it seems UNDUE. Can we find references that provide the necessary context and depth to avoid what comes across as a LABEL? --Hipal (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Can you drop in a link to what you are talking about? Novellasyes (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Ideologically, Politico's coverage has been described as moderate on American politics.

Removed here after recent editing to it and similar content since Aug 29. --Hipal (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

The survey was of Americans, asking them what they thought of Politico's coverage, whether it was liberal, moderate or conservative. The results were that it was moderate.Nothing at all restricting it to American politics - that is a judgment that is being imposed in the article but not found in the source. Given that Politico's american site covers national and international politics, it is probably a wrong judgment. In any event, it is imposing a distinction that is not present in the source, and wrongly attributing it to a source.

If you want a link to explain "moderate", best to go to "political moderate". Anything else would be imposing your own value judgment. 104.195.202.130 (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Re: asking them what they thought of Politico's coverage, I have explained why this is not the case. The polling only identified the sources. --Hipal (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree with removal, as it seems UNDUE given the ref. Apologies for restoring it. --Hipal (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

References

Hirsh resignation

Politico editor Michael Hirsh resigned in November 2016 after publishing the home address of white supremacist Richard B. Spencer on Facebook.

After looking at this closely, I don't see how it is DUE, but rather NOTNEWS. This article is about Politico, not Hirsh. Maybe with better sources, written around Politico's perspective. Given the situation and the legal issues around it, I don't expect we will no beyond what's suggested by the quote in the ref. I've removed the content. --Hipal (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Antisemitism accusation

In March 2019, Politico was accused of antisemitism when it published an article depicting imagery of presidential candidate U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders next to money trees. Sanders, one of two Jewish candidates for the 2020 U.S. presidential election, was targeted for the amount of wealth he accumulated over his lifetime. Politico staff writer Michael Kruse wrote the article detailing the senator's wealth, writing that Sanders "might still be cheap", according to one of the senator's friends, "but he's sure not poor", which was criticized as combining two antisemitic tropes (Jews are cheap; Jews are rich). Politico's official Twitter account used the quote to share the story; the tweet was later deleted.

This is a one-off, and WP:MEDIAITE applies. With just The Hill as a reference, this looks like WP:NOTNEWS with neither ref including a response from Politico despite the months between their publication. I've removed it.

As for the three refs in the attempt to expand the section: the op/ed shouldn't even be considered, WP:HUFFPOLITICS, and the piece from The Tablet appears to be another op/ed. --Hipal (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

It is wrong to exclude reference to this issue entirely. The Bernie Sanders article stirred condemnation of Politico across the political spectrum, from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to the right-wing ADL, and Bernie himself denounced it as antisemitic. The reaction caused Politico to rewrite the article so as to make the wording of the article less snide and derogatory. It is definitely NEWS. Particularly since Politico had earlier run an allegedly antisemitic conspiracy piece asserting links between Lubavitcher Hasidism and the Kremlin that also stirred controversy, suggesting a pattern.

It would make sense to reintroduce the text with additional references, not just The Hill, avoiding any opinion pieces. Bob Gollum (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

A version with more citations would be like this, with references in brackets rather than footnotes for the purpose of this draft suggestion only. It could be shortened, but the length is needed for now to address the concerns that have been raised about including the segment at all.

Accusations of antisemitism

In March 2019, Politico was accused of antisemitism over an article with a photoillustration placing a stock image of U.S. Senator and then-presidential candidate Bernie Sanders in front of a tree sprouting hundred dollar bills.(https://web.archive.org/web/20190524095924/https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/05/24/bernie-sanders-millionaires-226982/and https://www.jta.org/quick-reads/sanders-politico-article-on-his-wealth-was-anti-semitic)

Politico staff writer Michael Kruse wrote the article detailing the senator's wealth, writing that Sanders, one of two Jewish candidates for the 2020 U.S. presidential election, "might still be cheap", according to one of the senator's friends, "but he's sure not poor". The statement was criticized as combining two standard antisemitic tropes about Jews and wealth. Politico's official Twitter account used the quote to share the story; they later apologized and modified the tweet to use more neutral language. (https://forward.com/fast-forward/424975/politico-magazine-accused-of-anti-semitism-over-bernie-sanders// and https://stljewishlight.org/world-news/politico-magazine-accused-of-anti-semitism-over-bernie-sanders-illustration/)

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez denounced the wording as antisemitic; the Anti-Defamation League criticized the article for perpetuating anti-semitic tropes (https://forward.com/fast-forward/424975/politico-magazine-accused-of-anti-semitism-over-bernie-sanders/) as did Bernie Sanders' Chief of Staff Ari Rabin-Havt. (https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/ocasio-cortez-bashes-politico-for-antisemitic-illustration-of-sanders-590691)

When asked about the piece in an interview a month after it was published, Sanders said “Call that what it is, an anti-Semitic article.”(https://www.timesofisrael.com/bernie-sanders-politico-article-on-his-wealth-was-anti-semitic/ and https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2019-06-04/ty-article/sanders-politico-article-on-his-wealth-was-anti-semitic/0000017f-f454-d044-adff-f7fdeb020000 and https://dailycaller.com/2019/06/03/bernie-sanders-politico-anti-semitic/ and https://thehill.com/homenews/media/446713-sanders-slams-anti-semitic-article-about-his-wealth/) Bob Gollum (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

New version:

In March 2019, Politico was accused of antisemitism over an article with a photoillustration placing a stock image of U.S. Senator and then-presidential candidate Bernie Sanders in front of a tree sprouting hundred dollar bills. Politico staff writer Michael Kruse wrote the article about the senator's financial assets, writing that Sanders, one of two Jewish candidates for the 2020 U.S. presidential election, "might still be cheap but he's sure not poor". The statement was criticized as combining two standard antisemitic tropes about Jews and wealth. Politico's official Twitter account used the concerning phrase to share the story; they later apologized and modified the tweet to use more neutral language. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez denounced the wording as antisemitic; the Anti-Defamation League criticized the article for perpetuating anti-semitic tropes as did Bernie Sanders' Chief of Staff. When asked about the piece in an interview a month after it was published, Sanders said “Call that what it is, an anti-Semitic article.”

References

How does this address my concerns of NOTNEWS? --Hipal (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

If you had concerns, you should have addressed them on this page when I first posted the proposed revision, not engage in edit warring.

Your concern about "NOTNEWS" was that the only sources were The Hill and a few opinion pieces. I have added other sources.

But not news? As I wrote above,"The Bernie Sanders article stirred condemnation of Politico across the political spectrum, from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to the right-wing ADL, and Bernie himself denounced it as anti-semitic. The reaction caused Politico to rewrite the article so as to make the wording of the article less snide and derogatory. It is definitely NEWS. Particularly since Politico had earlier run an allegedly antisemitic conspiracy piece asserting links between Lubavitcher Hasidism and the Kremlin that also stirred controversy, suggesting a pattern."

That is news. Bob Gollum (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Howso? Do note NOTNEWS says, Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. I see you found a number of articles from publishers biased to covering the topic, all published within a single week. What's the enduring impact of this week of reporting from such sources? --Hipal (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

"Biased to covering the topic" -meaning that it is the kind of topic that they are interested in covering? Isn't that exactly the kind of source you want, one knowledgable about the topic? It is like saying you don't want to use Nature as a source for an article about science, or can't use Rolling Stone for an article about Beyoncé. The Daily Caller also ran a piece about the controversy, but I have left them out because they are not considered a reliable source. However, if the point is to show that there are more sources that are interested in the issue, they could be included for that without relying on their facts.

Second of all, if you read the references, you will see that not all the references were published within a single week.

This subject is as much NEWS as anything in the section about their coverage of Donald Trump or fossil fuels, or the names of particular staff members.

There has been a general consensus among a series of editors, as shown in the history section, that this issue is notable. You are the only one who has expressed a different opinion, and your rationale changes each time.You should respect consensus on this rather than censoring legitimate edits and engaging in constant edit warring over personal grudges. Bob Gollum (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Does anyone else want to weigh in on this topic, or can we say there is consensus about including it? Bob Gollum (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

There's no consensus so far. --Hipal (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

There seems to be a general consensus, with you as the one hold out. This is the same information that other people have previously introduced, deleted repeatedly by yourself and now modified to fully address the only objections you have raised. Bob Gollum (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

That's not consensus, and while you have responded to my concerns, you've not addressed them that I see: ... all published within a single week. What's the enduring impact of this week of reporting from such sources? --Hipal (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

As I pointed out, they were not all published in a single week.

What is wikipedia policy when everyone but one gatekeeper agrees on an inclusion? Bob Gollum (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

The policies and guidelines that could be better followed here are WP:FOC, WP:AGF, WP:TALK, and WP:CON.

Please point out the sources that indicate this might not be a NOTNEWS situation. --Hipal (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

It was a rhetorical question. Point is, wikipedia expects editors to behave in a collaborative fashion working together to resolve disagreements. Saying "no" in the face of general consensus among other editors, while giving nothing more than reasons that are inconsistent and ad hoc or reflect bigoted assumptions, is not what wikipedia is about.

All of the sources taken together indicate this is news. They show that there was a significant reaction to the Politico story among well known figures and from members of the public at large, and that these reactions did not subside within a day or two to be forgotten. That is more than can be said for other items in the controversies section, such as accidentally mistaking Chuck Schumer's wife Iris Weinshall for Sonia Sotomayor. Bob Gollum (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

So it's NOTNEWS until references are found that indicate otherwise. --Hipal (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Can't say as I follow. You are never going to find a reference that says "this is news"- if it is being written about, it is because someone thinks it is news. The standard on wikipedia is that if the story disappears in a couple of days, it is transient with no significance for an encyclopedia article, but if it persists longer and evokes a reaction from notable people, it is significant. Here the story got play for at least a month, got responses from several politicians, and one can point to it being part of a larger pattern.

Please try to engage in good faith, not simply saying no without thinking it through or backing up your reasons. Bob Gollum (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

--Hipal (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Please, give reasons for your opposition. Bob Gollum (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2026 (UTC)