Talk:En WP:MCoBS - Revision history

Sashi: /* regulatory capture / category:criticism of journalism */

2020-02-20T23:12:04Z

‎regulatory capture / category:criticism of journalism

Sashi: /* CNN/DNC */

2020-02-20T23:10:47Z

‎CNN/DNC

Sashi at 23:09, 20 February 2020

2020-02-20T23:09:14Z

Show changes

Sashi: /* Controversial topic */

2020-02-20T22:44:36Z

‎Controversial topic

Sashi: /* Controversial topic */

2020-02-20T22:43:49Z

‎Controversial topic

Sashi: /* Know [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SELF] */

2020-02-20T22:40:34Z

‎Know [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SELF]

Sashi: links

2020-02-20T22:39:44Z

links

Show changes

Sashi: /* Recent editing */

2020-02-20T21:50:06Z

‎Recent editing

Sashi at 21:12, 20 February 2020

2020-02-20T21:12:52Z

Show changes

Sashi at 21:06, 20 February 2020

2020-02-20T21:06:42Z

Show changes

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:12, 20 February 2020
Line 2,213:		Line 2,213:

	::::That said, I stupidly tried to verify the claim, which is what led me to the original video in the first place, but of course there's no ads posted after video segments. One does feel there's a bit of cutting and splicing going on in that video... with that much, I agree. -- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SashiRolls SashiRolls] <sup>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SashiRolls 🌿 ] · [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SashiRolls 🍥]</sup> 19:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)		::::That said, I stupidly tried to verify the claim, which is what led me to the original video in the first place, but of course there's no ads posted after video segments. One does feel there's a bit of cutting and splicing going on in that video... with that much, I agree. -- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SashiRolls SashiRolls] <sup>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SashiRolls 🌿 ] · [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SashiRolls 🍥]</sup> 19:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
		+
		+	{{reflist}}

@@ Line 2,179: / Line 2,179: @@
 ::::::::::This has been an extremely difficult article to get to know and since reading what Trackinfo says here and at the delete article I am gradually beginning to understand why.  As best as I can understand Objective seems to be correct here about Brazille,  though I so often feel like I'm sitting in on the impeachment debate, which I've had going on in the background (and is making me feel sick...).  [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gandydancer Gandydancer] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gandydancer talk]) 23:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
-:::::::::::Gandydancer, I'm glad I could bring some clarity for you, others have thanked me too.  This subject, from the Democratic side, is part of a big picture problem that pre-shadowed the corruption of Trump.  Operatives favorable to the results do not want the stain of their complicity included in history.  Many progressives believe Bernie would have won, an article [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bernie_would_have_won WP:Articles_for_deletion/Bernie_would_have_won] about it was deleted by this crowd.  The Bernie blackout . . . media bias reflected in the "before" version of this article, [https://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wasserman-schulz-rigged-primaries-against-sanders/ the admitted] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Committee#Coordination_with_2016_Clinton_primary_campaign DNC corruption] to fix debate scheduling and content (Brazille), [https://www.cityandstateny.com/articles/politics/campaigns-elections/new-york-city-purged-voters-2016-it-wasnt-mistake.html actual election tampering] and the systematic, pro-establishment corruption of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate#Election_of_2016 Superdelegates] robbed voters of a populist candidate and instead forced in an un-popular candidate that was almost as corrupt and un-popular as the Republican's candidate.  It caused [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter apathy] which essentially is what elected Trump in the first place.  Whether any of you agree with or are willing to admit to understanding this, millions of people have this opinion.  They feel robbed by the DNC establishment in 2016 and expect an encore, already in progress in 2020.  Wikipedia's failure to cover this subject fairly, the seizure of this article, deletion of others, propaganda insertion into others.  And if these operatives are not able to delete the articles, they are inserting slime to discredit the subjects and the new media figures who have been and are reporting these stories.  They are all related.  Its a big problem for wikipedia. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Trackinfo Trackinfo] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Trackinfo talk]) 06:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
+:::::::::::Gandydancer, I'm glad I could bring some clarity for you, others have thanked me too.  This subject, from the Democratic side, is part of a big picture problem that pre-shadowed the corruption of Trump.  Operatives favorable to the results do not want the stain of their complicity included in history.  Many progressives believe Bernie would have won, an article [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bernie_would_have_won WP:Articles_for_deletion/Bernie_would_have_won] about it was deleted by this crowd.  The Bernie blackout . . . media bias reflected in the "before" version of this article, [https://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wasserman-schulz-rigged-primaries-against-sanders/ the admitted] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Committee#Coordination_with_2016_Clinton_primary_campaign DNC corruption] to fix debate scheduling and content (Brazille), [https://www.cityandstateny.com/articles/politics/campaigns-elections/new-york-city-purged-voters-2016-it-wasnt-mistake.html actual election tampering] and the systematic, pro-establishment corruption of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate#Election_of_2016 Superdelegates] robbed voters of a populist candidate and instead forced in an un-popular candidate that was almost as corrupt and un-popular as the Republican's candidate.  It caused [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_apathy voter apathy] which essentially is what elected Trump in the first place.  Whether any of you agree with or are willing to admit to understanding this, millions of people have this opinion.  They feel robbed by the DNC establishment in 2016 and expect an encore, already in progress in 2020.  Wikipedia's failure to cover this subject fairly, the seizure of this article, deletion of others, propaganda insertion into others.  And if these operatives are not able to delete the articles, they are inserting slime to discredit the subjects and the new media figures who have been and are reporting these stories.  They are all related.  Its a big problem for wikipedia. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Trackinfo Trackinfo] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Trackinfo talk]) 06:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 :As O3000 said, this has nothing to do with ''media coverage'' of Sanders and, as such, should not be included here. If it is not there already, perhaps it would fit better in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016 Democratic Party presidential debates and forums] or [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna Brazile]. --[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WMSR WMSR] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WMSR talk]) 00:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 :The Donna Brazile incident is outside of the scope of this article. - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MrX Mr][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MrX X] 🖋 16:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@@ Line 140: / Line 140: @@
 ::Yeah, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LEAD ] section is only supposed to reflect and summarize what is found in the main body of the article and does not require any citations unless it is presenting a statement or two that is not found in the body. Ideally such statements should just be moved into the body of the article, somehow, because the main job of the lead is not to introduce ideas that aren't explained elsewhere. The layout of the article seems perfectly fine to me. <strong>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PericlesofAthens <span style="color: blue;">Pericles of Athens</span>]</strong><sup>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PericlesofAthens <span style="color: #0000CD;">Talk</span>]</sup> 21:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 Rather than delete this, why not find the relevant links, and input them? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Drrichardpaul Drrichardpaul] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drrichardpaul talk]) 16:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
-:There is a discussion about deletion that can be found [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Media bias_against_Bernie_Sanders]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User: Azcolvin429 <i style="color: Green">Andrew Z. Colvin</i>]&nbsp;• [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Azcolvin429 <i style="color: Green">Talk</i>] 19:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
+:There is a discussion about deletion that can be found [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Media_bias_against_Bernie_Sanders]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User: Azcolvin429 <i style="color: Green">Andrew Z. Colvin</i>]&nbsp;• [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Azcolvin429 <i style="color: Green">Talk</i>] 19:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 Why is an article with over 60 cited sources even being considered for deletion?  If the topic is controversial, then the page should be locked as it is; deleting the article is tantamount to taking a side one way or the other.  Being intellectually honest means examining uncomfortable issues like this one, being fair means leaving the article as is. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CTDaugherty CTDaugherty] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CTDaugherty talk]) 21:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@@ Line 140: / Line 140: @@
 ::Yeah, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LEAD ] section is only supposed to reflect and summarize what is found in the main body of the article and does not require any citations unless it is presenting a statement or two that is not found in the body. Ideally such statements should just be moved into the body of the article, somehow, because the main job of the lead is not to introduce ideas that aren't explained elsewhere. The layout of the article seems perfectly fine to me. <strong>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PericlesofAthens <span style="color: blue;">Pericles of Athens</span>]</strong><sup>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PericlesofAthens <span style="color: #0000CD;">Talk</span>]</sup> 21:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 Rather than delete this, why not find the relevant links, and input them? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Drrichardpaul Drrichardpaul] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drrichardpaul talk]) 16:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
-:There is a discussion about deletion that can be found [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media bias against Bernie Sanders]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User: Azcolvin429 <i style="color: Green">Andrew Z. Colvin</i>]&nbsp;• [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Azcolvin429 <i style="color: Green">Talk</i>] 19:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
+:There is a discussion about deletion that can be found [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Media bias_against_Bernie_Sanders]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User: Azcolvin429 <i style="color: Green">Andrew Z. Colvin</i>]&nbsp;• [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Azcolvin429 <i style="color: Green">Talk</i>] 19:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 Why is an article with over 60 cited sources even being considered for deletion?  If the topic is controversial, then the page should be locked as it is; deleting the article is tantamount to taking a side one way or the other.  Being intellectually honest means examining uncomfortable issues like this one, being fair means leaving the article as is. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CTDaugherty CTDaugherty] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CTDaugherty talk]) 21:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
@@ Line 158: / Line 158: @@
 {{Clear}}
 == Lead: exclusively pro-Sanders POVs, exclusively covers op-eds ==

@@ Line 1,766: / Line 1,766: @@
 {{reflist-talk}}
-== Know [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SELF] ==
+== Know [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SELF WP:SELF] ==
 Since MrX doesn't want me painting any impressionistic rainbows, I won't suggest that we include [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia Foundation|WMF] data for page views on Bernie Sanders & Hilary Clinton for [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2015-07-01&end=2016-05-31&pages=Bernie_Sanders|Hillary_Clinton July 1, 2015 to May 31, 2016].  Still... is WMFLabs a secondary source as regards en.wp?  ^^  🌿  [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SashiRolls   SashiRolls] <sup>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SashiRolls   t] ·   [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SashiRolls c]</sup> 21:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@@ Line 538: / Line 538: @@
 Due to the issue of 1RR in effect, I figured I'd bring this issue to the attention of everyone.
-*There have been 29 individual edits done by [[User:Snooganssnoogans]] with ranging captions. Some of which are false. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Media_coverage_of_Bernie_Sanders&diff=932233444&oldid=932084194 Over these edits] there has been substantial change to the entire article. Some information has been removed entirely and claimed to have been unreliable. One of which, is the information from Ed Schultz about him being told to not cover Sanders which was just a transcribe by Washington Examiner from his National Review interview. It was also sourced by the Washington Free Beacon and had a wayback machine of the interview with National Review attached. None of these sources are listed as unreliable on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RSPSOURCES ].
+*There have been 29 individual edits done by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Snooganssnoogans Snooganssnoogans] with ranging captions. Some of which are false. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Media_coverage_of_Bernie_Sanders&diff=932233444&oldid=932084194 Over these edits] there has been substantial change to the entire article. Some information has been removed entirely and claimed to have been unreliable. One of which, is the information from Ed Schultz about him being told to not cover Sanders which was just a transcribe by Washington Examiner from his National Review interview. It was also sourced by the Washington Free Beacon and had a wayback machine of the interview with National Review attached. None of these sources are listed as unreliable on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RSPSOURCES ].
 *Some edits are mischaracterizing the statements of articles. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Media_coverage_of_Bernie_Sanders&diff=next&oldid=932224961 Particularly in this edit] which changes the point of Greenwald saying that the would be a concerted effort laid out over stages to create a smear, to just one about the media being hostile to him. Which isn't what he is saying. He isn't just saying they will be hostile to him, he is literally laying out that the media will conduct a campaign against him similar to the issues that happened in the recent General Election surrounding Jeremy Corbyn. Should the section be re-written, yes I agree. It wasn't well written in the first place, but this turn isn't even covering what the source says and is way too concise.
 *This happens again later when the section regarding the FAIR analysis is "trimmed" by being turned from a paragraph to just a two sentence section. Which also doesn't convey what the source says accurately. The article has 6 sections covering issues, the section only says 4. One of those is said to be by CNN, which the article only mentions MSNBC for all 6 instances. I know because I hit find and typed CNN in the article and got zero results. The mysterious CNN mention also includes the word "mistake" of which the article doesn't say any of this is a mistake and is actively taking the stance these are being done on purpose. The original section also doesn't say anything about CNN. I know because I also hit find and got no hits for CNN in that section. This new section is also very vague to what these "mistakes" are, while the previous is covering the topic of media coverage. Now I've written upwards of 60 articles that have gone under review, and if I wrote a section that doesn't even cover the topic or the content of the source adequately I'm pretty sure it wouldn't pass review. Again, was the section artistic prose? Not really. This isn't any better though.