The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What struck me is that, in development economics, there are certain processes that lead to migration from rural to urban locations. These are reflected in a broad array of social discussions, government expenditures, and collateral actions. The article seems to conflate that sort of bias with the current US angry-white-folks meme of urban elites or coast-dwellers hijacking American government and culture. SPECIFICOtalk15:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Umm...I only spent 15 or 20 minutes skimming sources. The media bias aspect does seem to be a component of it. It makes sense intuitively as a feedback mechanism. Private and public institutions tend to prefer urban areas, among these are media outlets, which prefer issues that disproportionately affect urban areas, and which are themselves consumed by voters, stake holders, politicians, etc., which then prefer urban areas in their public policy formation and business practices, which makes more content for media outlets to report on, so on and so forth. That feedback loop (and I don't have a source for this on hand, but I wouldn't be surprised to easily find one...but I need to go for a run and mow grass so I can watch Deadpool later tonight) is probably an important player in the the migration to urban centers species wide.
Either way, we have two articles that seem to cover the same subject, and it may need an AfD either way, assuming a redirect/merge will be promptly reverted. Unfortunately, this is an areas where my lack of university library access hamstrings my ability to contribute. But most of the work that I personally have access to seems to focus on developing countries, and not US politics. GMGtalk15:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The migration to cities is documented to be driven by technology (starting 200 years ago) and other objective factors. Rabbits don't own tv sets and they don't buy deodorant, so it's not clear there's "bias" involved. SPECIFICOtalk22:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rabbits naturally occur with greater frequency outside metropolitan areas and yet we do not say there is anti-Rabbit metropolitan bias. Broadcasters cover news and provide entertainment that are of interest to their viewers and advertisers. Because of the large number of high-income viewers in metropolitan regions, the normal functioning of the broadcast industry may provide more extensive metropolitan-linked content. Would you call that a "bias"? Perhaps in a very limited sense, but that's not the meaning of bias that is conveyed by either the title or the lede or some of the other content of the article, which is pushing a particular rather indefensible POV by SYNTH collation of cherrypicked little nothings. SPECIFICOtalk17:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've been following this discussion, and I'm unsure about what, exactly, the issue being discussed is. I see mention of how there are other pages with overlapping topic areas, but the discussion sounds to me like it is also about some deeper problem than just fixing areas of overlap between articles. Could editors here clarify that for me? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the 100 years of classification, the urban population has increased from 45 percent of the nation’s total in 1910 to nearly 81 percent in 2010. During this period, the structure of the urban landscape also has changed, from a close relationship to the boundaries of cities and towns, to increased growth of unincorporated suburbs adjacent to larger cities, to diffusion of urban- and suburban-style development across the landscape, particularly within metropolitan areas.
Now, there are many reasons for this. But the use of the term "bias", as if to suggest some unfair disadvantagement or denigration of the rural areas is basically SYNTH and OR and appears to be part of a narrative to deprecate the views and interests of the metropolitan mainstream, which includes the mainstream of media, education, commerce throughout most of the world. SPECIFICOtalk19:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm thinking too. I can see what this might have to do with urban-rural biases, but it sounds completely unrelated to Wikipedia-related biases. If there is some (not apparent) argument that editors have made the same mistakes at this page as at pages about other kinds of purported biases, then that needs to be stated explicitly, and on the AfD main page rather than here in talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
