Talk:En WP:MCoBS

From Creolista!
Jump to: navigation, search



Reference error fixes

There are a few reference errors that I can't seem to figure out how to fix. If you know how to fix them, please help! The In These Times section has an error that seems perfectly fine. Reference number 33 also has an error that makes no sense. References also need Wikilinks within them. Azcolvin429 Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 05:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Errors resolved. Thank you Timothy.lucas.jaeger! Azcolvin429 Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 06:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2019

Template:Edit semi-protected (talk)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sceptre (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

A few sources not mentioned

Here are a couple sources that could be included:

Here are sources that staunchly criticizes the accusations of bias:

Azcolvin429 Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 23:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Article should be kept and made part of a series listing such media manipulation

Not only Sanders is not the only candidate targeted as such, but also privately owned major media corporations have dropped any pretense of objectivity in pursuing the interests of their majority shareholders. This constitutes a major threat to democracy, something bigger than what outside state or private actors pose.

Fleshing out this article and using it as a template to list similar manipulations against current candidates and future candidates can help fight against such manipulation. Unity100 (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Control of the media by the rich and powerful elites (Mike Bloomberg for one) is of serious concern to the future of our country. Wikipedia must be a fair arbiter of ideas. CTDaugherty (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


Don’t Delete, the blackout was first discovered in the Wikileaks documents showing the truth about deceiving a nation and using corrupt powers to sway the primaries. Several emails released show that although the DNC was supposed to remain neutral during the primary contest, officials grew increasingly agitated with Bernie Sanders and his campaign, at some points even floating ideas about ways to undermine his candidacy. DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz Calls Sanders Campaign Manager Jeff Weaver an "A--" and a "Liar" In May 2016 the Nevada Democratic State Convention became rowdy and got out of hand in a fight over delegate allocation. When Weaver went on CNN and denied any claims violence had happened, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, once she was notified of the exchange, wrote "Damn liar. Particularly scummy that he never acknowledges the violent and threatening behavior that occurred." Then just one day before the Democratic convention was set to begin, DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz announced her resignation, effective at the end of the week. And as expected, Sanders supporters, hundreds of whom are delegates at the convention, are furious about the content of the emails. Further proof of the blackout and it’s origins.

Cite:— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 22:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


Template:Reply to Taibbi is an opinion writer and his articles are not reliable for statements of facts. — goethean 23:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:Reply to Taibbi does indeed do opinion pieces, however these are marked as 'POLITICAL COMMENTARY' (see this piece). The article that I have cited was marked as 'POLITICS NEWS' (see here). Lalichi (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

This article flagrantly violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy

The New York Times was called out when they retroactively made significant changes

The New York Times was "called out"? Is that how a neutral encyclopedia discusses allegations of media bias?

Jennifer Rubin immediately criticized Sanders as a dated, unpopular candidate upon which the next day he reached record fundraising numbers.

This is one example of blatant POV pushing (not to mention abysmal writing) in the article.

MSNBC analyst Mimi Rocah proclaimed that Bernie Sanders, "made her skin crawl" suggesting to viewers that he was not a pro-women candidate.[13][29] This directly contrasted the data from Pew that showed that Sanders polls highest among women.[30][31]

Here the author chooses one poll which is favorable to Sanders and uses it to imply that Rocah's opinion is wrong. Wikipedia editors should not be using Wikipedia resources to make the case for a political candidate.

Sanders went on to write in an email to his donors,

It is really very interesting that Wikipedia now citing candidates' emails to their donors. No citation is provided, of course, since one can't verify the veracity of an email to a donor, can one?

This article suffers from many, ***many*** flagrant violations of the Wikipedia NPOV policy. The author should consider recusing himself from the article. — goethean 20:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

What I find interesting is that you have failed to actually look at the references. This is what the sources say. This is why it is documented as such. I support wording changes to neutralize or clarify statements, but it is ***very*** apparent you have a vested interest in deleting this article instead of actually analyzing the sources and rewriting material to be more "neutral". I suspect that is because you don't like the idea that something you disagree with has evidence to support it. Nevertheless, you may not like what the sources state, but that is what they state whether their interpretations are true or false.
Also, the article is not citing candidates emails. It cites an article that discusses his email in response to media criticisms. This is a perfectly valid primary source supported by a secondary source that exemplifies the campaigns stance on the issue that they believe is real. Once again, it does not matter if the bias is real or not, the media discussions exist and it is highly notable. Azcolvin429 Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 20:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:U, I dont see any problem with the idiom "called out", it means Template:Tq[1]. Also you seem to be under impression that the media bias against Sanders is "allegation" but do you have any source that 'challenge' what you call "an allegation"? What reliable sources are saying is that this a real problem not allegations. See for example this report in FAIR.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
As I said above there is no citation for the content that Sanders wrote to his donors. No citation. At all. — goethean 21:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Change "was called out" to "faced backlash". It's an easy fix. The whole thing doesn't need to be deleted. SatanistSin (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment

This article exhibits clear bias on the part of supporters of Bernie Sanders, as evidenced by the talk page and the content of the article itself. The main article for Bernie Sanders already contains a section dedicated to how he / his campaigns have been covered by news outlets. This page has no reason to exist other than to satisfy the agenda of Sanders supporters.

Bernie Sanders receives a good deal of news coverage, and the coverage he gets tends to be somewhat positive. His supporters have created this article to abuse the clout of Wikipedia and justify their narrative that Sanders's current standing in the polls is due to outside forces rather than simply having less support than his opponents. The existence of a separate article also allows them to avoid the higher scrutiny they would face when editing the main article for Bernie Sanders. In addition, this seems to be the only page on the entirety of Wikipedia dedicated to the media bias against a single person.

It is for these reasons that I believe this page should either be removed entirely, rolled into an existing section of the main Bernie Sanders article, or added as a new section of the main Bernie Sanders article. At the very least this article should be held to the same standard as any other political article, as political subjects are very easily affected by bias.

I apologize for any misuse of the Wikipedia editing process. I don't have any experience with this community, but had to speak out against what I feel is a clear abuse of the platform.

Ellie.Michaels (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ellie.Michaels, this page has been flagged as a possible candidate for deletion, and you can discuss your thought's on the page's importance here. Buggie111 (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

If this Wikipedia Entry is so offensive to so many that they are constantly trying to have it removed, that is evidence of controversy, and thus Wikipedia may be being used as a part of a media conspiracy against the candidate. The very act of removing this entry could therefore be evidence that the bias exists in the form of a conspiracy. Perhaps we should re-frame this article, naming it something else, such as: "Evidence and examples of proven media bias (or conspiracy) against the candidacy of Bernie Sanders 2016-2020" then the page could be more of a historical archive of the known facts and evidence, and would be unrelated to subjective opinions about Bernie Sanders or his supporters. Michael E. Russell 09:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC) Michael Russell, a.k.a. Philosopher3000 Michael E. Russell 09:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosopher3000 (talkcontribs)

There is a discussion about deletion that can be found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media bias against Bernie Sanders. Azcolvin429 Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 19:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • keep or merge with main Sanders article - I've read dozens of articles examining media bias against Sanders. Whether it is true or not is debatable, but there has been a fiery public debate about it, it's noteworthy. Bacondrum (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

If this page gets deleted...

...I have been compiling sources pointing to a rather alarming trend toward literal f--king FASCISM taking over this country through the mechanisms of the national security state.

Fascist takeover of America/U.S. will be up within a week of this page being removed.

Consider this your one warning.

--Abbazorkzog (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

This is probably not the most constructive comment, even if you are well-intentioned. Be sure to provide constructive comments that can be utilized to enhance an article's quality. Azcolvin429 Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 19:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
This is hilarious. Let's make it happen. HonestManBad (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
This section belongs in a action movie, not Wikipedia. Consider me impressed by your plot-making skills. Would (oldosfan) 09:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


Controversial topic

I have created this article knowing full well the controversial nature of the topic. The topic is notable as per WP:NOTE and quite a few publications from both mainstream and alternative media cover the topic. I have attempted to write as objectively as possible and found that in the research there was very little in regards to the response to the criticism. If I missed anything major, feel free to add to the criticism section.

I tried my best to cite primary sources that were only supported by secondary sources. Some issues arose when it came to Reddit and Twitter communities as there was lots of discussion in those, but little to no coverage by media sources.

The title of the article could be perceived as contentious and could be moved to an alternate title if needed based on discussion.

The article need a bit of cleanup with formatting and internal linking. The article also needs to be linked to from other articles. Azcolvin429 Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 04:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Be very careful. The wikipedia "mods" will attempt their very best to "censor" this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
It's hard to justify censorship when it follows the guidlines outlined by Verifiability, Reliable sources, and NPOV . Azcolvin429 Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 07:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales is a "Libertarian Tech Bro." I wouldn't be surprised if that general culture pervades throughout the entire site.

It does not. Wikipedia has guidelines such as NPOV , which this article blatantly violates. Would (oldosfan) 09:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The entire opening section of this article contains zero sources and engages in significant speculation. I struggle to understand how something like this is allowed, it seems to be closer to the kind of stuff you see on Reddit, not Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Leads do not have to contain references. Only the body. The lead is a summary of the cited body text. This is Wikipedia policy. Azcolvin429 Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 21:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, the 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. Pericles of AthensTalk 21:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Rather than delete this, why not find the relevant links, and input them? Drrichardpaul (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

There is a discussion about deletion that can be found [2]. Azcolvin429 Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 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. CTDaugherty (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Completely disagree that the topic of media coverage is controversial, i simply believe that the article contains a worrying amount of slant toward the sanders view. I honestly believe the reason for this being that much of the outlets that sanders supporters have criticized have yet to administer a proper defense of their coverage. I am not an expert but perhaps going forward, it would be good to discuss only coverage sanders received in 2016, rather than documenting coverage on an ongoing primary. The discussion should then focus on studies in reputable journals about how coverage may have slanted one way or another. Also please refrain from accusing people of bias, and that goes one way or the other. (0_0;✿) ~MJL's Evil Sister (Evil Sister talk) 14:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The author has argued that it was difficult to find opinions contrary to media bias vs. Sanders existing – is it not possible that the "worrying amount of slant" could simply be a result of the for-vs.-against distribution at which content is found on this topic?
As a simplified example: if an article on the origins of climate change mostly contains citations from sources that purport it *is* anthropogenic and leaves dissenting opinions as a minority, would that constitute slanting the article in the favor of the former? (The back-drop being that, depending on the definition, 90–99% of the body of literature on it concludes it *is* anthropogenic.) Should the article not roughly reflect the proportions of existing data on the subject?
Furthermore, editors are welcome to do reference-searching of their own to conclude if the "there is no bias" side has been underrepresented, rather than drawing a conclusion from the coverage distribution in this article alone. Selvydra (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm with you @Template:U on the reason for what i referred to as slant is that there is the difficulty in finding evidence in support of Sanders' media coverage, in fact i mentioned it in my comment (because i had spent an afternoon looking for it). I was just commenting on how a potential solution would be not to discuss coverage of an on-going campaign. This isn't necessarily a solution i would like to see happen, i just was putting a suggestion out their.
Also, in my personal opinion, i think there is a great amount of bias at play with the coverage of Sanders, so don't think my criticisms come from disagreement with the subject matter! (>u0✿) ~MJL's Evil Sister (Evil Sister talk) 23:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the title might be improved. I suggested below that it could be changed to Media Coverage of Bernie Sanders, with some attention to and examples of positive coverage, if there has been any. I like the idea of the article, however. Mballen (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that name would be good @Template:U, i don't want to have to see it changed, but i think it would be for the best if the article had a less controversial name (0W0;✿) ~MJL's Evil Sister (Evil Sister talk) 00:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


Lead: exclusively pro-Sanders POVs, exclusively covers op-eds

The horrible lead to this article, which was just a OR summary of a bunch pro-Sanders op-eds and punditry was just restored.[3] Not only does it have a crazy skew (only pro-Sanders viewpoints are covered), but they are near-exclusively reflective of opinion content, rather than RS content, which is crazy for a lead to do. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

No, the second paragraph of the lead (of which there are only two paragraphs), clearly mentions the rebuttal to the idea that there is any bias at all, whereas the previous lead section didn't even mention the "criticism" section of the article. If anything the current lead is *more inclusive* of the camp that says there is no bias. I fail to see how the following violates NPOV . Perhaps point out the specific statement you think does exactly that instead of just leveling vague complaints that aren't very constructive. Here's the paragraph in question (since the first paragraph merely introduces the central thesis of the article):


Perhaps also point out which specific sources are entirely op-ed instead of Reliable_sources, and also a specific reason as to why you think this is the case, backed up by your own sources stating as such. Pericles of AthensTalk 17:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

So let's reintroduce the blatantly NPOV lead? It's unsourced synthesis and borderline Original Research.
In particular, the following sentence/list contains "facts" that are not supported in the rest of the article:
Accusations of bias often revolve around themes concerning the concentration of media ownership, profit-driven special interests, manufacturing consent and the propaganda model, general media propaganda, conflicts of interests, and agenda-setting theory.
Slywriter (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • It might be best to avoid drastically rewriting the lead while the article is on [4]]. In any case, I do think that the list of sources that have alleged bias is worth keeping in the lead (the part that goes {{tq media such as Rising with the Hill's Krystal Ball and Enjeti (by The Hill), Jacobin, Vox, Dreams, and and Accuracy in Reporting, among others, have published articles, videos, and reports discussing...}} We could debate who belongs in that list in terms of WP:DUE , or how to frame it, but given that the article is partially about an opinion we ought to clearly state who holds it, ie. "who alleges that there is media bias against Bernie Sanders" is a major part of the article and an obvious thing for the lead to summarize. --Aquillion (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


Reliable sources consider MintPress News disreputable


Reliable sources consider MintPress News disreputable.

This article cites Mintpress News, a disreputable source no less than twelve times. The use of disreputable sources is a clear indication that a POV is being pushed.

I am going to remove the content cited to Mintpress News. — goethean 20:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The problem here is that wikipedia's idea of "reliable source", is basically corporate legacy media. I.E if enough talkingheads on any of these "news sites" say the same thing (I.E copying one another and never citing or checking any source), Wikipedia considers this to be reliable. Worse, these sites are well known to use wikipedia itself as their "source", which ironically is contradicting wikipedia's rule of not using wikipedia itself as a source. In the end though, wikipedia is a clowncar with too many clowns in it.--Thronedrei (talk) 04:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
The 'reliable' sources as they are labeled by the new 'anti fake news' campaign that has been pushed by US establishment include every single major media outlet which sold the lie of nonexistent WMDs in Iraq, in addition to incredibly far-off sources like Bellingcat, who, despite being an outlet of Ukrainian ultra right-wing nationalists, is dubbed as 'reliable' - despite it doesn't even provide sources and instead cites unknown 3rd party 'activists'. In contrast MintPress News always has its articles well referenced, with sources ranging from prominent anti-war websites like Counterpunch, Truth Out to prominent intellectuals like Chomsky. — unity100 21:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
What's more interesting is that none of the 'reliable' outlets ever write anything about the instances of actual media manipulation listed in the article even if they are visually captured on video. The only sources who write it are independent platforms like MintPress, or anti-war websites like Counterpunch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unity100 (talkcontribs) 20:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
MintPress is not the only source that these things are discussed. It does not really matter if MintPress is considered unreliable if the same information can be corroborated elsewhere—which it can and is. See WP:UNRS . Take the time to actually do the research if you are unconvinced. I did. Extensively. I strongly reccomend you do remove content until the discussions are finished. I will undo them. Azcolvin429 Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 20:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
If I removed poorly cited material, you will undo my changes? — goethean 21:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely, because your claims of "poorly cited" are inaccurate. Check the sources first. I took a moment to check one of the claims to give you an example of how it is corroborated:
MintPress said, "It also attacked the idea that the Vermont Senator was supported by an army of mass donations from ordinary people. The title, headline, “Bernie Sanders Keeps Saying His Average Donation is $27, but His Own Numbers Contradict That,” calculated that the average donation was actually $27.89. What a contradiction! However, the majority of people do not read past the headline, meaning most of those who saw the well-shared article would have no idea how weak the charge was."
The section links the articles in question. When you look at, the author of the article admits to the incorrect analysis of the claims he made. The Washington Post is considered the so-called "reliable source" and it perfectly verifies the commentary made by MintPress. I am guessing you are not even reading or looking at the sources or material. You are just making judgments based on your own biases. Azcolvin429 Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 21:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Mintpress News is a disreputable source and needs to be removed from the article immediately. — goethean 21:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
So basically that is your opinion, and as such, it should be accepted as fact and implemented. Practically that's what you are saying, without any logic, reference or explanation to support it... Facts are not about feelings or biases Goethean. Unity100 (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Reliable sources consider MintPress News disreputable.goethean 22:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
As i mentioned above, what are called 'reliable sources' were the ones who lied about nonexistent Iraqi WMDs for eight straight years. Every major corporate outlet and related expert included. None of those broke ranks about the lie. Therefore those sources themselves have to vouch for their reliability, leave aside being in a position of authority to declare anyone's reliability. Not to mention that the entire 'fact checking' organizations are constituted by private think thanks related to the same establishment which lied about Iraqi WMDs. Here, the 'First Draft News' organization which does fact checking for Google after then-acting leader of US military-industry complex, late John McCain created a lot of ruckus and forced these organizations onto the tech sector: First Draft News. Leaving aside all establishment linked think-thanks, there is a 'Bellingcat', listed as the first founding member. Which happened to be an unknown blogger until a few years ago, who was not even named, who did not have any contact information, and who always replicated ultra-right wing narrative of Ukrainian nationalists by citing unknown 'activists'. After criticism, they slapped a name on the blog, though it is outright questionable whether that name actually is linked to the actual blogger. And as such, this shaky blog is one of the 'fact checkers' which Google relies on to filter its search results... As demonstrated, the very 'reliable sources' must prove their reliability first. And therefore they cannot be shown as an authority to determine anyone else's reliability. With the logic proposed in your link, every single major US corporate outlet would be labeled unreliable, way behind MintPress or other independent outlet's reliability. If you are not applying the same criteria to them, you cannot use that criteria for others. Unity100 (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
News Template:Rspe was deprecated in the Template:Rsnl (shared by Template:Np above) because the site has a reputation for publishing false or fabricated information. If you disagree, feel free to start a new discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 07:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Fox News has reported on this same media manipulation which is captured on video. [5] Butternut Kolya Butternut (Butternut talk) 11:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)



Did anyone add this? PBS spent 40~ minutes talking about every candidate but Sanders last night


This is new. Apparently last night PBS had a primary update in which they talked about every candidate except Sanders. They didn't even mention his name as if he didn't exist. They even discussed Amy Klobuchar at length. Details below, video of the entire program embedded. Unity100 (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I found several sources for recent polling data at the time of the broadcast, and added this to the December 2019 section of the article. EliteMasterEric (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Template:U Hey friend, do not fear, i added under the 'december' section, and i tried to make it as neutral as possible, i hope to find more reliable sources discussing the controversy in the future. It is an important topic that definitely fits under notability in my view. (0u0✿) ~MJL's Evil Sister (Evil Sister talk) 14:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)



Change the title of article?


I don't know if anyone has already proposed this, but what about changing title to Media Coverage of Bernie Sanders? Doesn't the present title sort of beg the question -- if that is the right use of the term -- of whether media coverage has or has not been biased. It is a very interesting topic and worthy of an article, in my opinion. But I think the idea is to present both sides and let the readers decide for themselves. Mballen (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

See deletion discussion.WillC 05:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I propose Criticism of media coverage of Bernie Sanders presidential campaigns - Keith D. Tyler 07:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Allegations of media bias against Bernie Sanders would be my suggestion. ValarianB (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Agree with KeithTyler, seems to reflect the article content. "Allegations" sounds weasel. Criticism of media coverage of Bernie Sanders presidential campaigns--SharabSalam (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
It's not weaselish to highlight the fact that these are largely opinions, even if they are widely-held, and not conclusive evidence of bias. The "Criticism of..." title is overly-long and awkward. ValarianB (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


Created a new article to show how ridiculous this controversy is

Template:Hat bias in favor of Bernie Sanders

Enjoy. Ylevental (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

This comment has just given evidence this was attempt to either vandalize or troll and is not productive to this issue.--WillC 20:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
No, the bias against Bernie Sanders is unproductive. Ylevental (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
At this point, you are just having a fit and creating a content fork. So I'm just going to put it up for deletion.--WillC 20:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Ylevental – We appreciate the fact that you feel strongly about this issue. However, if you saw the AfD page, you know you're not alone. Many editors partook in the discussion which led us to the current state (no deletion, but discussion on naming and possibly content). It is highly counterproductive, then, to go overruling consensus (or lack thereof) by your lonesome. When even an editor (below me) who strongly expressed their disapproval of this article is put off by your behavior, it might be a good moment for self-reflectance.
You're welcome to be part of the constructive discussion and consensus, if you want to actually have a lasting effect on the outcome. Selvydra (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Why can't we merge both into coverage of Bernie Sanders? That would allow us to explain the imbalance or perceived imbalance using reliable sources, rather than just argue about it on the talk page. – bradv🍁 20:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Selvydra Okay, I will when I have more time Ylevental (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Bradv – See the discussion above on renaming. Selvydra (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
That's pretty tendentious. The solution is just to re-name this article into something neutral, and to reflect what RS say about this issue. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Which primarily is the discussion in the naming section above and the overall goal now is to just focus on media coverage in general, both good and bad. The above article is a perfect example of WP:POVFORK . This intention is also clear to not cover this as a realistic subject but because of having a fit and not getting the user's way.--WillC 21:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


"Media coverage of Bernie Sanders" speedy kept at Redirects for discussion


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect coverage of Bernie Sanders. Please participate in for discussion/Log/2019 December 10#Media coverage of Bernie Sanders the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 12:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

First line of the lead: "Various media outlets have raised concerns" of anti-Sanders bias in the media

Come on, this is indefensible. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Snooganssnoogans' rewrite of this line, and their other edits -Cloffprunker Avial Cloffprunker (Cloffprunker talk) 15:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Indiscriminate restoration of various bad content

The state of this article is shockingly bad. I made various edits to improve the article, including trimming unnecessary padded quotes, put things in direct quotes that were in block quotes for no reason, and make sure that text actually reflected what sources were saying. This was all indiscriminately restored by the editor SharabSalam.[6] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:U, I reverted some of your edits. Let me show you how disruptive your edits are. First of all you removed Common Dreams saying this in the edit summary "remove common dreams, a crackpot site", you do know that your opinion is irrelevant right? I think I have seen you saying this to other editors before.
Secondly you removed relevant quotes saying "trim all these unnecessary block quotes that pad the article (one reason among many why this should not have a standalone article)" OH so thats why you are removing content from the article? is because you think it shouldnt have a standalone article? You are simply disrupting wikipedia to illustrate your point the very definition of [7]. And again in the next edit you say this " can't make this up. half this Wikipedia article is complaining about not giving equal attention to sanders when he was a minor candidate, but now one pbs newshour segment is trash because it decided to give attention to the minor candidate (written by a guy who claims that elizabeth warren is not a progressive). this is yet another reason why this whole article should be deleted. it's just padded with rubbish op-ed pieces)" like wow you think your opinion about reliable sources is true and others are wrong and also complaining why shouldnt this article be created. Also the quotes you removed after are relevant and needed in the article.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
If you believe Common Dreams is a RS, I suggest you start a RS noticeboard discussion. It's a fringe left site that should not be cited anywhere on this encyclopedia. Also, I completely stand by my trims of all those elaborate redundant block quotes, which appear to have the sole purpose of padding this article to make it look as if the topic has received more attention and focus than it actually has. Also, "Current Affairs", Nathan J Robinson's blog, is not a RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:U, Why would I start a discussion? It is a notable source and there is no one complaining about it except you? You should start a discussion in RS noticeboard not me. Affairs (magazine) is a notable reliable source and it has been praised "by influential figures including Noam Chomsky and Glenn Greenwald." per Wikipedia's article.--SharabSalam (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Even if you think Common Dreams is nothing but an opinion site and doesn't deliver any news, it is still a source for the *media phenomenon* that is the blacklisting of and bias against Sanders in various other outlets, especially when backed up by clearly WP:Reliable_sources and news outlets like The Hill cited throughout the article. This article is about demonstrating the meta discussion in the media of the media phenomenon, and citing Common Dreams helps to do that when combined with accredited organizations like NPR, Politico, Vox, etc. At most Common Dreams citations should just be labeled as "opinion" ones in the sources section. Pericles of AthensTalk 16:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that's how it works at the RS noticeboard. Common Dreams has been used in this and many other articles. Searches at the RSN archives turn up little discussion of it. You are the one challenging a source used currently in the project, therefore, the burden of proof does not lie with anyone but yourself. ValarianB (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Common Dreams is an advocacy organization and the only real discussion about it at WP:RSN left off with it being unreliable for statements of fact. (Where is its reputation for fact-checking, editorial pedigree, etc.?) At best, it's on par with the Daily Kos on the sources/Perennial sources WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. There are better sources available for the type of claims made in CD, and if not, we should reconsider whether the claim is noteworthy.
On another note, really disappointed to see edits to improve the overall quality/sourcing of the article reverted wholesale. Like hell I'm going to spend time improving this article if such basic cleanup is going to go uncontested. (not watching, please Template:Tl) czar 16:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Don't back down, Czar. The reverts of your edits are utterly indefensible. Don't let people bully you away from the article, so that they can transform it into a brazen campaign platform for their favorite candidate. If this article should exist (which it shouldn't), there's no reason why at the very least, the content in the article shouldn't attempt to reflect NPOV and RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
You reference RS? Every chance I've gotten I have shown how you don't even read that policy and each attempt you make to discredit a source, the policy reaffirms them. Then you run away without even having an argument. What next? Going to use the word pundit wrong again? Basically, you have a bias against this article and nothing shown to you will change that. That is not basing your stance on the policies in any way.--WillC 23:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Although I was and still am in favor of keeping this article, I also object to total revisions of edits such as Czar's. Issues should primarily be addressed by augmenting or trimming the specific sections in question, not by reverting the entire edit – in the same spirit that advocates for the keeping of this article (as an encyclopedic repository for information).
Regarding Common Dreams and other sources whose adherence to RS is questioned: In my opinion, sources such as these should not be blanket-banned from use. Rather, the bias of the site should simply be stated when citing something that their bias could affect (spins, interpretations, etc.). At the very least, citing them for information that can be expressed without undue punditry (e.g. statistics) should be allowed, as it can be distilled of any spin (just as we should strive to do with "more reputable" sources). Ultimately, every news site has a bias and only giving corporate-owned or -aligned a free pass while drawing the line at left-wing media makes for biased sampling. Selvydra (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Is any explanation going to be provided why op-eds are being conflated with "articles" or "stories"? For example, the text says that the Washington Post ran anti-Sanders stories, yet most of these are just op-eds. It's clearly relevant context that the anti-Sanders "stories" are op-eds by conservative columnists. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Did WP run anti-Sanders articles? Yes? Then why does it matter who wrote them if they did. The logic behind that statement is an attempt to downplay the severity of the issue, not for the sake of truthfulness, reliability, but just to do it. Saying they are opinion articles doesn't change the fact that WP published anti-Sanders articles.--WillC 12:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
So you seriously think that we should omit that the articles in question were op-eds? Actually describing things accurately is "an attempt to downplay the severity of the issue, not for the sake of truthfulness, reliability, but just to do it"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
What you are arguing for isn't about being correct. It is about inflating issues beyond reasonable means. You want "The Washington Post was criticized for publishing a number of anti-Sanders articles but were entirely opinion based." As if it changes the sentence "The Washington Post was criticized for publishing a number of Anti-Sanders articles." The point is they were published, not who wrote them. If anything, that gives undue weight to an issue. NPOV says to not pass opinions off as fact. RS says opinion articles are reliable sources. The idea that WP published multiple articles isn't an opinion if it actually occurred. You keep trying to make opinion articles seem invalid when policy doesn't care if they are opinions or not.--WillC 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
"You want "The Washington Post was criticized for publishing a number of anti-Sanders articles but were entirely opinion based."" That's a brazen falsehood. The only thing my edit did was to substitute "op-eds" for "articles". This is what my text said: "Shane Ryan from Paste Magazine criticized the Washington Post for publishing four negative opinion editorials about him". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
That edit didn't do anything though other than characterize something the way you wanted it to. They are still articles. Being opinion articles doesn't change the meaning, it changes the perspective. They are still just articles. Instead of it being negative articles by the company, now it is just 4 people in the company thinking negatively. That is misleading when the subject is about media bias, not individual bias.--WillC 03:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Gotcha, describing things accurately is bad and readers must be intentionally misled in this instance because if things are described accurately, readers might not leave with the impression that there is media bias against Sanders (per your own reasoning above). It's pretty shameless, but great to see if all laid out. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Blah blah blah, thats not even an argument against what I said because you know I have you in a corner. You didn't once try to show how my statement was wrong. Your statement is to focus on opinion articles which is what you've focused on this whole time. Thinking if you label things as opinions it will discredit the subjectmatter. You did that with pundit. You did that with questioning sources. Now you are just trying to do it with text. You think by labeling sentences as opinions that it will discredit the subject. All you've done is make statements that have a slanted perspective. The subject is about media coverage and bias. It isn't about individual editors. Your statement is to attempt to make it appear it is about individual editors. Shane Ryan wasn't talking about 4 individuals specifically writing articles. He was talking about Washington Post writing articles. That is the fact. That is what is accurate. Go whine somewhere else if you don't like it. If anyone is being misleading it is you. "Shane Ryan from Paste Magazine opined that, like in 2016 with Washington Post's 16 negative posts about Bernie in 16 hours report by FAIR, the 48 hours of Sanders declaration to run, the Post published four negative articles about him, two of which were by the same author." isn't about the four opinion articles, it is about the entire actions of the company. Who is being misleading and changing the point of view of the sentence. Your last statement sure helped show your bias on here and helped identify your intentions are to make this article about there being no bias and it being a conspiracy instead of focusing on what sources say. Which has been obvious for quite some time.--WillC 05:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

What really concerns me about this article, is that there are few formal studies supporting this claim as sources

Up to the "Response to criticisms" section, most of the bias concerns individual events and assertions. By contrast, most of the studies in the "Response to criticisms" section showed that Bernie Sanders actually received fair coverage. Ylevental (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

One, the issue is due to the nature of the article. Two, it is due to questioning of sources. Three, the layout of the article is due to the scope. There is so much discussion on whether the article should exist and not enough on in what manner should it exist. What should it cover? How should it be designed? On what topics do not belong? etc. Because the issue behind this topic is media bias, which can take many forms. The DNC leaks play a role in the topic because it helps to build up the belief it is occurring. This article should be more about the topic and not about whether it happens or not.--WillC 03:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Show me one study which proves that every major source is heavily biased against Sanders. Ylevental (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
You're weighting the opinion of "studies" too highly. Wikipedia allows a variety of sources, not limited to "formal" academic research. This specific issue is one which does not really require specialized academic knowledge. Avid non-academic consumers of the media or professional journalists/pundits are no less equipped to make a sound judgement on this issue than academics. I mean, just watch the mainstream news (CNN, MSNBC) or read it (NYT, WPost). That's it. Do you need a "study" to prove the sky is blue? No. Likewise you don't need a study to prove that the media is obviously much more biased in favor of establishment, corporate candidates (Buttigieg, Warren, Biden) than populist candidates (Sanders, Yang, Tulsi). I will also add that, on a more opinionated note, that these studies are probably just wrong, and I have carefully analyzed a few of these studies and found them to be severely flawed in their methodology—although, of course, I understand that original research is not allowed, but this just needs to be noted so that editors are not misled into believing that the "response to the criticism" section of this article is anything more than corporate, establishment anti-Bernie propaganda. CompactSpacez (talk) 06:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for proving me right, given that you actually think every study is "severely flawed". I am still hopeful that the entire article will get deleted someday. Ylevental (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
You obviously have no intention on trying to improve this article or even work on this issue.--WillC 20:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that while I'm not sure I agree with Template:U's antics, I agree on their main point. This article seems to be cherrypicking sources and seems like the definition of WP:POVFORK . The title of the article serves to confirm this. WMSR (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Did you occur upon the AfD discussion on this article? Your concerns were discussed in detail there. To summarize (though I encourage you not to take my word for it and skim it for yourself): Many editors expressed the same NPOV and POVFORK concerns. The author stated that they had trouble finding enough dissenting opinions but did their best, the result of which was the Criticisms section. Many other editors defended the article, saying each side was being represented in proportions roughly in keeping with existing sources on it. Selvydra (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I did read the AfD, but after the fact. I don't think including a criticism section cuts it in terms of eliminating NPOV issues. Having an article like this implies that the subject exists, and there is not consensus on that. And with the article titled and framed as it is, I'm impressed there would be any sources at all dissenting this article's thesis (and it's problematic that it has one). You don't see a great deal of news stories about other sources being unbiased. Obviously a move would solve some of these problems, but not all. WMSR (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
There is no consensus of the fact that we see colors the same way as others, or that we aren't all living in a simulation, but we're still allowed to use some rudimentary logic to assume that, for practical purposes, we do & we aren't. In that token, common sense bears out that media that operates on a for-profit basis – and is owned by people who benefit from right-leaning policies – will not treat fairly the most left-leaning candidate in the race. To assume as a starting point that this media would treat Sanders fairly (to their own financial detriment) is, to me, the bigger stretch – to assume that for-profit companies do not try to maximize their revenue. To that end, there needn't be cherry-picking or NPOV for one to end up with a distribution of sources that leans towards "yes, there is bias." I too have supported making the title more neutral, and I don't see how simply amending the article with more/better sources wouldn't deal with any lingering issues here. Selvydra (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
The Washington Post saying the Washington Post isn't biased isn't really a fair coverage or a "study". Macktheknifeau (talk) 08:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:Reply to So when the article is re-titled all of your concerns will have been addressed, since you are establishing any problems with the title suggesting it exists. When it becomes "media coverage" there isn't anymore issues with NPOV other than people just don't want the article to exist.--WillC 12:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky cited the In These Times study, agreeing that media are against Bernie [8]. Butternut Kolya Butternut (Butternut talk) 04:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

None of the studies actually say that Sanders received fair coverage. The Harvard study for example said that more of the published articles were positive than negative, which is not the same thing. Articles saying that Sanders won New Hampshire and was leading among young people are positive, saying that his supporters threw chairs, he spent his honeymoon in the Soviet Union and was soft on gun control are negative. But there is a qualitative difference. Hillary Clinton received a lot of negative coverage because she was under investigation for her servers, while Sanders was not. Charles Manson received a lot more negative coverage than Bugliosi who prosecuted him, but that does not necessarily mean that the media is biased. Four Deuces TFD (Four Deuces talk) 04:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Fox News reported on David Sirota's tweet asking for evidence of media bias, giving an example from CNN[9] Butternut Kolya Butternut (Butternut talk) 00:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Potential Sabotage i.e. TE

Template:Ping just mentioned something above I think is a valid point and a good topic of discussion. Potential issues with WP:TE which I think is highly likely and I'm already starting to see an attempt. I think we may need to have a discussion on that. This article is slowly turning away from issues about media coverage of the Sanders campaigns and more about twisting the issue into one about a marketing campaign to slander the media that is being done by a few supporters of his and is nothing more than a dispute between progressives and conservatives. This article should instead be about media coverage of the Sanders campaign, thus issues raised by supporters, issues raised by neutral parties, issues raised by opposing parties, etc. It should not be drawn down to a simple disagreement between two groups that is being blown out of proportion and twisted to fit an entirely new perspective that sources are not referencing. An example of such efforts I feel is changing this statement: Template:Quote

to an entirely new statement of: Template:Quote

which eventually I turned into: Template:Quote

I feel edits like these are an attempt to downplay issues raised about media coverage and are being done in order to turn this into a way to claim no bias actually exists and thus no reason for the article to exist. Everyone should keep in mind that the majority of the last 50 edits have all been done by individuals who want this page deleted and have claimed it is NPOV, no bias exists, the sources do not verify claims, not notable, and my personal favorite it is a conspiracy by the Sanders campaign to market the idea among others. I find a high conflict of interest there in such a large number of edits. While we should assume good faith, I find issues with statements being turned from about the amount of negative reporting and comments made to one about it just being a dispute between two people with ideological differences. The first sentence was about the amount of articles published and the amount of time. The second sentence is about a difference of opinion between a progressive and a conservative. That is not the same sentence and the point has been changed. Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel this is a valid subject for such an article as this.--WillC 04:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

(1) Ideally, an op-ed from a rather unknown entertainment magazine, Paste, complaining about four opinion editorials should not be on this Wikipedia page, because it does not meet RS and DUE weight. That would be the preferred outcome.
(2) However, if this op-ed from Paste magazine is to be covered, then it should be covered briefly, to the point and be about the subject of the Wikipedia article (media bias). It should not be this op-ed's rebuttal of a conservative WaPo columnist's criticisms of Sanders, which is as in-the-weeds as you could possibly get, and only tangentially related to media bias. It's not media bias that a conservative WaPo columnist disagrees with Sanders and makes purportedly bad arguments against him. That's politics. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:U, one could add a detail but not too much I think. MikkelJSmith (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:U do tell of this magically part of RS where it says being lesser known makes one an unreliable source. Do tell this part of RS where it says opinion articles are unreliable. Do tell where in this statement an opinion is being given? I'm gonna expect no reply as usually when these questions are brought up.--WillC 22:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
On another note, your comment didn't even address the issue at hand. You went back to your same old argument. The statement was valid because it is about media coverage in a short amount of time. 4 articles by the same source so soon after announcement is notable in comparison to the same actions happening elsewhere. That is the point. Not that they are opinion articles. It was never about opinions. It was about publication.--WillC 22:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Just because it started as an entirely one sided article does not justify it remaining so. If it's going to exist then it needs to be accurate.
If it's going to be about what Bernie Sanders supporters believe then the title would be "Allegations of Bernie Supporters of Media Bias against Bernie Sanders' Presidential Campaign" Slywriter (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Agreed it shouldn't remain POV. Problem is, it isn't being converted to NPOV it is being converted to remain POV. The above action is to take a section and to entirely rewrite it to mean something entirely different. From an issue about frequency of negative articles to one about a dispute between two ideologically different editors. That wasn't the point of the original draft. That is an attempt to change the issue and downplay the point of the source at hand. This article should be about media coverage. That is an important aspect of media coverage.--WillC 07:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Btw, one reliable source that I found was the NYT's tracker which has shown Sanders consistently getting less coverage than what he polls at. Although, one should mention that he's only third in mentions when he look at the overall race, which is more consistent with his overall standing. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

However the problem is that it's all the same page, so one would have use archived version to write this (i.e. one statement would have several version of the page as references due to the fact that one can not look at the previous versions of the tracker).
What do you think one should do in this case? MikkelJSmith (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Another thing to mention is that the source stretches over several months (Sept to now) so I have no idea where to put it. MikkelJSmith (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Forgot to add a link to the archived version :*/ MikkelJSmith (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
While I appreciate the attempt to bring data into this, it would be WP:OR for us to interpret this data, in particular as its constantly updating (i.e. one candidate may get a lot of news coverage in one week but not another). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:U, I didn't know that. I was trying to add reliable info. MikkelJSmith (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:U, other thing that I need to mention, I had read this months ago ( but there does not seem to be consensus on CounterPunch, so I'm guessing the research should be attributed like it was done for Common Dreams and others? I don't know much about CP. I don't even read it. I usually read Politico, WP & the NYT. The only reason I know about this article is because someone sent me this in October.
TL:DR, the research mentions that when Sanders polls well it isn't as mentioned as often in the media and when he doesn't it is. MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
(1) Just to be clear: this is not research and it's not by a recognized expert. (2) CP is not a RS. (3) As far as I can tell, the whole piece disagrees with one RS piece that argued that there two clear front-runners per polls. So it's not about media bias. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:U, thanks for the info. MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:Reply to I'm a bit baffled as to why you keep insisting that multiple left-leaning sources like CP and TYT are not RS when it's plainly untrue, you have been told about it several times, and you have ignored it each time & gone on to repeat the claims elsewhere. "No consensus" doesn't equal "whatever I want it to be." Selvydra (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
RSP is descriptive, not prescriptive. - Ryk72 talk 22:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
If you believe these are RS, go to the RS noticeboard. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:Reply to Could you point me to where in WP rules it says sources can only be used on a white-list basis (need to be okayed at the RS noticeboard first)? Selvydra (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
So the way this is going to work now is that you and other editors are going to add blatantly non-reliable sources to the article and restore those sources unless I specifically go to the RS noticeboard and have each and every crap source deemed unreliable? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I understand your concern. It's just that, if a source has a bias but meets the criteria at WP:RS , it should still be usable when attributed (WP:BIASED ). Deleting large blocks of text because they cite such a source seems tantamount to assuming that the site peddles in plain untruths – simply because its bias is at odds with the disagreeing person, and it hasn't been whitelisted as reliable. The sources you have been contesting as not RS have all been around for a while and do not (to the best of my knowledge) have a reputation for untruths – only a left-leaning bias.
This latest 'controversial' segment simply states that Inquisitr reported on a Twitter thread. It's immediately verifiable as true by opening Twitter and seeing the thread; nothing else about Inquisitr's reporting is said, so I don't understand what part of it you deem unreliable. It is rather that you disagree with the Twitter thread's notability, and want it removed from this page. Selvydra (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Of course a twitter thread that has been covered by a fringe site does not meet notability. And Inquisitr absolutely has zero reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
There is a strong argument for a site reaching 40 million readers a month (2015) not being fringe. Regardless, you'll be glad to hear that I found a citation from a News consensus RS that I added to the segment to strengthen its notability. Selvydra (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:U, were you responding to me or someone else? I didn't talk about pro-Bernie stuff. The only thing I've done on this page is fix some formatting. MikkelJSmith (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

None of these comments are regarding the subject at hand and that is editing to change meaning of statements against NPOV.--WillC 22:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:U, sorry wanted to ask a semi-related question. MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Comment was meant to be in the thread alleging Sabotage. No issue with this discussion. Good luck, when it comes to American politics everyone is a wiki lawyer Slywriter (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:U, it's fine. MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 8 December 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page to coverage of Bernie Sanders at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 15:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Media bias against Bernie SandersTemplate:No redirect or Template:No redirect – several editors have expressed that the current name is POV so I propose this title which I think is neutral. Another option is Media bias controversy about 2020 US Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders SharabSalam (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC) Another option which was suggested is Blackout--SharabSalam (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Move to Blackout. This is about the story of the phenomenon.[10] Butternut Kolya Butternut (Butternut talk) 18:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The current title is unacceptable. "Bernie blackout" is also unacceptable. Furthermore, none of this deserves its own standalone article, and the existence of this article is an embarrassment for Wikipedia (same with the 'Trump derangement syndrome' article or any hypothetical "media bias against my favorite candidate" article that anyone can apparently now create). Whatever well-sourced content is currently in the article could easily be summarized in 3-4 sentences on the main Bernie page and in a few more sentences in his 2016 and 2020 campaign articles. If this article will continue to exist, then the best title would "Controversy over media coverage of Bernie Sanders". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
    • The article wasn't deleted, and that's that. Complaining that the article exists in a move discussion helps no one. of Time Master of Time of Time (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Retrospectively, I realize that I somehow (no idea how) overlooked the last sentence which actually does propose a new title, so you can ignore my previous statement. of Time Master of Time of Time (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
    • The validity of the article or its suitability on WP is not relevant to this discussion which is to rename. Secondly, "Bernie blackout" would be an entirely valid rename considering that is the term actively being used to describe the discourse on the topic. It would be just as valid as the swamp or any other idiom article. - Keith D. Tyler 23:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Possibly Move to Blackout. However, a "Bernie Blackout" article could potentially portray Sanders supporters in a negative light because of extreme bias, and they might want it deleted ;-) Ylevental (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
I am seeing a lot of WP:NOTHERE edits from you. Please familiarize yourself with the title policy and tell me what is wrong with "Criticism of media coverage of Bernie Sanders presidential campaigns" instead of this vague title you are proposing.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
I proposed this title.  It's not that there's something "wrong" with your suggestion, it's that I feel that "Bernie Blackout" is the common name for the story.  Butternut Kolya Butternut (Butternut talk) 18:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:U, I meant his comment "could potentially portray Sanders supporters in a negative light because of extreme bias, and they might want it deleted ;-)" this is not a social network. I don't know who he is trying to troll here. He has nominated the page immediately after the discussion was closed!.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:U, A better way to say it is that this could be the first few sentences of the article: "'Bernie Blackout' is a controversial term coined by supporters of Sanders who allege that the media is against his campaign. Many of their claims concerning bias are unsubstantiated."
Bernie supporters would want this page deleted, though it is true in my view that his supporters highly exaggerate the bias that is against him. Ylevental (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm not seeing evidence that this is a controversial term except on unreliable sources like Brietbart.  The Sanders campaign itself promotes the term, so supporters are unlikely to interfere.  Butternut Kolya Butternut (Butternut talk) 19:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
One, people wanting a page deleted based on title alone is not relevant to what name should be used in an encyclopedia. Two, I've no idea why you would think that considering that term is being used (among others, such as "Bernie blindness") by Sanders supporters to describe the alleged phenomenon. - Keith D. Tyler 23:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I would also suggest of media bias against Bernie Sanders as an option. - Keith D. Tyler 23:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:U, there is no allegations here. These are merely criticism and responses. Calling these criticism points allegations sounds unneutral and false description of what the article is about.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
The word "allegation" by definition does not pass judgement as to whether the allegations are true or not. That would be an ideal neutral position. Certainly referring to media bias in the title more accurately represents the crux of the argument than "criticism of media coverage" -- "criticism" merely refers to quality, but doesn't illustrate at all the emphasis on accusation of bias, which is the crux of the criticism. - Keith D. Tyler
  • Rename to coverage of Bernie Sanders Presidential Campaigns: Simple, concise, to the point, neutral.--WillC 23:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Agree Template:U that it is the most neutral personally, i think that phrases like 'BernieBlackout' should still redirect however. (0u0✿) ~MJL's Evil Sister (Evil Sister talk) 23:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
    • We don't need an entire page for that. Focus on his policies. Bernie supporters see him as 100% perfect, that's why they need to constantly complain about "bias" which reveals him as less than perfect. Ylevental (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Support "Media coverage of Bernie Sanders Presidential Campaigns" or Media coverage of Bernie Sanders. I don't see how "criticism" is problematic but I fully support the same title without the word criticism.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Support both the current title and "Media coverage of Bernie Sanders". Edit: After reading about concerns re: moving from editors TFD, Trackinfo and Pericles of Athens, I want to amend my support of the move to include the following condition: After moving, the page should be monitored to stop the move from acting as opening the floodgates for WP:TE editing towards any artificial "there is no bias" or even "50/50" theses. Selvydra (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
    • This is the title I would prefer too, and if possible even separate articles for 2016 and 2020. The dynamic between the two is very different (near zero notability in the beginning in 2016 vs. close to 100% in 2020, almost no other contenders and assumed victor in 2016 vs. 20+ contenders where nobody knows who will end up on top, GOP opponent unknown followed by Trump as an unknown factor in 2016 vs. Trump as a very known factor in 2020, etc. etc.) and having two articles would provide a bit more opportunity to search through older sources and perhaps provide some more perspective. Or a single page with a clear division between the two campaigns, of course. Mithridates (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't move: Criticism of media coverage of Bernie Sanders presidential campaigns is just a longwinded way of saying "Media bias against Bernie Sanders". Pointless move. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The proposed title of media coverage of Bernie Sanders presidential campaigns is too long and I suggest to modify the article header from Media bias against Bernie Sanders to bias against Bernie Sanders Presidential campaigns. Abishe (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment This is haphazard and poorly-thought out. It should have been setup like a straw poll where users could A, B, C, D etc... their choices, one of which was my suggestion in an earlier thread, Allegations of media bias against Bernie Sanders, which I would like to see if there is interest for. ValarianB (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to coverage of Bernie Sanders, or failing that, coverage of Bernie Sanders presidential campaigns. More succinct title that can cover the topic from all angles. And keep strictly to "neutral" sources when presenting anything in Wikipedia's voice; anything from Bernie's supporters needs to be called out as such, since there's an obvious conflict of interest. SnowFire (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    • The problem with strictly keeping to 'neutral' sources is there aren't many, if any. Most detractors of this article would consider CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo etc. the most reliable sources. Not only have those sources demonstrated some anti-Bernie bias, but relying exclusively on them on an article critical of them leads to an expectation of said media bias-checking itself – unrealistic due to the conflict of interest. For this reason, I think both sides should be represented, with disclaimers where the information cited is susceptible to spin. Selvydra (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
      • That's some seriously flawed thinking. On Wikipedia, we rely on reliable sources. It's WP:FALSEBALANCE to say that the page should be filled with op-eds and non-RS to balance RS coverage and academic studies. Furthermore, it's the exact thing that fringe people on the right argue on every conservative article: that RS are unreliable and that conservative op-eds and non-RS are needed to balance things. It's sad to see that this kind of thinking now also infuses left-wing editors. theory, anyone? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
        • You are just going to keep saying the same things over and over despite being proven wrong several times. Sources are reliable even if they are biased. They don't have to be neutral to be reliable just like the policy says. Opinion articles are also reliable based on where they come from and/or who wrote them. I've pointed this out to you several times. Yet you continue to go along with ideas counter to what policies say. I shouldn't be surprised, you thought pundit was a bad word and meant unreliable.--WillC 00:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
        • Your opinion would be more agreeable if you didn't divide media such that corporate-owned news sites with right-leaning political incentives are RS and grassroots-funded left-leaning sites are "crackpot sites." That interpretation creates a conflict of interest in an article that's literally about the bias of corporate-owned news. Selvydra (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Just want it on the record that once notability has been established, we can simply attribute the accusation's and defenses of everyone involved. It is fine to cite someone giving their opinion as long as it is propperly shown to be simply that. The only problem arises when we aren't properly expalining the context. Also there are examples of reliable sources talking about the subject, such as when Jake Tapper in an interview mentioned how the network doesn't bring on progressives, so it isn't exactly hard to find! (>u0✿) ~𝓜𝓙𝓛'𝓼 𝓔𝓿𝓲𝓵 𝓢𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓻 (Evil Sister talk) 17:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to coverage of Bernie Sanders, which is the parent (or grandparent) article to this one. Guettarda (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to coverage of Bernie Sanders. Any actual or perceived bias in the media should be addressed in the content of the article using reliable sources, rather than in the title. – bradv🍁 23:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to coverage of Bernie Sanders, pretty much agree with Template:U on this - MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to coverage of Bernie Sanders as per arguments above. The current title is clearly unacceptable and very POV and non-neutral. The article title should be neutral and specific POV content backed by reliable sources arguing one way or the other can be included or excluded based on editor consensus. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to Media Coverage of Bernie Sanders. Slywriter (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge with campaign articles. WMSR (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to coverage of Bernie Sanders. Succinct and neutral, as per the arguments above. (As a side note, I think this article has improved significantly since I commented on the AfD discussion.) -Cloffprunker Avial Cloffprunker (Cloffprunker talk) 04:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to Media coverage of Bernie Sanders This is the most concise and neutral title possible for the article. Final answer is to with this one! (0w0✿) ~𝓜𝓙𝓛'𝓼 𝓔𝓿𝓲𝓵 𝓢𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓻 (Evil Sister talk) 17:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Move We have been through an AfD and numerous attacks on the article because some people don't like the premise of the article. The effort to rename the article is an effort to then remove the content that currently IS documenting the case of media bias. Trackinfo (talk) 09:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep or at most Move to of media bias against Bernie Sanders, since this article is about the "Bernie Blackout" phenomenon documented in alternative media, not just any generic coverage of Sanders in general. Pericles of AthensTalk 13:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to coverage of Bernie Sanders. Bradv hit the nail on the head here. mike_gigs talkcontribs 19:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to coverage of Bernie Sanders per Bradv, and others. This is so obviously the NPOV versions that I am surprised it even needs such a lengthy discussion. come the Suns Here come the Suns (come the Suns talk) 02:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't move It's clear from reliable sources that there was media bias against Sanders and there are no reliable secondary sources that dispute this. The media did not reject claims of bias but justified them on among other things their belief that Sanders was not running to win, could not win, was too extreme to win, or was not an interesting topic for coverage. Four Deuces TFD (Four Deuces talk) 04:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to coverage of Bernie Sanders That's the obvious title for the general phenomena described in this article. The current title reads like a POV fork and limits the scope of the article for no good reason. Rock Canyon Red Rock Canyon (Rock Canyon talk) 16:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to Allegations of media bias against Bernie Sanders, since no one wants to make this mess into an actual multi or ranked poll, may as well get my own vote in now. ValarianB (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to Bernie Sanders media coverage controversies The "Media coverage of Bernie Sanders" title would be too broad, since this implies that the article focuses on the entire campaign. Ylevental (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to coverage of Bernie Sanders. The first step to turning this POV fork into a neutral article is to adopt a neutral title. "Media bias against Bernie Sanders" is not an appropriate title, because it implies certainty while the article only describes allegations. "Media coverage of Bernie Sanders" is the most concise neutral title proposed in this discussion so far. — Newslinger talk 06:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete/Merge or 2nd choice Move to "Media coverage of Bernie Sanders" - This page was obviously written as a soapbox essay. "Media coverage of Bernie Sanders" may be less of a soapbox-y topic, but if we want that article we really ought to WP:TNT . NickCT (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
    Template:U, I think there was consensus on the AfD discussion not to WP:TNT MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to Media coverage of Democratic presidential candidates (2008-2020). Mention should be made of Bernie (& others) commenting about the advertisers sponsoring the debates through the spots they bought in 2020. The debate format and qualification criteria (DNC) are related to media coverage writ large. I'm sure that 2008 had its own share of stories, as 2020 certainly does. I imagine other parties could have similar pages. FWIW: the Des Moines Register published their full-length interview with Sanders and I didn't notice a trace of bias, just questions & answers. A brief look back suggests 2004 could be added too. Apparently a media" manipulation" made Dean look like he'd come unhinged.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 19:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Just a brief comment re: the 'FWIW': Having actively followed US politics 2015–2019, I don't recall ever reading anyone accusing DM Register of anti-Sanders bias. Most commonly it has been CNN, (MS)NBC, NYT and WaPo. Less commonly, CBS, ABC, NYDN and some others. For what little my personal opinion is worth, smaller news sources have generally seemed to treat him and other candidates fairly. Selvydra (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to coverage of Bernie Sanders as the best alternative to the current, wildly inappropriate title. Lepricavark (talk) 03:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why does Bernie Sanders in particular need an entire media coverage page? This whole page is Citation overkill.

See WP:OVERCITE . What makes him so special compared to other current and former candidates such like Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Andrew Yang, Elizabeth Warren, Michael Bloomberg, and so forth?

Most of the articles don't even highlight an actual controversy, but talk about a small handful of instances where he might have not received enough coverage. There are way too many articles per each alleged instance. Should be merged into his campaign pages. (talk) 02:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

There was already an entire AfD over this and it failed to result in deletion or merging. If you have a recommendation for how to improve the article, then mention it in a new talk page section. of Time Master of Time of Time (talk) 03:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
The AFD was rigged. A merger discussion will happen again someday, and your response does not answer the original question. (talk) 12:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

More reliable sources

I quoted [13] reporting on a Twitter thread. Are you suggesting their coverage of what is happening on Twitter is falsified? That it does not exist? They have screen captures. Are they unreliable? The content is visible and supportable from Twitter itself. Inquisitr reported on its existence. This is another media source whose record of existence is wiped out because it is not on a list reliable sources. Lets take the most unreliable source imaginable, the Enquirer and they report a typical headline, Khloe has baby with Martian. The fact that they said it is not sourcable to the National Enquirer? This goes beyond logic. Trackinfo (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

We rely on RS for two reasons: (1) accuracy and relevant context, (2) WP:DUE . Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Are you arguing that we should add "Khloe has baby with Martian" to Khloe's Wikipedia page simply because a source said so? — Chevvin Chevvin 23:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Business Insider cites NYT analysis as proof that media is under-covering Sanders relative to Biden and Warren, and suggests Sanders' chances are being played down in the press:
Sanders gets less media attention that other top-tier candidates like former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, according to an analysis from The New York Times. Though some of this is likely due to Biden's name frequently being referenced in relation to the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, it could also reflect that the media is discounting and perhaps underestimating the Vermont senator. Rafe87 (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


The Young Turks has extensively covered the media's bias against Bernie, wouldn't that be a reliable source? Butternut Kolya Butternut (Butternut talk) 17:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:U, there does not seem to be consensus on TYT. It isn't mentioned. I know the Hill mentions them in their newspaper at times, but that's pretty much it for me. Someone else would have to answer. MikkelJSmith (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
TYT is not RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
WP:RSPSOURCES says nothing about TYT so where are you getting your information?--WillC 22:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:U, it seems the user was not giving me accurate info. It says nothing about CounterPunch either. I didn't know about it, which is why I asked my question earlier. MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:U He has a tendency to do that. He thinks sources that are biased are unreliable when policy says they are reliable and sometimes are the only available sources for controversial topics. He thinks opinion articles are unreliable when policy says otherwise. It only says don't push opinion off as fact. He is trying to label everything as a opinion so it doesn't look like fact. I keep having to call him out on giving wrong information.--WillC 00:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
The Young Turks is not a reliable source, because it doesn't meet the definition at WP:RS. WP:RSP is not an exhaustive list. - Ryk72 talk 04:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:U why doesn't it meet the definition at WP:RS?.--SharabSalam (talk) 04:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
TYT is a YouTube current affairs opinion channel, not a news organisation. They do opinion content, and they don't have a demonstrable Template:Tq. But really, we don't just assume reliability of sources; the onus is on editors wanting to reference those sources to show that they are reliable. - Ryk72 talk 05:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
So what you are saying is they can be used for opinion content but not to cover factual events. To explain fact checking and accuracy is a bit difficult because you would basically need a third party source to examine the actions taken by another. Which in and of itself do not sound objective. It is in the best interest of a competitor to make another sound like a bad agency. I'd reject the stance of "they are just a youtube channel" because the article on TYT by itself says it isn't just that. It has a show with that name but is also a multi-tier network. Besides that, here is an article examining TYT. Problem is now it has to be deemed a reliable source and so the issue grows. Politifact doesn't have anything on the organization when I searched. The Capitalist Research Think-Tank does and I'm sure that isn't going to slanted in anyway. So really, what manner are we to take to really prove its ability. This is what I gathered by simply google searching "The Young Turks fact checking".--WillC 07:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Please do not presume to tell other editors what they are saying. - Ryk72 talk 08:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Maybe you should be more careful with your phrasing then. Because all you said was it was an opinion content. Which means it can be used for opinions but not factual information. Tell me exactly where my statement was wrong in characterizing yours statement? Did you not say it was opinion content?--WillC 10:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I think what I wrote is clear enough. I wrote that TYT produces opinion content, not factual news content. I did not write that that means that it can be used as a reference for opinion content in this article. - Ryk72 talk 22:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:U, I thought that you couldn't use a source only for opinion content? Btw, like another user pointed according to, TYT does produce factual news. I'm not a fan of theirs but that would indicate reliability I think? It would explain why I've seen the Hill and other news sites mention some TYT reporting. I think they broke some stuff about the Pete Buttigieg campaign. MikkelJSmith (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I didn't know that mediabiascheck was unreliable when I wrote this MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
My view is that TYT is undoubtedly a biased organization, but at the same time, they are an "almost-mainstream" organization. They are the biggest online news show. They have been covered in mainstream media. Cenk is a highly influential man (and, as of recently, a political candidate). All in all, I believe that they are an appropriate source for opinions ("Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks believes....") but maybe not statements of fact. For an article of this nature, if we only restrict ourselves to mainstream (read: corporate) media, then the article will obviously be slanted in a pro-corporate-media direction. Hence the need to include reputed voices in independent journalism. CompactSpacez (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:U, I heard they had some written journalism that was mentioned in the Hill, but I'm not sure about that. MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

TYT is biased in favor of Bernie, but that doesn't mean they're not reliable when they report on how he has been covered.  They're rated as not having failed a fact check besides their reporting on GMOs[14]. Butternut Kolya Butternut (Butternut talk) 16:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit-warring a misrepresentation into the lead

The editor Rafe87 has now edit-warred on multiple instances (despite the editing restrictions on this page and despite warnings on his talk page) this into the lead:[15]

  • Analyses published by the press, moreover, have been interpreted in some media outlets as showing that the Sanders campaign is, indeed, being less covered than would be expected from his polling numbers,[12] especially when compared to Joe Biden's campaign.[13] Data elsewhere also suggests that he receives more negative coverage than other top-tier candidates on MSNBC.[14]

The first sentence is not what the cited sources say: they do not say Sanders is getting media coverage incommensurate with his polling (the sources simply say that Sanders and the other candidates receive less media coverage than the front-runner). The last sentence does not at all belong in the lead, and it's also misleading. What the analysis shows is that Sanders received nearly all of those negative mentions on two MSNBC shows. The fact that two MSNBC shows gave negative mentions of Sanders does not belong in the lead, and it cheapens this Wikipedia article. Furthermore, this is an analysis by "In These Times", which is not a RS, yet this content is described as "data" in Wiki voice. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, you should assume good faith. This has nothing to do with edit warring. I reverted that same paragraph yesterday when it was pointed out to me that I was in violation of 1RR, but that rule covers only one day, not several. And I do not agree that any content has been misrepresented, and the small differences in interpretation between you and me don't warrant this hysteric language from you. I'll let other editors decide. I will insist, however, that it is about time that the intro reflects 2020 developments instead of giving prominence only to 2015 data which conveniently undercuts the arguments against media bias.Rafe87 (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Just to be clear: (1) you seriously think that an analysis by In These Times should be described as "data" in Wiki voice (and in the lead of all places)? That the fact that two MSNBC shows were negative towards Sanders belongs in the lead (!) ? This text is not at all in any of the cited sources: "showing that the Sanders campaign is, indeed, being less covered than would be expected from his polling numbers", yet you refuse to remove that from the lead? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Attributed the sentence. The use of the word data implies a study with information that can be peer reviewed, which this is not.
Also doesn't belong in lede
Slywriter (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with *shutters* Snoogan for once.--WillC 10:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Naked 1RR now in effect

Which is to say 1RR only. Other restrictions can be added later as needed. El_C 22:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Should be useful. This page is edited way too much as is.--WillC 01:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

USA Today's analysis of 12/19/2019 debate doesn't even mention Bernie Wikinetman (talk) 06:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

...or Warren, or Steyer, or Bloomberg, I could keep going. It's not supposed to be a comprehensive guide about the candidates. It also didn't list him as a "loser" which I would think is evidence against the existence of an anti-Sanders bias. WMSR (talk) 07:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
WP:OR, Editors can not infer facts. Need an RS to write an analysis that shows USA Today leaving Bernie out was meaningful.
Slywriter (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Okay, but does anyone think Warren or Steyer won the debate? Because there's evidence that plenty of people thought Bernie won the debate. Wikinetman (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:Tq What people think doesn't matter per WP:OR . Galobtter (pingó mió) 23:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Seems overly pedantic for the talk page, but fine, I suppose I should have written "is there any evidence" rather than "does anyone think" -- does that satisfy? Wikinetman (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Debates winners are subjective, so no it will never satisfy.
Slywriter (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Recent editing

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 Snooganssnoogans with ranging captions. Some of which are false. 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 WP:RSPSOURCES .
  • Some edits are mischaracterizing the statements of articles. 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.
  • This edit changes the topic from the interviewer to the interviewee when the transcript also has the interviewer say "The Tyndall report did a study of airtime spent on the candidates and they found that Donald Trump, duh, is the most covered with 234 minutes during the time period that they measured. Clinton was next with 113 minutes. And Sanders got 10. 10! And yet, he is consistently one of the most highly searched on Google." While I agree the original statement was pointless, it's very odd to completely leave this entire point out by the exact same person in the article. Which is hilarious considering the edit caption was complaining about misrepresentation of the source. Removing a sentence about a source fact checking another reporter, claiming they were just a pundit when Greenwald was the person who broke the Ed Snowden leak.
Personally I'd like to assume good faith and while some of the other edits are fine but having some of these same issues, I feel some of these are an example of WP:Tendentious editing brought on by an obvious bias that has been displayed while also being examples of WP:Cherrypicking. As in "Disputing the reliability of apparently good sources", "Repeating the same argument without convincing people" (as above), "Deleting the pertinent cited additions of others", "Crusading against a specific POV", "Seeing editing as being about taking sides", "selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says." I feel above is enough information to support at least the entertaining of my claims and considering the nature of this article, maybe justly. I'd suggest people take a look at these edits.--WillC 12:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
(1) The Free Beacon and the Washington Examiner are not RS (note also that the Wash Ex piece is explicitly an op-ed). We don't pluck out comments from random transcripts. Furthermore, it's a BLP violation to include those poorly sourced accusations against Griffin. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:RSPSOURCES says opposite. Another example of "Repeating the same argument without convincing people". WP:RS says "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources" So again you are wrong and have continued to push that false argument.--WillC 13:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Snooganssnoogans. Those sources should be avoided for an article like this. Also, items covered by weak source should also be covered by better sources, otherwise we run afoul of WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:COATRACK . - MrX 🖋 17:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Please divulge me on exactly how those policies apply. Because I feel people feel they mean anything that gives weight to a potential bias is automatically undue weight. Which in an of itself is against NPOV as it gives undue weight to the idea that there isn't. All viewpoints are to be given. Citing DUE is an attempt to silence those especially considering Ed is dead and the actual National Review interview should entirely sufficient here.--WillC 17:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
If we don't allow biased sources, there will be nothing left except scholarly studies and the allegedly biased media's opinions on its own bias to cite on the topic. Right- and left-wing sources should be allowed, with attributions of their bias added where their spin or selection bias may have affected the content. Selvydra (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
(2) An enormous paragraph laying out Gleen Greenwald's prediction of all the ways that the media will go after Sanders is pretty much a classic example of WP:UNDUE . As far as I'm concerned, not even a sentence should be devoted to his unhinged punditry, but I left it in out of a desire for compromise. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Must I remind again as I have done repeatedly, punditry means "expert". So basically you are saying "Unhinged expert analysis". You point at UNDUE without realizing what that section say: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". Your following statement says you are actually in conflict with it because you wish to not fairly represent the viewpoint of the actual source. Summarizing a 7 stage media campaign with sources for each accusation as "hostile" isn't fairly representing.--WillC 13:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Greenwald is an esteemed journalist who happens to be very opinionated. He tends to distort facts to fit a narrative. He should be cited sparingly in any article about a U.S. election. - MrX 🖋 17:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
That sounds more like an opinion than an actual fact. I'd figure a Pulitzer Price winning journalist wouldn't have any restrictions.--WillC 17:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
(3) We do note need to recount every single detail published in a FAIR piece. The text was completely unreadable, and the examples cited were petty as hell. As far as I'm concerned, even the remaining sentences are UNDUE (the analysis is so extraordinarily petty), but I left them in out of a desire for compromise. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Compromise? You completely butched what the source said by inaccurately stating what it said, removing the actual media criticisms displayed by the source, and then shrinking the number of instances. And now you are actively violating NPOV by saying you wanted the fair representation of ALL VIEWPOINTS removed.--WillC 13:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
FAIR has been blatantly overused in this article. I've tried to trim a couple of the more trivia instances, but was reverted. Consensus is required for inclusion of material. - MrX 🖋 17:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
No because there was already a consensus to include the material and not once above to my knowledge has there been objection on that content not belonging in the article. The only issue is that it lends credence to issues with there being any sort of media coverage bias. I'm not hearing an actual issue with the source other than it being used alot. The article is not entirely based on that source. There is no limit to how much we use a source in articles. I used one source 7 times in the GA for Glory IV and another two 5 times in the FA Point (2008 wrestling). Issues did not arise with this same issue as long as material had merit.--WillC 17:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:Re Would you please link to the consensus for including the FAIR material that was removed by Snooganssnoogans and me? - MrX 🖋 17:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:U I'd be happy too right here at WP:EDITCONSENSUS where it says "Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. In this way, the encyclopedia is gradually added to and improved over time." The fact the material has stayed in and not been objected and wanted removal until now.--WillC 17:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
In other words, there is no previous consensus. You are just claiming there is because you don't like it when editors remove content from the article. Contrary to what you may think, material does not earn consensus by simply being put into an article. - MrX 🖋 19:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Are you having trouble reading the article? Because the policy clearly states a consensus has been accomplished by simply editing the article. If you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with WP:EDITCONSENSUS . If you don't like articles going by policy, I'd suggest you have an issue on your hand. Per policy, you have to get a clear and concise consensus to remove material. I'm going to guess you are going to ignore this just like other editors because it is a roadblock to your desired ends. Maybe, you should read policies more.--WillC 05:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I will echo that if content has been added to the article and stayed undisturbed for a reasonable amount of time (for an article with frequent editing like this, something in the ballpark of a week should be plenty), then per WP:EDITCONSENSUS it has implicit consensus. Isn't it a little harsh to require that every segment added to an article be white-listed in a Talk page debate or be indefinitely subject to removal until a clear consensus is achieved to put it back? To my reading, WP:ONUS doesn't grant such indefinite deletion priority, but speaks of a situation where consensus has not yet been reached. And this is where WP:EDITCONSENSUS takes precedence. Selvydra (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:U, I think part of the reason why the consensus talk is present on this page is due to the fact that until yesterday or two days ago you had to go to the talk page after a revert. MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
(4a) The interviewee is brought on the show to offer her take on media bias against Sanders. It's unclear whether the interviewer personally holds the opinion that he gives in his question or whether he's giving the interviewee something to respond to. Furthermore, he makes statements in the interview that could both be interpreted as confirming that there is media bias and disconfirming that there's media bias. This is a perfect example of why we don't randomly pluck comments out of transcripts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Pluck comments out like you did with your edit? You focused on the part that fit your viewpoint and did not fairly represent the information in the interview. The Interviewer brought up the information I gave which is also in this article and would have fit nicely right next to it when he asked 538 about media coverage of Sanders. He stated a fact. Not an opinion. A fact. You chose not to include it. If anyone plucked, it was you.--WillC 13:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
(4b) Greenwald is a crank op-ed writer, not a news reporter. Why would we cite him when there is literally a fact-check from a RS that can instead be cited? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The George Polk Award and a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter is nothing more a crank op-ed writer which is still reliable and notable per RS? How much longer are you going to clearly violate TE by continuing "Disputing the reliability of apparently good sources", "Repeating the same argument without convincing people" (as above), "Crusading against a specific POV", "Seeing editing as being about taking sides", etc?--WillC 13:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • You can disagree with Greenwald's political inclinations, but that doesn't disappear his journalist's merits and certainly does not unmake his being a reporter. Selvydra (talk) 22:25, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Bernie Blackout in 2020

The Business Insider interpreted the NYT data as supporting the idea of a Bernie Blackout. Considering that the intro is attacking the idea of it based on 2016 data, can't we make room to say something about 2020, as well? I inserted a paragraph, but I had to delete it because of edition rules (I thought the article was under 3RR, but someone brought to my attention that it is under 1RR). The paragraph is as follows:

Analysis from the New York Times,[ref] however, suggests that the Sanders campaign is being less coreved than would be expected from his polling numbers.[ref] Data from another source also suggests that he receives more negative coverage than other top-tier candidates on MSNBC.[ref]
Rafe87 (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
The NYT tracker[16] shows that (1) Sanders is in the top three for media coverage and (2) throughout the campaign, Sanders has received nearly identical levels of coverage as Elizabeth Warren and that (3) both Warren and Sanders have received less coverage than Biden. Throughout the campaign, Biden has been the clear front-runner whereas Sanders and Warren have at various times been #2, with Warren being the only one who has come close to achieving parity with Biden in national polls. As for the last comment, I do not know what source you are referring to. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
That tracker also shows that Biden has received more coverage than Sanders and Warren put together, despite only polling ~50% higher in the nat'l average. Yes, some of it is inevitably because of non-primary coverage (Hunter Biden / Trump), but 1) there's no evidence that said coverage has been detrimental to his campaign, and 2) Trump likely benefited from the mass amount of coverage of him in 2016, even if it was negative. So, the tracker still bears out Sanders (and Warren) as a loser in media coverage. Selvydra (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
You're close to engaging in original research. If reliable sources have interpreted the data as showing Sanders to be under-covered, then this needs to be reflected in the entry. Rafe87 (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

And these metrics mean what exactly? They are covering the front runner. Everything else is speculation. Absent a smoking gun memo that shows collussion in mainstream media, this entire exercise is one of perception bias by those who support a particular candidate.

Slywriter (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
    • You shouldn't be analyzing or interpreting the content in the article. The content is either included because it is relevant to the topic, or excluded because it is found not to be from a reliable source or verifiable. Trying to recast the content to have this or that meaning is completely inappropriate. WP:SYN. WP:OR. "I don't agree with that article" is not a valid reason to exclude content. - Keith D. Tyler 18:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

By the way, this Esquire article discusses the Bernie Blackout phenomenon and seems to agree that it is real: Rafe87 (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Content that should be removed or trimmed

The following should be removed or trimmed:

  • 1. Remove: "In an interview with National Review's Jamie Weinstein,[note 1] MSNBC host, Ed Schultz stated that he had prepared a report on Bernie Sanders' presidential candidate announcement at his home, but five minutes before the broadcast was due to air, he was told by then-president of MSNBC Phil Griffin that "you're not covering this" and "you're not covering Bernie Sanders".[18][19] 45 days later, Shultz was terminated by MSNBC." Why? Because it's sourced to non-RS, and includes unsourced synth at the end.
  • 2. Trim: "In the same month, Glenn Greenwald published an article entitled, The Seven Stages of Establishment Backlash: Corbyn/Sanders Edition, arguing that "the political and media establishment" would become increasingly hostile and shrill against Sanders and his supporters as both the electoral support for his campaign and the sense of threat to Hillary Clinton's nomination increased. The article proposes the existence of seven distinct stages in the way in which both the political class and the media respond to campaigns of theretofore poorly recognized socialist politicians against establishment-favored candidates, starting with Stage 1 ("polite condescension...") and ending on Stage 7 ("full-scale meltdown..."). At the time of his publication, Greenwald estimated that, "The Democratic media and political establishment has been in the heart of Stage 5 for weeks and is now entering Stage 6". Stage 5 amounts to, "Brazen invocation of right-wing attacks to marginalize and demonize...", and Stage 6 to, "Issuance of grave and hysterical warnings about the pending apocalypse if the establishment candidate is rejected".[28]" Why? This op-ed content is incredibly long and redundant. It can be shortly and sweetly summarized as "Greenwald predicted that the media would become increasingly hostile to Sanders as his chances of winning the democratic primary increased".
  • 3. Trim: The Shorenstein Center report does not need two huge blockquotes. This content can be paraphrased and concisely summarized.
  • 4. Trim: "Katie Halper in FAIR documented a number of cases where the media was utilizing selective poll reporting and distortions of graphics.[5] In her article, she starts with an MSNBC 2020 matchup against Trump poll on March 7. The poll showed Biden at 53%, Sanders at 49%, and Warren and Kamala at 48%. Sanders however, was listed as being in fourth place. A similar sequence error was made on MSNBC on March 15 with Sanders in a third place order despite being in second numerically. On May 24, Chuck Todd of Meet The Press reported a Quinnipiac Poll that found Sanders had gone up by 5 points between April 30 and May 21 whereas Todd signed it as if Sanders had gone down by 5 points. On April 29, Velshe and Ruhle of MSNBC inaccurately displayed the data of a Monmouth poll that put Sanders at 27% polling with white voters and Biden at 25%. The MSNBC graphic showed Biden at 28%; a three-point difference not in accordance with the poll. In a segment by Rachel Maddow on April 29, she showed a graphic with candidates leading with female donations. Kirsten Gillibrand was highest at 52% with women while Sanders was at the bottom at 33%. Maddow did not mention that the data was only based on donations of $200 or more (the only data that is itemized based on gender).[5] According to the Sanders campaign, in the first quarter of his campaign, 46% of his donations were from women.[5] " Why? We do not to list every graphic and mistake made on cable news shows. This text is completely unreadable. This can simply be summarized in one sentence as "MSNBC published a number of misleading graphics" or something like that. The last two lines are incredibly petty and nitpicky.
  • 5. Trim: "MSNBC panelist Zerlina Maxwell said that Sanders, "did not mention race or gender until 23 minutes into the speech" in his kickoff speech.[5] Glenn Greenwald from The Intercept described her claim as a blatant lie;[6] Politifact also ruled her claim as "false".[57] Maxwell later retracted her statement on Twitter after her claims were widely criticized on the social media platform, where many brought up that Sanders mentioned the issue of race and gender within the first five minutes of his speech.[5][6] Greenwald criticized MSNBC for not retracting the claim on air, where it was made.[6]" Why? Greenwald is completely redundant in this paragraph.
  • 6. Remove: "Around the same time, Sanders campaign manager Faiz Shakir told CNN,[59] In about, you know, a minute or so or two minutes or so you’re going to cut to commercial breaks and you’re going to see some pharmaceutical ads. You’re going to see a lot of ads that are basically paying your bills and the bills of the entire media enterprise. And what that ends up doing is incentivizing you and others to make sure that you’re asking the questions and driving the conversations in certain areas and not in certain areas." Why? This is randomly plucked out a transcript. If this is important, it should be reliably sourced and it should be paraphrased. There is nothing to justify a whole blockquote for this.
  • 7. Trim: "Sanders responded to the entire discourse in the end by stating, "So this is not into conspiracy theory. We are taking on corporate America. Large corporations own the media in America, by and large, and I think there is a framework, about how the corporate media focuses on politics. That is my concern. It's not that Jeff Bezos is on the phone every day; he's not." Chris Cillizza from CNN opined that Sanders and Shakir,[60] "have zero evidence to back up these big claims is beside the point for many supporters of the independent senator from Vermont. They believe deeply in Sanders and see anyone who disagrees with them as a corporate shill or part of the Big Bad Establishment. Which is their right. But it doesn't make these claims true." Why? Sanders' comment can simply be summarized as "Sanders rejected that it was a conspiracy". Cilizza's mind-numbing punditry should preferably not be on this encyclopedia, but if it is to be included, then it should paraphrased in a concise manner.

Can we move ahead with these change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snooganssnoogans (talkcontribs)

Discuss this as a section at a time because that is too much to cover at once.--WillC 14:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm not going to do that. The changes that I'm proposing have all been clearly stated, and you're free to respond to them in whatever manner you want. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm saying you'd get more discussion with each section discussed cause editors are lazy and won't read walls of text.--WillC 10:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support all proposals. WMSR (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Some of these have already been done, and I made some a few hours ago only to be reverted. - MrX 🖋 19:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Template:Comment I just want to mention that this is also being debated in other sections below. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 14:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose the separate handling of this as Template:U's edits are greatly overlapping. Discuss the bulk of these edits under the same header instead (currently the most active being Template:U's) to keep things together. Selvydra (talk) 10:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • National Review is not RS? For an op-ed? What? How? And what do you mean that CNN is not a reliable source for something someone said on CNN? I don't even. Sounds more like an excuse to remove content you don't like, rather than do the right thing which would be to find better sources if you don't like those. - Keith D. Tyler 18:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

NYT has an op-ed out on centrist bias in the media and how it hurts Sanders (and Warren) Rafe87 (talk) 02:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I think we should avoid opinion columns unless they are cited by at least a couple of other reliable sources. - MrX 🖋 19:23, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Disagree. Multiple observations of a phenomenon are relevant to the topic. If there was an article on people hating, say, gay or black or Jewish people, citations of people talking about those people being hated would be completely valid content. The very act of op-eds pointing out a problem is relevant to the article on the problem. - Keith D. Tyler 18:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


Why should this be removed?

For context this is the sentence I'm talking about :

On December 19, 2019, in an post-debate analysis, David Axelrod, an analyst and senior political commentator for CNN, said that CNN never talks about Bernie Sanders and that the Senator was doing well in the polls.[1]

I changed the word argued to said to reflect the source more after one user mentioned that argued wasn't the right term, which is true. But, I don't understand why it was removed.

The journalist is talking to CNN journalists about media coverage, so I don't understand why it shouldn't be included when it fits the purpose of the page and the context is clear. For more information on context, here's what a UC Berkeley writer who has been mentioned in The Hill multiple times said : I'm not using the former as a source, but it does confirm that the context is clear here. Note : For full disclosure, I came across this tweet when exploring what people had to say on Twitter after the debate and I remembered this person's name from The Hill. I'm not going to use the tweet btw, I'm just showing it to offer context.

Furthermore, the talk show argument that one user mentioned is inconsistent with other sources that mention talk shows on this page or are from a talk show (e.g. Nate Silver's polling and media coverage analysis from an ABC talk show). Finally, it is an RS : CNN. So, why would it be removed?- MikkelJSmith (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

First, punditry on CNN is not RS. News reports by CNN are RS. Second, my edit summary gets to why this does not belong: "this is both UNDUE and a misrepresentation of the source. comments made by pundits on talk shows do not meet WP:DUE. Axelrod does not say CNN and it's unclear whether he's saying that he believes that Sanders is underrated or that the media is biased against him. the former seems more likely, but this is precisely the problem with plucking random comments out of transcripts." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:U, it is attributing what a CNN journalist said. How is this undue weight?--SharabSalam (talk) 18:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:Ping Because you are conflating the words "pundit" and "journalist." WMSR (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:U The word pundit means expert. I wish people would understand terms they use when they try to put things in negative lights.--WillC 01:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
My apologies for not being clear. I was interpreting it to mean the third definition here. WMSR (talk) 06:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Might want to examine the first two definitions of 1) an honorary title and 2) a teacher. Neither of which make pundit a bad thing or unreliable.--WillC 11:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:U, but by that logic, Nate Silver's analysis on this page doesn't qualify either. MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Random comments made by Nate Silver on TV or on the 538 podcast do not belong on this page. A published analysis by Nate Silver would belong, if it's attributed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:U, that makes no sense, since Silver's analysis on this page refers to data -- even if he does so as a pundit. MikkelJSmith (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:U, I responded to those claims in the paragraph. You're only responding to part of what I said. MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
The statement is literally " I think that...". Which makes it's an off the cuff opinion.
That is not what an encyclopedia should be striving to include.
Axelrod is just another person with an opinion, not some expert.
As for Nate Silver, his comment doesn't really belong either, since it is not one of his data backed reports. Slywriter (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:U, analysis can happen on a talk show. To remove data, because it was included in a segment is rather weird especially since Wikipedia policy places importance on experts in a field. So, Silver's analysis can still be mentioned, especially since he was brought on for an analysis segment.
As for Axelrod and it being an opinion, prior consensus on this page allows mentions of op-eds .So, an opinion relevant to the page can be published. I could change the word to opined if you want. MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
The reason I removed the paragraph is because the paragraph is extremely overblown over a single throwaway sentence that Axelrod makes. Additionally, punditry is not a RS and shouldn't be mentioned - we don't cite Fox News pundits for the same reasons why we don't cite CNN pundits - they're simply not reliable sources, especially when the source is a single sentence informally saying that they should talk more about Sanders. — Chevvin Chevvin 22:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:U, so if I changed the word said to opined would that work? We've had op-eds mentioned here, so opinions are valid, no? MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:U, changing "said" to "opined" makes the sentence slightly better, but we are still giving significantly undue weight towards a single throwaway sentence that Axelrod made during a long discussion after the debates. If there was a whole discussion about the topic I'd be inclined to keep the paragraph, but as far as I can tell it was a single sentence made, which isn't enough to be worthy of an entire paragraph, in my opinion. — Chevvin Chevvin 22:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:U, I can understand your stance. The reason why I'm inclined to keep it is that I find it relevant to the page. I've agreed with some of the editors I'm talking to now and I've thanked multiple edits they made on this page. I just disagree on this particular issue. MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:Ref talk

Not sure I agree that there is consensus on Op-Eds being part of the article(and really it's misused throughout political pages by editors to claim inclusion of a line despite NPOV), though could be a discussion I missed. And Nate Silver does have more credibility than a commentator but it's not Data like he provides on his website. Axelrod's comment is in the midst of banter. It holds no real weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slywriter (talkcontribs) 00:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC) a
Template:U Which wiki policy says punditry isn't RS? Because RS literally says bias and opinions are reliable to use on Wikipedia but to not push them off as facts but instead as analysis.--WillC 01:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
That's a load of unequivocal crap. Go read RS again and get back to us. Particularly the section [Reliability In Specific Contexts -- Quotations]. Completely invalid. These arguments to exclude like "he's not a journalist" and "it's not one of his studies" are pipe dreams. They said these things. That is fact. The venue in which those said things were recorded are reliable sources for those quotations. End of story. Matter of fact, WP:OR specifically supports the use of this sort of content. - Keith D. Tyler 18:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Poorly-sourced material, trivial material, and material that does not conform to the purpose of an encyclopedia article

I made several edits, including uncontroversial MOS edits which were reverted here.

Here is my reasoning for each of these edits. I'm signing each point so that any rebuttals can be threaded:

  • 1 Template:Resolved mark - Template:Highlight
  • 2 "Noting" is a WP:WEASEL word. The addition reaction from give far too much prominence to FAIR. It's not noteworthy. Referring to the title change of the NYT article by linking to archived versions is improper WP:SYNTHESIS . Consensus is required for inclusion of this material. - MrX 🖋 16:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • 3 I removed WP:EDITORIALIZING . If there is justification for ignoring our style manual, please show it and obtain consensus. - MrX 🖋 16:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • 4 Paste Magazine is a poor source, and wholly inadequate on its own for purposes of meeting WP:DUEWEIGHT . Consensus is required for inclusion of this material. - MrX 🖋 16:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • 5 This trivial new event does not seem worthy of a serious article looking at media coverage of Sen. Sanders. It's ephemeral at best. Consensus is required for inclusion of this material. - MrX 🖋 16:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • 6 Again, this give too much prominence to FAIR as a source for an isolated incident. If this is important, other reliable sources should have keyed on it. Consensus is required for inclusion of this material. - MrX 🖋 16:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • 7 Template:Resolved mark - Template:Highlight
  • 8 Paste Magazine is a poor source. Consensus is required for inclusion of this material. - MrX 🖋 16:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • 9 Incluing a Tweet in an encyclopedia article makes us seem like a joke. Fox News is a questionable source that frequently disparages its competitors and published false and misleading information. Citing a transcript in this context is misuse of a WP:PRIMARY source. Consensus is required for inclusion of this material. - MrX 🖋 16:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • 10 Template:Resolved mark - Template:Highlight
  • 11 Business Insider is not a great source. What makes their anaylis so earth shattering that it belongs in an encyclopedia article? Consensus is required for inclusion of this material. - MrX 🖋 16:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • 13 Template:Resolved mark - Template:Highlight
  • 14 This is not directly related to the article subject. Why does this one Politico article stand out among the noise? Consensus is required for inclusion of this material. - MrX 🖋 16:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • 15 This link is unrelated to the article subject, and it's not such a great article anyway. - MrX 🖋 16:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Articles should not be play-by-play listings of mediocre new events assembled to support a weak thesis. Wikipedia article are not to be WP:COATRACK S. - MrX 🖋 16:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support all of these changes. WMSR (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support all these changes, but I'm open to either deletion or considerable trim (summarizing some of the content in one sentence with attributedpov). I disagree that Business Insider isn't a RS. However, the way that the Busness Insider piece is used misleads readers as to what the underlying data shows: the Business Insider piece appears to cite data covering the week in which it was published (where Sanders received less media coverage than the other front-runners), however over the course of the campaign he's received as much coverage as Warren and far more than all the other candidates except Biden. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I'll be happy to address these issues. Particularly not to each edit but to the manner in which these were done. Particularly beginning with WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard which started by incorrectly naming the article at hand where the section was obviously an attempt to bring editors into the process that was already rife with issues regarding TE and Cherrypicking. With the 1RR in place, discussion should take place because the above discussions had not reached consensus and some material hand been removed that is under discussion. Not being able to remove each edit at a time, I reverted all back to the previous style in orer to allow a consensus to actually be established as I had attempted with the above section.--WillC 17:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
It seems like a consensus is forming. While you are within you rights to have reverted my edits, no one is beholden to ask permission on the talk page before editing the article, especially since there does not seem to be any prior consensus for most of the material. If have concerns about anyone's conduct, you can of course raise that at the appropriate venue. - MrX 🖋 18:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
It is under policy when a consensus was already formed and per WP:ONUS you need a consensus to remove it so actually you are beholden. And consider attempts to remove it have failed above including that very Paste citation multiple times, I'd say I did the right action. For a consensus, I don't see one among a handful of editors on Christmas Eve. Do you expect alot of traffic on here? Over the next few days, this section along with others will have several editors come in and out. A clear consensus won't be found for days. Because a premature closing of this followed by immediate action won't bode well for a clear consensus argument. Certainly when no one knows this discussion is going on yet.--WillC 18:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:Re Would you please link to the previous consensus you keep referring to? This is the second time I'm asking. I will assume that there is no such consensus until you link to it. - MrX 🖋 19:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I have, do you not like that statement. Do you disagree with quoting actual policy to show a consensus has been established by editing per WP:EDITCONSENSUS . Are you going to keep saying this argument over and over because you don't like that it puts you in a position where you have to get a consensus to remove. Let me guess, you thought a consensus was only established by discussion. Sadly, wikipedia policy says otherwise. WP:SILENT says " You find out whether your edit has consensus when it sticks, is built upon by others, and most importantly when it is used or referred to by others." Considering you have so lovely provided evidence of the FAIR article being used several times throughout the article, I'd suggest that establishes a users have built on the sources, the edits, etc. --WillC 05:56, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Those are links to policy shortcuts which do not contradict WP:ONUS . I asked you to link to the discussions in which consensus occurred. Obviously you can't. - MrX 🖋 13:53, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
You're right it doesn't contradict ONUS, because it doesn't have too. They are not shortcuts, they are policy just like ONUS. That policy does not outweight the policy of WP:EDITCONSENSUS . There has been an established edit consensus and since you are still using the same argument over and over I guess you don't have any way to argue against it. Lets read ONUS again and read the tense that is given in that section, it is talking about material that could be added to the article or about to be, not information already in the article. "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content." This is about content that is at dispute being "added" to the article that "certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted". Hence in line with editconsensus, ONUS is the follow up policy that takes place after the initial edit and disagreement regarding material before a consensus is established. Considering the section is about inclusion which defined is "the action or state of including or of being included within a group or structure" that section is about a future action not a past action. You are arguing we need a consensus to include information that has already survived dispute and has been in the article for weeks now. That is completely against what the section is even stating.--WillC 11:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support this article is smothered in recent-ism and will not age well. Also many of the above suffer from Synthesis and border on OR, as the intent is to put enough marginal quotes to manufacture a crisis rather than focus on whether an actual event is being covered Slywriter (talk) 18:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Edit one, I'm fine with. Edit two, I disagree with because it is a clear misunderstanding of SYNTH and is "SYNTH is not a catch-all". Changing of the article title is part of the reporting and backlash on the issue, it is not creating a new fact. Per "To claim SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new claim was made, and what sort of additional research a source would have to do in order to support the claim." I repeat again, ONUS clearly states that a consensus is needed to remove material and consensus is needed to keep material. This is also backed up by the Consensus article for when a consensus is established by editing alone. Fine with 3. Disagree with 4 as have others above, what makes Paste a poor source exactly because WP:RSPSOURCES says nothing about it. It seems a nationally published magazine would need a discussion to state it is an actual poor source. According to Consensus, since it is in the article and has been discussed without removal, a new consensus would be needed to remove. Indifferent on 5 but I do feel that inaccurate media coverage would warrant inclusion in an article about media coverage that has reliable sources covering it such as politifact and Greenwald. Edit 6, FAIR has 2 sections for 2 authors in the entire article. Too much prominence? I have gotten articles to FA using 6 individual websites. I have gotten articles to FL with less than 10 overall references. Using one source twice isn't undueweight. Fine with 7. You failed to give a reason for Paste in 8. Edit 9, the tweet linked to a video that is available on ABC news and can just be switched as a source. Fox News is considered reliable at WP:RSPSOURCES for news gathering not for talk shows. Not following your argument for primary. Fine with edit 10. Edit 11) I think mentioning PBS failed to mention a top polling candidate in favor of other candidates is a pretty important mention in a media coverage article. You know, when the media didn't mention the second top polling candidate. Like in 2008 if PBS didn't cover Obama when he was against Clinton and Biden. Edit 13, I'm fine. Edit 14, how is it Due to literally include an article saying that one candidate received more coverage than another in an article about media coverage. Due isn't a catchall. You are right on the coatracks, because it isn't supposed to be bias "A coatrack article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject. In the extreme case, the nominal subject gets hidden behind the sheer volume of the bias subject(s)." That is why removing all the sections about information and issues with media bias from sources that haven't been declared unreliable makes it lend one way.--WillC 18:23, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Regarding #2, according to WP:SYNTH "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Linking to two version of a NYT article to draw the novel conclusion that the title changed in not acceptable. Assuming that we accept this as a reliable source, then it's not necessary anyway.
I don't know where in this text, copied from WP:ONUS , you see anything about "consensus is needed to remove material", let alone "clearly":
Template:Tq2 - MrX 🖋 18:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Lets examine that section shall we instead of cherrypicking it: "The New York Times was criticized for retroactively making significant changes to an article about Bernie Sanders' legislative accomplishments over the past 25 years. The article was originally titled "Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years Via Legislative Side Doors" but was subsequently changed to "Via Legislative Side Doors, Bernie Sanders Won Modest Victories." In addition to the revised title, several paragraphs were added. Margaret Sullivan at the New York Times opined that the changes were clear examples of "stealth editing" and that "the changes to this story were so substantive that a reader who saw the piece when it first went up might come away with a very different sense of Mr. Sanders's legislative accomplishments than one who saw it hours later." Katie Halper from FAIR interpreted that, according to New York Times editors in their defense of the changes, "in its original form, the article didn't cast enough doubt on Sanders' viability and ability to govern." No where does it imply any new statement in the section you removed. It simply follows up the previous sentence by literally giving the titles of the articles as it was changed. Due to you saying it violates SYNTH, it is up to you to provide the burden of proof. As again, read the policies as quoted "To claim SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new claim was made, and what sort of additional research a source would have to do in order to support the claim." draw the novel conclusion that the title changed in not acceptable which it doesn't do. It doesn't even hint at it with the sentence you remove. What did? The entire section which was about the blacklash of it. I'd say it falls into cherrypicking to not provide the actual article titles in question. Almost like leaving out the name of the person that endorsed a candidate. Why not? Can't we just say a high ranking government official from Oklahoma endorsed someone for office? No, because the point of the section is the actual person. Leaving out the very center of this issue is completely inaccurate and lazy by leaving out needed context and information for the reader. Right there Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. in combination with the fact that WP:EDITCONSENSUS and WP:SILENT provide that a consensus already exists on information in the article. Add in the fact a 1RR was needed in order to push towards discussion.--WillC 06:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I have asserted that Paste is not a good source for a subject like this. It's a music magazine. I don't see other newspapers or news programs routinely citing Paste in their coverage of politics (WP:USEBYOTHERS ). With all due respect to Ryan, I simple don't find his attack of The Washington Post to be substantive. I mean, hell, attacking Jennifer Rubin is so 5 minutes ago. Doing it a in tongue-and-cheek tone may get clicks, but it's not the type of material we should source for anything in a serious encyclopedia. - MrX 🖋 19:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I knew all I had to do was wait and you'd mention that policy regarding Paste because I already attributed sources using it and displaying it as reliable. Particularly that CNN featured it during headlines and as per the policy "The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them." which displays the viewpoint by CNN regarding Paste as a credible organization to lend time. Chicago Tribune has cited it and even listed it among the best magazines. The book American Directory of Writer's Guidelines has a section regarding the Paste editing behavior, including editorial content, fact-checking, and reliability. Paste was named "Magazine of the Year" by the PLUG Independent Music Awards in 2006, 2007 and 2008. In 2008, 2009 and 2010, Paste was nominated for a National Magazine Award in the category of General Excellence. Washington Post and New York Post have both covered Paste. To "reflect established views of sources" seems to be that Paste has a good reputation among sources or at least a reputable magazine.--WillC 06:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
See additional comment below on the reliability for Paste agreed at Wikiproject Albums.--WillC 11:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Selvydra's point-by-point rebuttal

  • Oppose, wholly or partially, the changes below: (support 1, 7, 10, 13) (if TL;DR, skip past this bullet-point listing)
  • 2: The change to 'noting' and paring down the response is fine, but removing FAIR's response altogether simply because WaPo decided not to continue the back-and-forth seems unfair, as it would create the false impression that they didn't address a criticism that WaPo levied at them. Thus, the 'unduly narrowing the definition of negative history' at least should be included. Lastly, WP:SYNTH isn't applicable to the mention of the old NYT article title, as the old and new article titles together do not imply a consensus (i.e. the fact that NYT changed the title) that hasn't already been acknowledged by NYT themselves.
  • 3 While the other changes are fine, I insist that the word 'interpreted' is better there because it is more specific than 'said' / 'wrote' in that context: Ms. Halper was interpreting the point of view of the NYT editors who made the changes to the article. She didn't claim that this was their PoW for certain, unlike what the part comes off as if 'wrote' is used instead.
  • 4 That Paste Magazine didn't cover politics since its inception shouldn't mean it went from being a reliable source to an unreliable one when it included that topic (along with TV, technology, travel, etc.). I'm not aware of there being call for re-evaluating its RS status re: politics. As such, citing it should still be allowed and at most evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In this case, the magazine reports on the publication of articles by WaPo and argues they were negative, which conforms to WaPo activity during influential moments of Sanders' previous campaign and thus doesn't seem that outlandish. Of course, if there is strong indication of a particular bent in its politics coverage, then I think citations should be attributed to said bias.
  • 5 Disagree on the event's triviality on two counts: 1) as the kick-off speech, it was a crucial moment of Sanders' campaign; 2) the degree of neglect in setting up the event impartially, in inviting a 2016 Clinton campaign worker (the campaign that, to date, considers Sanders as being significantly to blame for Clinton's general-election loss) as the first guest to give an opinion (and make untruthful claims) on Sanders' launch. In addition to the Politifact piece, The Intercept and Politico also picked it up.
  • 6 Partial opposition in that sections like these should eventually be pared down into more succinct summaries, so that the isolated incidents do not remain isolated, and that the reader may then make their own judgment on it. Because this is a hot topic that frequently is updated with crucial caucuses and primaries coming in 1–2 months, these will quickly pile up and be summarizable. If each isolated case is individually and immediately deemed unnotable per strict adherence to rules and guidelines, it becomes an exercise in the continuum fallacy (how many incidents are enough to form a group and not remain as 'isolated'?) and greatly impedes the achieving of notability at any point.
  • 8 See 4.
  • 9 Tweets are routinely brought up in news, personal opinions on Twitter and other social media notwithstanding. Their notability should depend on the case rather than them being blanket-disapproved. As for the Fox News citation – this is a great example of (unwitting) editor teamwork to kill off information. This content was initially added being cited by Inquisitr. Snoogans and I had a conversation on it after he had removed it and it had been re-instated. In conclusion, after RS concerns being alleviated by the immediate verifiability of the citation's claims, he contended the part shouldn't be here because Inquisitr picking it up didn't make it noteworthy enough. Thus, I added the Fox News citation to lend credence to its notability. Its partiality and record of untruthful coverage doesn't annull the fact that it is a source with high noteworthiness. For what it's worth, I wish Fox News wasn't noteworthy, but that just isn't the case. Then, someone removed the Inquisitr citation again on grounds of them being "a news aggregator" – which then left Fox as the sole citation for you to remove entirely. And of course Fox News likes to disparage its competitors, just as left-wing media is quick to criticize all of cable news. If right- and left-wing sources like them and Inquisitr aren't allowed, the topic of mainstream media bias essentially becomes unreportable on Wikipedia (unless CNN starts reporting of MSNBC's bias, and MSNBC on CBS's bias, etc...). And in this conflict, I will argue that information is better kept than destroyed, with attributions of bias added where necessary. At the very least, 6 applies to the titular coverage incident in the Fox article.
  • 11 I'm a bit puzzled about this one, as in the edit, you have removed a section about PBS NewsHour – not the following Business Insider one. For the former, see 6. For the latter: I will refer to WP:RSPSOURCES (despite its descriptive – not prescriptive – nature) in that the reliability should be evaluated based on the source of the article – at least in the case of syndicated content. In this case, the author is John Haltiwanger, a senior politics reporter for BI, meaning the article is in their voice. At a quick glance, BI has been cited over 10,000 times on Wikipedia, including in many major articles. It feels like a stretch to assert it isn't an acceptable source.
  • 14 See 6 – although this segment should be reworded to emphasize Sanders, not Biden: "Sanders (in addition to Warren) only received a third of the coverage of Biden." In an article titled 'media bias against Sanders' this would be on shakier ground, but now, it gives a relatively nuanced picture of the state of media coverage, with both positives and negatives for Sanders.
  • 15 Trump derangement syndrome was frequently brought up in defense of this article's existence in the AfD – that's likely the reason it is there.
In more general terms (and perhaps more importantly for the big picture): these large-scale edits to the page fundamentally alter the tone of the article as it stood after the long and thoroughly litigated AfD in which it was evaluated. This happens because many instances of the type of content that this page largely comprised then (individual examples of lacking or misleading coverage by mainstream media, sourced from alternate/competing media) are now being variously found as 'trivial' or 'poorly sourced' where the AfD discussion didn't. It seems rather undemocratic, then, for a singular editor to come and in effect throw that discussion of dozens of editors out of the window by means of what comes off as policy bombarding.
With regards to your WP:COATRACK concern – it might stem from the fact that this article had its name changed. Even after the fact, I don't think listing incidents of media bias stray far from the topic of media coverage. That there are more examples of bias against Sanders than those rebuffing it doesn't mean that an allegation of bias is a 'hook' to hang others onto. If I have misunderstood the nature of this concern, I ask you to elaborate.
I will also note that the three editors who supported your edits are all critical of the existence of this page to begin with, and have been actively removing and contesting information added to this page. It would be unwise to take their quick affirmatives as a budding consensus.
With all that writ, I recognize that you feel deeply about this topic and want to thank you for doing your best to fix shortcomings in this article, of which there are undoubtedly several due to its controversial and relatable, edit-attracting nature. I look forward to a good-faith conversation over these and other possible changes. At the end of the day, my biggest concern here is that tendentious editing (invoking the continuum fallacy via death by a thousand cuts, each 'cut' attributed to various strict interpretations of MOS and guidelines) is attempting to disappear the following notion: For-profit media – owned by people with political interests to the contrary of some prominent politicians – is going to take some measures to stop those politicians if it can get away with it. For them not to do so would be against their shareholders' interests. And given that, there should be a trustworthy resource available online for people to be able to verify this phenomenon (and to what extent it exists) for themselves. Said media can't be expected to bias-check itself, and left- and right-wing media have their own biases that make it harder for less experienced information-seekers to form an informed opinion over. Here, we can at least curate them and work their information into more digestible size, scope and form, favoring an inclusivist mindset over an exclusivist one." Selvydra (talk) 01:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:U Sadly, if it wasn't for the fact the policy lists noticeboards as fine, I'd suggest MrX was canvassed here by at least one editor. Obviously he wasn't per the policy. The general view on the RS noticeboard was "they wanted this article deleted" without any concern for the work done here by editors nor any of the sources provided regarding the topic or the fact the person reporting the issue had their own clear issues. The minds have been made up and this article will forever suffer from a NPOV issue because of it. Remove all the sources point at issues with media cover, remove all the material regarding what the sources say, skew things to say something entirely different by leaving out content for clarity, etc. It is NPOV then too, because at this point we are arguing over whether and Accuracy in Reporting should be used more than once. It is embarrassing that I have to literally quote the policies to established editors and they wish to ignore them because it doesn't fit their viewpoint.--WillC 06:46, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:U, you're out of bound suggesting that I was canvassed here. I came of my own volition.- MrX 🖋 14:14, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:U I can't say you were canvassed. Policy says noticeboards don't qualify, but you were alerted to this page by a user who is suspected of TE and cherrypicking and immediately performed edits in line with his statements before any discussion had been concluded, including removing Paste and doing other edits that were currently under discussion above in more than one section, although you were not informed of that. Again, reading comprehension is an issue as I said above you weren't canvassed per policy so your reply was really pointless because I said you weren't.--WillC 05:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:Re I have no idea how you Template:Tq. I don't actually, and nothing in my editing or discussion suggests otherwise. As far as I can tell, the mainstream media has all but ignored Sanders well before he ran for president. The article subject is valid, but these he-said-she-said mosquito bite examples seem are inane. Our job is not to exhaust the reader with picayune information. This is not how to write an encyclopedia article of enduring value.
I did not say that FAIR should only be used once. But four times seems about right. If the article is to rely so heavily on FAIR, then the title should be changed to analysis of Media coverage of Bernie Sanders. - MrX 🖋 14:14, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
It seems likely to me that FAIR would recur often in this article given their modus operandi. If it still feels like they're getting undue weight, I would rather suggest that FAIR's opinions be summarized more concisely rather than selectively opted in and out. And if there *is* opting in and out, that cut-off shouldn't exist in the middle of a back-and-forth. Selvydra (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
My response to each of Template:U's content comments:
2. My concern here is that documenting a back and forth is poor writing style. We should simply summarize the dispute, briefly stating FAIR's complaint and WP's rebuttal.
3. This I could probably live with. Interpreted is not a particularly loaded word.
4. I stand by my view that Paste is not a good source for politics-related content, per my comments in the Is Paste a generally reliable source for politics-related topics? RfC
5. In the spirit of compromise, I could probably concede this point.
6. I remain unswayed from my previous comment.
8. See 4
9. I remain unswayed from my previous comment. Fox News is notoriously sketchy as a source for politics and anything to do with rival CNN. Inquistr should obviously be avoided. In my opinion, Tweets, even from news organizations are disposable. If this CNN graphic controversy is important, there should be plenty of reliable sources reporting on it.
11. Ignore what I said about BI. It was an error. My objection was to citing ("We are writers. Activists. Everyday citizens.") I'm also no enthusiastic about citing Current Affairs, a four year old progressive publication. I still cannot support this material. - MrX 🖋 19:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
14. The source in not about the overall media coverage of Sanders. It's a snapshot in time. I also believe it is WP:UNDUE because of the dearth of coverage about this particular analysis in other sources.
15. I don't think this link educates our readers any more than 4chan would. But if it gets me support for the other content I object to, I guess I could live with it. - MrX 🖋 19:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
And here are my responses to Template:U. I request that particular attention is paid to points 6. and 9.
2. If FAIR isn't given the room for their rebuttal here, then, at the very least, the points that they rebutted in WaPo's rebuttal should be excluded as well, as otherwise it leaves a misleading impression that FAIR had nothing to say in their defense.
4. / 8. It does seem we're at the mercy of the RfC on this one.
6. If you oppose this, then we have to agree on some metric that separates 'isolated incidences' from such that are allowed to be written about.
9. If you oppose this, then we have to agree on some metric that separates 'untrustworthy' sources from 'biased' sources (which are allowed). If 6. and 9. are enforced together to this degree, this can quickly lead to a logical outcome where only some scholarly reviews are not subject to deletion as either isolated or from a biased source.
11. See 9. re: biased but (I argue) trustworthy sources.
14. See 6. re: isolated incidents / snapshots
(15. The only reason I brought this up is because if it's removed, I am concerned people will revive the "there are no pages like this one, so this one shouldn't exist either" argument. Were it not for that, I wouldn't mind.) Selvydra (talk) 20:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:U The whataboutism argument is flawed to begin with, as there are several media coverage articles on wiki. coverage of global warming, Israel-Arabia, Iraq, etc. There are plenty of articles about media coverage. Even a bias in the United States.--WillC 21:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Regarding 5, I'm not sure the Politico article you cite really makes your point, Selvydra, Template:Small, but it does make another one... this entry should have some mention of Media and Brock, whose apology to Sanders is mentioned on his BLP. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 20:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, and I appreciate that you've been reading the wall of text that is this rebuttal. The event is discussed about 10 paragraphs into the Politico article:
Template:Tqb Selvydra (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Process discussion

To claim any consensus on this article is disingenuous at best. Editors have disagreed with nearly every section since it was created.
To claim the AfD resolved the issue of this article existing is also disingenuous as it was "No Consensus", which due to the rules allows even poorly written content to remain.
To attack other editors and make wild claims about them because they are on the other side of believing this article merits inclusion in an encyclopedia is rude.
I stand by my delete vote and no policy precludes me from being involved in improving this article for as long as it should exist.
As for these edits, I see no reason to rehash that these sources are for the most part not RS, and that throwaway comments like Axelrod's are rediculous to include as proof that someone in CNN feels CNN isn't covering Bernie enough. Go look at articles for policies of Obama, Trump, Clinton and George W. Bush, none of them rely on excessive 3rd party quoting to explain their policies or the opposition to them. The simple reason for that... If you have to quote a bunch of 3rd parties to make each individual point than the points beinar made are NOT factual, they are opinion.
Wikipedia is supposed to build articles from Secondary sources who have evaluated Primary materials. For this article, that step is being skipped as editors seek to incorporate Primary Sources and hodgepodge them together to prove a conspiracy that they believe.
In a fight of Media Bias, competing newspapers are the equivalent of quoting Donald Trump to prove Hillary Clinton is evil. A competitor by their very nature is not an Independent Reliable Source.
Slywriter (talk) 18:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Nobody is suggesting that you aren't allowed to edit this article, or to have your opinion on the merits of its existence inform said edits. Still, anyone who looks at the AfD will see that it was far from a 50/50 situation, no matter which subgroup of respondents you look at (seasoned editors, all editors excluding suspected canvassees or all editors). I was only remarking that those of the 'delete' opinion are clearly some of the most active individuals here (at least now during Christmas), and they got to this discussion first, and their opinions were expected and shouldn't be taken as a budding consensus. Nothing more, nothing less.
I think this CNN example is a case of people recognizing a pattern of lack of coverage, and trying to find something to use as a citation to write about it. Nevertheless, a question arises: What would it take for someone like you to be convinced of there being media bias against a candidate? If reports and analyses in left- or right-wing media can't be trusted, and someone at CNN saying CNN isn't covering a candidate enough is ridiculous to include, that leaves a needlessly (I argue) high threshold where all I can think of as being acceptable is scholarly studies. And as someone working in scientific research, it seems impossible to me that a meaningful number of scholars would release such studies in such a narrow topic in any sort of timely fashion to keep up with events in a 4-year political cycle, not to mention a 1-year campaign.
As I've stated earlier I do agree that there should be some sort of a limit and oversight that this article not be cluttered with individual occurrences. Eventually, they can and should be summarized into less text. However, those of the 'delete' opinion have thus far been presenting thresholds that seem to be designed to be impossible to meet for current events such as a campaign.
Mostly out of curiosity: Do you think that for-profit, corporate-owned media should be assumed as covering politics impartially and unbiasedly, unless proven otherwise? Particularly with regards to candidates who advocate for policies that they stand to lose significant money from? Selvydra (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I would agree no consensus should be derived from these current conversations. However, there has also been a claim that consensus exists for the text as written, which is what I was refuting.
The rapid cycle is exactly the problem. Wikipedians should not be in the business of keeping up with the news cycle. We should be acting retrospectively and memorializing the salient details of events. We are observers, not here to change the conversation. So, yes I think there is time for academics to weigh in and deliver critical analysis of the issue because we have no deadline
As for corporate media, many have turned into propoganada machines and should be ignored except for the basic facts. However, alternative media is no better and suffers the same issue of existing to spread propaganda for their preferred causes. Neither are reliable in my view. And I think wikipedians needs to review the RS policy and limit the inclusion of opinion articles in US political article.
In summary, Wikipedia should be a non-factor in the 2020 elections. Let the politicians and media fight it out and report on the facts, after the fact.
Slywriter (talk) 00:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:U I'd argue that point on "policies of Obama, Trump, Clinton and George W. Bush" that "rely on excessive 3rd party quoting to explain their policies or the opposition to them" cause that is literally reception in a nutshell besides that all of them are actual Presidents with 4 to 8 years of administrative office that news channels spoke about on the hour for 24 hours of the day for those timeframes without even including the campaigns for each. One problem with that idea is policy articles are about policies. This isn't about policy. This is about general media coverage and this article isn't full of third party. Even the comment by Axlrod on CNN isn't third party. He was on tv commenting on an issue, in the exact same manner Chuck Todd would be. Him being a guest doesn't change the action. He was still working for CNN at that exact moment. coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict is a pretty screwed up article with all kinds of sections that aren't normal, particularly sections literally about usage of Facebook and Wikipedia, which is pretty indepth on efforts by countries to edit wikipedia articles. Benoit double-murder and suicide has a part about oddly, the the death of Benoit's wife being added to his article a day before people knew he killed her, his son, and himself. There is no limit to the randomness of Wikipedia and what can be added, what won't be added, etc. The only limit is a reliable source covering it. Yes, it may sound odd to have random people say things on tv and they get added to an article. If it is instead described as a national commentator going live on tv to say the very station he is on is failing in its duties to provide adequate and accurate coverage of news media, it becomes a tv show aired on HBO called The Newsroom. You can describe anything in a certain light to either make them seem meaningless or really important. This article is about media coverage, which is to provide information on whether there is positive or negative information. This subject is notable due to the accusations and discussion in the media regarding the issue. There are several sources that support both sides of the debate. The problem here is instead of working on an article about the discussion, we are still stuck on the issue of whether it should exist by trying to argue every single edit and every single source without any logical sense to some of it. Some editors are quoting policies incorrectly and others want to ignore them entirely to support their desires. As for your other statements, under WP:EDITCONSENSUS any edits that are not immediately reverted or disputed are constituted as an edit consensus. So for: "consensus exists for the text as written." Yeah, under policy there is for a large portion of it because it survived the Afd and several other discussions without removal. As it stands, some information has to remain until a clear agreement can be found that it should be removed. "academics to weigh in and deliver critical analysis of the issue" - They are as Media Matters, FAIR, Harvard, etc are exactly this. We are getting that information now. Per the RS policy, the very reason biased sites and opinion articles are reliable is because some information can only be reported by sites with this bias. Take the US Gymnastics sexual abuse scandal, the organization had reports for years that it was happening but it was people who had been impacted by abuse that it came to light against the desires of the organization. Under the very idea of bias and opinions being bad, the source that reported these statements and this information wouldn't be credible because it wasn't done by an official survey without a hint of bias. News will always be self serving no matter where it is from, including academic sources. You understand curve is a complete joke that papers are still done in order to make it seem credible? No one does anything without a desire and a bias to do so. Wikipedia as a whole will always be a factor in elections as long as it exists. Information plays a role. However, this article isn't actively doing anything more to sway the election than Impeachment of Donald Trump, of Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign endorsements, positions of Bernie Sanders, etc do.--WillC 10:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Re: the claim on consensus on this text – I'm referring to policy such as WP:EDITCONSENSUS , which states that edits stick if they're not reverted or altered in a reasonable amount of time. I don't think it's fair that because a number of editors disagree with the existence of this page, that they would be able to indefinitely keep every part of it in a status of 'priority of removal over inclusion, overridden only by consensus'. The reference to timespan here is key. Time needs to be given to voice dispute in one direction or another, but it can't be indefinite, or otherwise we are at a logical situation where everything on Wikipedia could be deleted until consensus is later found to include it back.
Re: rapid cycle: There are plenty of articles that keep up with current information. That Wikipedia should only exist for when the dust has settled is a larger policy decision, would change precedence and thus requires more than some editors on a page decreeing thus. Media coverage is, by nature, day-to-day, and is thus part of this category – at least to the degree of frequency at which the subject of coverage is being covered. (And with the primary due in a month, this much should go without saying.)
The difference between corporate and alternate media here is the vastly bigger spread of the former – and their insistence (implicitly or otherwise) of being impartial. Most leftist news sources I've come across declare their leftist or progressive bent. This is why an article like this can provide valuable information for readers to make up their mind from a somewhat neutral and more comprehensive basis as opposed to taking either corporate or alternative media alone at their word. Selvydra (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  • According to the RS Noticeboard, Albums/Sources WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources has Paste magazine listed as a Reliable Source as a general use citation. I wouldn't see why it would be reliable for one subject and not another, when it would still be using the same fact checking and reliability measures. That would be alike allowing CNN to cover the impeachment, but CNN couldn't cover the Grammy's.--WillC 10:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Another source covering the Axelrod statement among other subjects regarding his media coverage and chances.--WillC 13:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Four editors support my edits; two oppose. That is a rough consensus. I strongly urge all editors to observe the art of brevity and to stick to the subject of the specific edits under discussion. Per WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:TPG . It's not reasonable to expect editors to read walls of text. - MrX 🖋 14:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
    Template:U, I'll add my opposition. Mostly due to WillC's reasoning in his original comment and in others. MikkelJSmith (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:U, that's fine. If consensus flips, I will have no problem accepting it.- MrX 🖋 14:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:U, yeah no worries. I like most of Snoogans edits (I thanked almost all of them), but I have some opposition to yours, it's not personal or anything just that I find some of the other arguments more persuasive at this time. MikkelJSmith (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
What a surprise, when discussion and policy turns against you lets try to end the situation now while it is in your favor. Besides the fact WP:VOTE is clearly about discussion and not about votes. So I wouldn't say there is a clear consensus just because it is only 4 to 3 right now. This looks more like a no consensus situation than a clear consensus situation.--WillC 15:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

It is quite frankly disgusting MrX you are trying to hijack this page when all of your concerns have been addressed and you just don't like the responses. You have not addressed a single one of the new comments being brought forth regarding argument. To declare a consensus that is clearly not agreed upon at large is shameful. Not addressing the Paste material at minimum.--WillC 16:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:Ping You have not addressed any of the new statements by myself nor any of the concerns raised during Template:Ping's opposition either. How can you declare a consensus through discussion without consensus on this. Wikipedia is not a WP:STRAWPOLL .--WillC 16:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Interested editors should weigh in on the discussions going on at sources/Noticeboard WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.--WillC 17:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are adding heat to this discussion. It seems like you are very invested in the outcome and it's affecting your collegiality. - MrX 🖋 18:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
I can only imagine the same for you trying to WP:RUSH over a holiday season a consensus.--WillC 21:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
I have had my extensive edits removed by admins and editors before because I only waited 2–3 days and then assumed consensus. It's not proper of you to assume such within 2 days in the middle of Christmas. Let the people who've contributed to growing this page pitch in too – not just the couple active information deleters. As far as I can see, there is no consensus in favor of your changes yet, Template:U. Selvydra (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
If editors want to weigh in they can take a five minute break from their egg nog. If not, they have the WP:CHOICE to take a break while other editors tend to the article. More editors than not at this point have expressed their policy-based view that this material should be removed. So far, no one has shown that there was a prior consensus. - MrX 🖋 21:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
If I could, I'd report you for lying based on disruptive editing practices MrX. You have been told repeatedly about WP:EDITCONSENSUS and you continue to exhibit clear issues with WP:TE where you use the same arguments over and over without changing anyone's mind. While providing no defense against this very policy but attempting to ignore it. You have also failed to address the issues brought up by Selvydra and went ahead trying to claim a consensus. ONUS is for including information that has already been at dispute, not information that is currently under dispute. You have to provide the consensus to remove it, not us. The policies are very clear and you ignore them. You have 3 individual editors saying you do not have a consensus and you are attempting to WP:OZD . It is clear because you can't address issues with your own edits. I did my part by providing reasons for mine.--WillC 21:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
It seems like there is a misunderstanding. There has been no discrete consensus achieved for the inclusion of all, or individual parts, of this page (that I know of). The AfD resulted in 'No consensus', which has no effect on the article's status. For it to result in a "everything can be deleted until consensus is found to keep it" situation contradicts the AfD procedure, as 'No consensus' does not result in freedom of deletion. Then, [17]] takes precedence (do correct me if I've missed something): {{tq2 "Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor [[Wikipedia:Silence and consensus|can be assumed to have consensus]. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. In this way, the encyclopedia is gradually added to and improved over time."|source=WP:EDITCONSENSUS }} And, indeed, there was a reasonable amount of time during which many of the parts that you removed were not contested. Selvydra (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, WP:EDITCONSENSUS is vague and nearly impossible to rely on for any practical guidance. This article is less than a month old and WP:SILENT#Silence_is_the_weakest_form_of_consensus comes to mind. The disposition of the disputed content will likely have to be determined upon closure by an uninvolved editor or admin. - MrX 🖋 23:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
I'd say this line plays a role in that "The more visible the statement, and the longer it stands unchallenged, the stronger the implication of consensus is." - Which would play a role in most of this. The only consistently disputed piece in Paste but that is being handled elsewhere.--WillC 00:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:Ping Unfortunately, this understanding of EDITCONSENSUS is not correct. If the material has been disputed, it can no longer be assumed to have consensus simply by virtue of having been edited into the article. A discussion should take place, and an explicit consensus should be formed. - Ryk72 talk 23:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
That is clearly not what it says. A consensus means the material stays. Per ONUS, material can be removed by a consensus and the disputed content to be reinserted would need a new consensus. To suggest that material as soon as it is disputed regardless the amount of time has passed can be removed would mean that said consensus is null in void and thus there would be no such thing as an edit consensus. What you are saying translates to editconsensus means absolutely nothing and doesn't exist. As the very point of a consensus is that the material is to remain in the article because it improves the article. To follow your translation would mean the third sentence is incorrect. "Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached." Your statement plays out the series of events as: 1) edit occurs and remains for a period of time without dispute 2) second edit reverts, declares dispute 3) 3 edit reverts edit, declaring dispute 4) new editor removes prior edit and claims consensus has been reached and material needs a discussion to be included null and avoiding the entire original consensus without any discussion or any majority. However, this very line details that events are more like this 1) edit occurs and remains for a period of time 2) new editor reverts edit 3) old editor reverts previous edit, no new consensus is formed as that edit was disputed and the previous consensus would hold ground. The sentence clearly states that "Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed a new consensus has been reached. If some disputes the removal of the material, you can't have a new consensus per the policy. And per the policy, it says to not edit war and that discussion or mutual editing to solve problems is the answer.--WillC 00:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
If content is disputed, the implicit consensus as described at EDITCONSENSUS is null and void. Everything from Template:Tq onwards either misunderstands or misrepresents what I wrote. - Ryk72 talk 00:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand how that can be the case – not without resulting in a situation where all that exists on Wikipedia is subject to removal (at any point) upon a declared dispute, only to be returned if a clear consensus in favor of adding it back is reached. Is there really no time limit for declaring a dispute? Lastly, how do we avoid a situation where this logic can be extended to blanking this entire page (with consensus required to put it back), since all of it has in effect been disputed by those voting for 'delete' in the AfD? Instead of leaving this at a semantic rule debate, let's try and actually extend that to real-world outcomes. Selvydra (talk) 00:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:Ec Correct, Template:Tq (although we often in practice see that consensus formed through further editing/reverting/discussion using edit summaries). The protection against capricious or malicious removal is that editors need to provide a genuine, reasonable (policy or source based) rationale for removal. We Template:Tq because a discussion has been held (at AfD), and there is not a consensus for deletion. I suggest making the case for inclusion of any disputed material on the actual merits of that material (and not on the above interpretations of EDITCONSENSUS). It's a necessary step, and one more likely of success. - Ryk72 talk 00:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
"although we often in practice see that consensus formed through further editing/reverting/discussion using edit summaries" - Which editconsensus clearly says to not do and which is what has occurred on this page surrounding this very material. "The protection against capricious or malicious removal is that editors need to provide a genuine, reasonable (policy or source based) rationale for removal." - Which would be an entirely different policy which editconsensus says nothing about nor did your original statement. "there is not a consensus for deletion" - incorrect, there is a result of no consensus. Under your interpretation the article could be blanked and a new discussion would have to occur to overhaul that dispute because there isn't a consensus. However, because it is a no consensus result per WP:NOCONSENSUS : "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." With the afd discussion being about the removal of material along with the dozen or so sections above about this same material, that would mean the material would remain until a new discussion to overturn that.--WillC 01:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Piecewise: Template:Tq - Indeed. Template:Tq - No individual policy is all-encompassing; this aspect is covered at [18]. Template:Tq - These are not incompatible or incongruous statements. Template:Tq - No. Template:Tq - No, to both the premise and the conclusion. AfD discussions are about: a) whether an article subject is sufficiently notable for inclusion; b) whether an article subject is appropriate for inclusion (cf. WP:NOT).
If material is disputed, then a consensus will need to be formed based on the merits of that material itself. Persistent wikilawyering will not avoid that. - Ryk72 talk 01:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
As far as I understand, the ultimate conclusion of the rules as you describe them is that someone with enough free time could walk in here, come up with rationale (which needn't be sensible) to remove each part that is of a certain viewpoint (thus leaving the article only pushing their preferred PoV) and then hold them locked down on the talk page until a clear consensus is reached for their inclusion back. Combine that with getting a few editors who agree with that viewpoint to join in on the talk page, and they can continue this for as long as they have the time. It just doesn't make sense that deletion has such precedence over inclusion. WP:VANDALISM does not cover this for as long as the 'offending' editor gives some indication of acting in good faith, which isn't a very high bar to meet. In addition, no regard seems to be given to WP:TE as a whole here. Someone who vehemently disagreed with the existence of this article can sit here to their heart's content and delete everything they find policy rationale to remove, as some sort of consolation prize after the AfD failed. Every few days that I come to this article, it has been edited to almost entirely push a "there was no media bias" PoV, both in its lede and bulk of content, by the efforts of a few highly motivated repeat editors. Allowing them to remove parts they don't like with priority on their side (the reasoning given usually being effortless to come up with, such as "this is an isolated incident" or "I don't trust this pundit's word") further skews the situation in their favor. The picture you paint of the harmonious coexistence of gentle WP policies doesn't work when bad-faith actors think or pretend they act in good faith. And we know for a fact that bad-faith actors exist and have motivation to disappear certain viewpoints – notably that politicians opposed to the interests of these actors' employers, donors or favored candidate have been getting any sort of negative treatment by the election organizers or the media covering them. Selvydra (talk) 09:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
This does seem bewilderingly conspiratorial. Template:Tq - No, it's not. Template:Tq - Yes, because it was a comment on an interpretation of EDITCONSENSUS. If one editor feels that another is editing tendentiously, they should address that. Template:Tq - Visual arts are not my medium of choice. - Ryk72 talk 17:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Astroturfing exists and is not a conspiracy. But fair enough – as your unelaborated "No, it's not." rebuttal conveys that you don't seem to think I'm worth the time of a serious discussion, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Selvydra (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
It's elaborated in the very next point. Template:Tq The someone with enough time needs to provide reasonable rationales for their edits. If they do, those rationales should be engaged with. If they do not, and do remove each part that is of a certain viewpoint (thus leaving the article only pushing their preferred PoV), it will become quickly apparent that they are editing tendentiously. My original point stands: one cannot rely on EDITCONSENSUS to include disputed material, as the implied consensus collapses once the material is disputed; one must engage with the rationales provided for the removal. Nothing more, nothing less. It should not be extrapolated. I've made no comment on other editors and do not intend to do so. - Ryk72 talk 22:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Aha, I'm starting to understand what you mean now. While acknowledging that you're not going to comment on other editors, at least one editor here has been editing in a manner that fulfills the description of WP:TE in the opinion of several other editors (with patterns such as deleting or trimming sections while giving reasons not based on any rules, guidelines or most observers' common sense), and has been called out by them. And yet, nothing has happened and they have continued contributing that same PoV. It feels that WP rules are relatively toothless in this situation – and so, what the next step is after Template:Tq remains an open question.
One more question, if you will – what in your experience is a clear enough consensus to restore disputed-and-deleted content? I'm asking this because it seemed to me that the AfD was majority-keep on most if not all metrics (numbers of editors and their arguments), but it was left as 'no consensus'. I'm worried that it's enough for an exclusionist to achieve a 'no consensus' situation to win the content dispute. Selvydra (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
It's an interesting question. I'm inclined to invoke Justice Potter Stewart in Jacobellis v Ohio Template:Tq, but realise that that's not particularly helpful. Will reply, likely elsewhere, once I have something more concrete. - Ryk72 talk 03:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Under that same policy, if I dispute your removal then no new consensus has been formed. That's literally what the sentence says. If you were to then revert my edit that would constitute an act of edit warring. You see how that is a problem? Your statement also means that editconsensus shouldn't exist as a policy because it doesn't actually exist if any editor can just overturn any consensus even with that action being disputed. It automatically gives power to people who just want to remove things because they don't like it and harms the ability of editing articles. Logically that is like any editor deleting an article because they feel like it. To not even have to provide discussion or any logical reasoning to remove the material but simply disputing its inclusion would mean vandalism is fine and you can only revert vandalism with a discussion. However hyperbolic that may seem, you are arguing that people can removed material and have that removal be disputed and get their way simply by doing it. Basically saying I can go to any article I want and remove a sentence and say "Doesn't belong here" and I can't be reverted because I dispute that material.--WillC 00:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Reductio ad absurdum is very close to strawmanning. - Ryk72 talk 01:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
So instead of a reply you chose ab absurdo. Nice--WillC 04:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I have gone ahead and done the following:

  • Pulled up the version before extensive changes by Template:U and then Template:U
  • Added to it undisputed citations and MOS- and grammar-related changes by the aforementioned two as well as by other editors and a bot since (Template:U, Template:U, AnomieBOT), and submitted it. (I did my best here, but I may have missed something, as this was a somewhat chaotic effort due to the many revisions in between)
  • Undid the above edit, as it is currently being argued by Template:U and MrX that deletion holds priority, and inclusion requires consensus. (This is still under discussion)

In taking the above steps, I have brought up-to-date the old version that was being restored. This will have separated undisputed, innocent MOS etc. changes from the current dispute regarding removed content. So, if you wish to undo the changes by Snooganssnoogans and MrX, revert my latest reversion rather than going back to the old one from Dec. 23rd (UTC). And feel free to further update my changes if I missed any undisputed ones. Selvydra (talk) 14:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:Tq This is not something that I have ever written. Please do not misrepresent other editor's comments. - Ryk72 talk 17:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
That is how I interpreted your response of, Template:Tq. I'm starting to question my ability to parse English if this is not summarizable as 'deletion holds priority'. Selvydra (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
All changes to Wikipedia main space are subject to reversion (at any point) upon a declared <policy or source based> dispute, only to be restored if a clear consensus in favour of restoration is reached. Deletion of content is not special. - Ryk72 talk 22:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Deletion obviously holds priority in the absence of consensus for new changes (i.e. all changes on this article which has only existed for a month). That's how it's always worked. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
That is my understanding as well, and I do have some experience editing. - MrX 🖋 14:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps MrX or Syl can strike through or add done to the list above so we can be clear what's still up for debate. This particular thread has gotten pretty unwieldy at this point and if any other editors want to get involved, there's a lot of text to go through Slywriter (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
I will try to do that later today.- MrX 🖋 18:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:U, I have marked the items that I think are resolved (accepted or compromised). Please let me know if that helps.- MrX 🖋 01:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
I maintain that this interpretation of WP policies doesn't account for the fact that there was an AfD, in which no consensus for deletion was found. This is because, were I to blank this entire page (with reasons given for each section that I removed), a consensus would be needed to bring any of it back. A consensus to keep was not achieved in the AfD, so it's reasonable to expect one wouldn't be reached now, either – so even the path of consensus (the only differentiating factor between 'no consensus' and 'delete' in this case) only exists in name. Thus, 'no consensus' is effectively equivalent to 'delete whatever and whatever convenient'.
Not only that, but this order of priorities creates a large incentive for WP:OZD , when deleting sticks and improving doesn't. All in all, it's highly discouraging. In all honesty, it's making me feel like this article might as well just be deleted then – as should any article that has enough detractors not to achieve a clear consensus of 'keep'. Selvydra (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
You seem to be confusing editing, which includes removing content, with article deletion, which is an entirely different process with different criteria. - MrX 🖋 18:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
No – I was using as an example the wholesale removal of a page by breaking it into increments and then deleting each increment. I could just as easily have used the example of removing all content that opposes a certain PoV. Selvydra (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:U Scroll up until you see the list of numbers in bold (or Ctrl+F: And here are my responses ). That's where it is right now, unless MrX wants to further reply to that. Selvydra (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
2 and 6, neutral language could resolve those. Also 6 refers to a topic specifially noted in the lede about misleading graphics.
3 should be removed, loaded language and all that
4 and 8, don't see the source as reliable but that's in the hands of RS notice board.
9, Only Nate Silver is potentially reliable. A tweet isn't significant and Axelrod's comment is a spontaneous outburst given UNDUE deference.
11, analysis does not seem to be anything more than a snapshot on a brief time
14, any comparison to Biden is tenuous at best. Front runners and fmr Veep's get more coverage. That's just how it works. More material, more videos. Plus Biden has skeletons(real or imagined) for the media to search for
15, hate that article. Topic is marginal and article is just a mismash hit piece
Slywriter (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Axelrod's comment is also being picked up by other sources, one of which I gave above. So that Due argument is becoming very week at this point. Biden and Sanders are basically tied in several states with Sanders leading and the Biden lead shrinking. Showing a disparity in media cover for a media coverage article is only logical and rationale.--WillC 04:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Can we add a section about Bernie's use of social media as that is part of media?

Bernie has a life long reflex of seeking to bypass media gatekeepers and reach people directly. This started with his home published paper and continued with his Mayoral T.V. show in Burlington. In 2016 he took to social media in a way never before seen. He spent 29 million dollars on Revolution Messaging to do social media outreach - more than an order of magnitude more than Hillary or previous presidential campaign spent. While previous contenders such as Obama had large, organic, grassroots social media followings Bernie utilized fake accounts and bot nets to astroturf his social media presence. They also used the fact that many people have a high degree of trust in social media content to spread claims that would not pass fact checking in other forums.

Even if you completely ignore the Russian social media interference on his behalf what Revolution Media did was game changing. It opened a door that, like it or not, every future politician will have to walk through to remain competitive. Campaign memes are now as important as campaign ads. Bot nets have become tools of the trade and upvotes profit centers.

Here is a case study by Revolution Messaging about how their campaign for Bernie turned his numbers around and also established a new political fundraising model that was incredibly abundant.

″The Sanders campaign spent more on digital advertising than all federal races combined in 2008. And with good reason."

From FEC Data you see $29 million dedicated to online outreach augmented by a portion of the 83 million to Old Towne Media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:4102:CFEC:6D7A:3689:54E0:81ED (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

This seems more like an ad and WP:OR than anything else. MikkelJSmith (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree social media is part of the subject logically entailed by the entry title. Oddly, no mention is currently made of RT's coverage of Sanders in the entry (though there is mention of Ed Schultz), no Young Turks (TYT)... Rather than looking for endless opinion articles about RT or TYT, I would suggest reducing the size of this article drastically so it could find a permanent home in an entry about media circus skirmishes surrounding coverage of Democratic primaries. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 11:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Why? The topic is obviously noteworthy on its own and would be giving undue weight in any other article. It is literally a phenomenon and a discussion in media about the Sanders coverage.--WillC 12:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Just as uniformly negative media coverage of Tulsi Gabbard (or the Green party in 2016) by the MSM has been noteworthy (I noticed the lexico-statistical study in this article showing that TG was being hacked up much more thoroughly than BS by the MSM in 2020)... Singling out a candidate makes this appear quite unencyclopedic, especially given the high percentage of op-eds being fleshed out to fill up the page. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 15:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
The justifications of this article were discussed extensively in the AfD. Basically, Sanders is a notable primary candidate (in the top 2–4 both in 2016 and 2020) and media coverage of him has been discussed extensively – at least compared to coverage of Gabbard or other Presidential candidates. For instance, at the time of writing, this article has 74 references. Notability has been met by articles like Derangement Syndrome and even Cruz–Zodiac Killer meme, which lent credence to the existence of coverage-related articles of other politicians. And of those, Sanders is likely first in line per [19]]. I recommend you don't just take my word for it though, and skim the [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Media_bias_against_Bernie_Sanders AfD] to form your own understanding. Selvydra (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
You might want to quit citing the AfD discussion. It was closed as no consensus and the discussion was widely canvassed which not only violates our policies, but it corrupts the integrity of the process. - MrX 🖋 17:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Mind you it was canvassed from both sides of the argument.--WillC 17:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't seem fair to me to dismiss all the input by experienced editors on there just because pro- and anti-Sanders communities canvassed it. And it's useful context for how this page came to be. We reached a consensus on a name change following that discussion. Selvydra (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Trump Derangement Syndrome is the exact reason I oppose this article as quote farm. It's edited in a random haphazard manner to both placate Pro Trump Editors and Insult Pro Trump Editors. It is not a encyclopedia entry. And the name change here has only seemed to embolden editors to shove as many quotes on either side. Take a look at the comments by outside editors at RS, Village Pump and DR. They are all coming to the same conclusion, this article is bloated with unnecessary information. Slywriter (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Those comments aren't one sided. They are mainly above this discussion. Very few of them are pointing directly at content but the subject as a whole. Some land on either side of issues.--WillC 09:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The newly added challenged content should be removed until there is consensus for inclusion

It's absurd that newly added content (e.g. numerous op-eds, the bloated paragraphs elaborating on every petty complaint against the media) that has been challenged by multiple editors is kept in the article without consensus. That is absolutely not how Wikipedia works. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Earlier, you argued that since this article is a month-old, all of it is new and subject to removal upon dispute. Which is it – some specific op-eds and bloated paragraphs, or the whole article? What do you posit as the time limit of [20]]? Experienced editors seem to have opinions going both ways regarding the significance of WP:SILENT and deletion having indefinite priority pre-consensus. After looking through your edits, I found myself agreeing to some of them – specifically, the trimming of some sections. However, it is hard (even without 1RR limiting nuance in reversions) to include most of your edits – mainly the removal of content – when most explanations you've provided for them (e.g. [[WP:BIASED biased] sources or 'pundits' not being RS) have been engaged with repeatedly and you typically haven't followed up with substance. This seems to be in line with complaints others have had of your editing on other pages on your talk page. You're free to have opinions counter to policy/guidelines, but I don't think you shouldn't enforce those opinions without consensus here. Selvydra (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
He isn't going to reply to you. He just wants to continue doing TE until he gets reported for doing TE.--WillC 17:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
You don't know what you're talking about re: Wikipedia policy, and it's getting to be incredibly tiresome to respond to these long diatribes by inexperienced editors who have little to no experience editing US politics pages, whose US politics edits are near-exclusively related to pushing pro-Sanders viewpoints, and whose application of Wikipedia policy is entirely dependent on whether it supports pro-Sanders POVs. There is no Wikipedia page where newly added content gets automatically included over challenges by multiple editors, except on this page where you, the wrestling editor and the 7-week old account User:MikkelJSmith2 keep edit-warring the challenged content back n. At the same time, regular veteran editors are trying to address all these incredibly basic misunderstandings of Wikipedia policy on the talk page and are trying to put in the hard work of fixing this disaster of a Wikipedia article, but all this hard-work is a complete waste of time when you and the other pro-Sanders editors refuse to correct the misunderstandings of Wikipedia policy and repeatedly revert the hard work that others put into making the article compliant with Wikipedia policy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
One, I haven't been edit-warring, I reverted due to the lack of consensus above. Other editors have also reverted due to the lack of consensus, Template:U is an example of another editor that's reverted stuff here. I've also currently found a solution to one of the arguments by users regarding one of Template:U's complaints and am adding a fix that will hopefully satisfy people. The things that were kept were things like MOS. Furthermore, one thing that would have been obvious if you checked my account is that this account is only 7 weeks old, due to the fact that I lost my previous account. Thirdly, I've been trying to address the problems on the page as well, I've added RS sources. I have no clue why you're being condescending when talking to me as well. MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
This is your edit[21], right? You're not only indiscriminately restoring newly added content that multiple editors have challenged, but you're falsely claiming that "one of the most experience editors on the site" gave you permission for your edit-warring. Snooganssnoogans (talk)
I restored Template:U's edit. And like I said, it was restored due to the lack of consensus regarding the removal of content. Furthermore, Selvydra's edit sas reinstored due to the fact that it answered complaints in other sections.- MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
I started an external discussion hereWP:Village_pump_(policy)#Newly_added_content_that_has_been_challenged_by_multiple_editors, after first starting one here (which was apparently not the right venue for policy feedback)WP:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Media_coverage_of_Bernie_Sanders_discussion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:Ping I've been waiting for that exact argument to come up because it was bound to happen. I have been on wikipedia for 11 years going on 12. I started in 2008 and I have been involved in basically creating and shaping an entire project with a handful of editors, to taking completely unfinished and almost non-existent articles across an entire subject and bringing them not just to existence but to FL, GA, to FA statuses along with dozens of DYKs and even having two placed on the main page of wikipedia. I have been involved in admin choices, noticeboard violations, and hundreds of discussions with even more contentious topics than this page across numerous pages including multipart multimonth discussions over one single policy that branched out into how the very sentences should be structured to explain an object or physical action. I also spent 7 years in undergrad studying a triple major in Applied and International Economics, Paralegal Science, and Political Science. I also was part of the College Dems club and involved myself in debates for said group. I worked as a paralegal studying legislation and political narrative while winning a scholarship for Paralegals. Also pursued a Master's of Applied Economics. My interest in politics is nothing new. I've edited politics off and on over the years as I read them. I just never wanted to be involved extensively on the subject. So if you wish to question my knowledge on this subject due to my lack of extensive involvement over years I'll consider that a personal attack when my user page is a clear badge regarding my abilities in this subject along with all of Wikipedia. To judge an editor based on their name, I would be remiss to forgo mentioning your user name is a statement from Jay and Silent Bob.--WillC 21:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
With such an extensive resume then you know this article is wrong. It's a list of incidents with no context because to add context requires original research. We are trying to write about a moment in time we are living and any historian would tell you that it's doomed to fail because the topic isn't STEM. No mathematical proofs or peer reviewed research to cite. Only subjective opinions by non independent sources. Slywriter (talk) 05:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
There are peer-reviewed studies of the 2016 primary that paint a nuanced picture of the process. There are also analyses (statistical and otherwise) published in leftist media (what a surprise that corporate-owned media won't investigate the bias of corporate-owned media), which to my knowledge haven't been disputed as untrue but rather dismissed because of the source, or because of alleged selection bias or some other way that in-and-of-themselves correct statistics can be spun. All these are represented on the page. I agree that, in the longer term, individual incidents should be summarized concisely so that they comprise a coherent whole (while avoiding OR, of course – it should then be left to the reader to make their own interpretations). This page has an unique opportunity to bring the two sides under the same scrutiny, and to distill facts from the chaos, rather than leaving people to be divided up based on what media they consume. (These leftist sources are more commonly read than people who pan them may think – they're regularly at the top of /r/politics on Reddit.) Selvydra (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Reddit which has a huge pro Sanders group that actively pushes articles to the top of r/politics.
2016 is fair game for a real discussion. It has had time to mature as a topic. It's the immediate past that my main issue is with
Slywriter (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Oh, but those sites aren't only upvoted by Sanders supporters. Earlier in the year, Kamala Harris made it to the top of r/politics most often. Then it was Sanders. Then Warren. Buttigieg and more recently Yang have had their moments. Now Sanders is popular again. In any case, my point was that these sites have not-insignificant reader bases, which tied to my argument of balance, in giving their (and not just mainstream media's) readerships a more balanced story too.
Given that pages on WP exist covering both immediate events and matured events, we'd need some sort of consensus on categorizing this firmly as the latter if we wanted to reach your viewpoint, here. (A more experienced editor can correct me with policy/guidelines, if this is incorrect.) Selvydra (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but immediate events are covered using universally agreed facts. Who won a fight. Who was the perpetrator. How many died. Who received the award. The answer is ultimately the same, regardless of the source. This is conjecture. An article written by a biased writer who supports the candidate, an anti msm news source saying Msm is biased. These are not facts. They are opinions and they are not throughly vetted opinions. There inclusion here is only to fit the POV of the editor who wants to include them. And again, 3 Seperate Notice boards found issues with the sources and tone of this article. Slywriter (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I do understand where you're coming from. You should consider starting another AfD if enough time has elapsed from the previous one, raising these noticeboards' insights as motivation that the outlook of this article's existence has changed or been updated significantly. Or, a Rename Discussion on "Media Coverage of Bernie Sanders' 2016 Presidential campaign." I think leaving the limitation to 2016 as implicit would confuse a lot of readers and would-be editors. Selvydra (talk) 11:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
"With such an extensive resume then you know this article is wrong. It's a list of incidents with no context because to add context requires original research. We are trying to write about a moment in time we are living and any historian would tell you that it's doomed to fail because the topic isn't STEM. No mathematical proofs or peer reviewed research to cite. Only subjective opinions by non independent sources." - No, that is the characterization people want to have of this article. It is groups, companies, journalists, experts, politicians, etc. that are making statements analyzing and critiquing the media coverage of a presidential candidate who has been in politics for decades that has gone through two separate campaigns for the highest office. We are in a situation where an actual organization designed entirely for media analytics is being questioned on whether it should be used more than one time, which is absolutely insane because it isn't the only source in the article. We are questioning the reliability of magazines and non-profit organizations just because they lean a certain direction regarding political views which is like saying Institution is unreliable. We are making claims that completely go against literal sentences in policies and continue the same arguments for no reason. The issue isn't about who said what, it is about a group of editors want to include information from reliable sources and recognizable individuals that is being covered by secondary sources and another group of editors who don't want to discuss that content but want it removed and have openly stated they want this article deleted entirely. That isn't a disagreement on policy. That is bias by the editors. We have studies on both sides claiming a bias, it depends on the editor on who holds what to a higher standard. The issue is what is important and what is not and we need to remove bias and have discussions on this material. It can't be an all or nothing situation. I've done this enough to see that is what this is.--WillC 09:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Think Progress & Shareblue Media

I did a bit of poking around following up on some of the threads that were opened in discussion. I don't know how people might like to write this up better, and don't particularly want to be in charge of doing it, but it seems to me these articles all speak to media coverage of Bernie Sanders:

Template:Tq2 I remember Brock questioning Sanders' health back in 2016 was reported in several articles at Politico (1, 2), 15 months before Brock had his heart attack. Both appear to be "still alive and kicking" in 2019, whereas I notice that [22] shut down in September.


Template:Reflist-talk 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 16:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I do not oppose any of the proposed content above, except the line "but has remained a vocal critic of the Senator with ample media access during the 2020 campaign", which is synthesis. This actually appears to be mostly reliably sourced content for once. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes this is one of those "water is wet" type claims that the opposition loves to require that you document with an article both saying that "water is wet" and somehow also relating to the subject of the encyclopedia entry (here, Sanders). Here's one WaPo opinion piece that suggests the unlove between Senator Sanders and Operative Brock is deep-seated and that Brock had, has, and will have ample media access.[2]


🌿 SashiRolls t · c 18:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Not sure "surrogate" works. "Supporter" or "ally"? - Ryk72 talk 17:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
I was following the headline and lead sentence of this Politico article, but yes "surrogate" is dated now. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 18:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm fine with either added. Both about media coverage. So this is fine.--WillC 09:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

After modifying the tiny part Snoogans disagreed with (after originally saying without any caveat that he did "not oppose any of the proposed content above"), and after also modifying what Ryk72 pointed out as potentially dated, I added this info to the article. Snoogans deleted it wholesale within 24 hours despite their previous approval. I would remind Snoog of the following behavioral guideline WP:Gaming_the_system#Gaming_the_consensus-building_process, in particular point #3. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 16:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Your follow-up revert is a clear 1RR violation Snoogans.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 16:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Deleted text

SashiRolls desperately wants this text in the article, and has both violated WP:BRD and made threats on the talk page to get it back. This text obviously does not belong on the page, as it has nothing to do with the topic of the article: "Writing in NBC News in January 2019, Brock compared Sanders' statements in 2016 with Trump's subsequent statements, suggesting that Trump's borrowing of Sanders' thunder may have helped cost Clinton the election." The sentence is also a strange summary of the source[23]. It's been restored due to SashiRolls's BRD violation and threats. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I have now even restored the duplication of the text[24] amid SashiRolls's threat to have me sanctioned and goading others into filing a case against me on the edit-warring noticeboard.[25] This content should be reverted immediately (it both duplicates content, features a completely inane line from a Brock op-ed which has nothing to do with the subject, and for some reason places this content in the second section of the article[26]). I thought that SashiRolls would be able to abide by WP:BRD and to not oppose verbatim duplication of content, but that was clearly the wrong assumption to make of the editor with the perhaps the most extensive log of blocks in recent years in American politics editing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
The 2019 text shows that Brock has been an actor in both 2016 & 2020 media coverage of Bernie Sanders. While you characterize the summary as "strange", I notice you don't claim it is false. ^^ Remember, this is because you objected to the "water is wet" claim about Brock having access to all sorts of MSM platforms like NBC News for example... now as for what I "desperately want", I don't think that has much to do with Brock, Wikipedia, or you... concerning my block related to [this edit], comment on content, not contributors, and note the line through the name Sagecandor... also feel free to delete the lines you added to the 2016 & 2020 sections and to reread the civility pillar.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 17:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
"The 2019 text shows that Brock has been an actor in both 2016 & 2020 media coverage of Bernie Sanders. " That is pretty much textbook WP:SYNTH . Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:Ping Seeing the issues with TE going on around here now?--WillC 17:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Yay. More useless synthesis. Look forward to the AfD discussion in the New Year because all attempts to make this article into something encyclopedic have been met with resistance by those who believe a Bias exists and thus must be documented with partisan, non independent, non scholarly sources. Slywriter (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Things always have a tendency to heat up when you talk about Brock for some reason. :) 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 17:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes yes, TE. One could argue it applies to those who wish for weak, partisan information to remain in this article and have hidden behind false consensus, that anything quotable is notable, and synthesis to make their case for inclusion of information. Slywriter (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
To quote Syth you have to clearly point out where the new claim is being made and what type of source would be needed to cover that. It isn't just a blanket policy. This lies with the person who claims the policy.--WillC 19:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Stop insinuating that editors are being paid by Brock or some other actors with malicious motives, and/or that editors are conspiring together. It's incredibly tiresome to re-read these insinuations year after year. You've already been blocked for similar accusations. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
One of my earliest experiences in AmPol was watching someone getting blocked over Mr. Oppo-research Brock. Brock is not someone you discuss at dinner, in general. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 19:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Back to Content

In response to your content question, I think Brock (Priorities, USA; Media Matters; Correct the Record, Shareblue Media) & Tandem / Podesta (CAP, DNC) probably belong in the background section and would not object to the paragraphs sentences being added there without a special section header. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 20:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Big Red Ref Errors on the Page

Since yesterday, I notice that there are six reference errors on the page: 18, 21, 47, 48, 49, 50. Prior to your revert, Template:Ping there were no reference errors on this page. Could you look into what you did to make them appear and fix that, please? 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 10:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Done. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I've chipped away at the article some. Don't worry you've still contributed more than 2.5 times more than any other editor to the state of this article, which I hope is "better" now than it was before. I would suggest streamlining the "Books" section, which I haven't looked at yet. I know that we'll cut the article back a bit just by leaving the titles out of the wiki-text. (There is no reason to be redundant; there is ref roll-over which is largely sufficient for crediting authors and titles.) 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 17:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

noticeboard time?

Snoogans has said in an edit summary that I threatened him above. Does anybody see a threat in the previous section? Should people be allowed to make false & aggressive statements in edit summaries? Cf. #1 in WP:SANCTIONGAMING

I gather you do not want Shareblue Media and Think Progress to have their own section, despite their negativity towards Sanders in both the 2016 & 2020 primaries?

If anyone wants to take this to a noticeboard, it is an obvious violation 1RR violation: 1) Dec 31 2019 16:06, 2) Dec 31 2019 14:57. Had I realized the content had been hidden in two different sections (in other words had Snoogans explained what they had done in their massive revert on the talk page rather than violating policy by edit-warring in mainspace), I could have deleted the sentences they buried in the 2016 and 2020 sections. However, by intervening with the policy-violating 2nd revert, they have made it such that I too would be edit-warring if I did, so I'll leave this page well enough alone until others have had a chance to weigh in (or until the weekend).

The Shareblue & Think Progress section will likely grow over time as others add more articles about it. The first two paragraphs were written very quickly, there is plenty more to dig into. Why would you constrain Brock & Think Progress to one campaign when they have been actors in both? 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 16:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you genuinely believe that your two paragraphs about Shareblue and Think Progress are so incredibly important that they deserve a section of their own, and that this section should be the first section of the article on the topic of media bias, ahead of both the 2016 and 2020 sections? You genuinely believe this? And this is what you're violating WP:BRD over and making threats over? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
I do believe that the role of Brock & Tandem is worth exploring in this article, yes. As for the rest of your cheerful prose, I have no further comment. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 17:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
"I do believe that the role of Brock & Tandem is worth exploring in this article, yes." In a section of their own, and as the first section on the topic of media bias? Just to be clear, I have no objection to including content on "the role of Brock & Tandem" in the article. It should just not to be in a section of its own, and it should not include irrelevant and incomprehensible lines of synthesis. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm fine with the material being added if it is sourced and is about media coverage.--WillC 17:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Do you believe it should be in a section of its own and that it should be the first section on media bias in the article? And that this incomprehensible and irrelevant sentence should be included? "Writing in NBC News in January 2019, Brock compared Sanders' statements in 2016 with Trump's subsequent statements, suggesting that Trump's borrowing of Sanders' thunder may have helped cost Clinton the election." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
It is about negative treatment in media coverage. It fits the very point of the article. This is a work in progress article. You object to absolutely every addition in this article regardless of what it is and what sources.--WillC 19:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
"You object to absolutely every addition in this article regarding of what it is and what sources." That's completely false. I explicitly said that the content (minus the irrelevant SYNTH sentence) was fine. I argued that it should not be given its own section and that this section should not be the first section that covers media bias. You have still not clarified whether you agree that the content should have its own section and that the section should be the first one that covers media bias. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
To quote SYNTH you have provide what new statement is being made and what source would be needed to cover it.--WillC 19:50, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
What are you responding to? Please add your comment to the appropriate part of this talk page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
" (minus the irrelevant SYNTH sentence)"--WillC 19:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Per SashiRolls's own comments (incl. "The 2019 text shows that Brock has been an actor in both 2016 & 2020 media coverage of Bernie Sanders" + "Remember, this is because you objected to the "water is wet" claim about Brock having access to all sorts of MSM platforms like NBC News for example"), the intent is somehow to give readers the impression that Brock is a deceptive hypocrite and that the media is giving him prominent platforms to attack Sanders. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


I think you should be paying attention to Czar's comment at the moment. I also note that not one word of your previous comment has ever been in mainspace and so talking about SYNTH without citing something in mainspace is nonsense. But first, you should really get back to figuring out what to do about all those archived links...🌿 SashiRolls t · c 20:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

"I also note that not one word of your previous comment has ever been in mainspace and so talking about SYNTH without citing somethin in mainspace is nonsense." I do not have a clue what you're trying to say. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
That not one word of what you cite me saying at 20:20 (just above) has ever been in mainspace. That is a talk page comment which you are claiming is SYNTH.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 20:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
The other guy is asking me why it's synth. My answer was that your own descriptions of the content explain why it's synth. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
What was in mainspace was: "Writing in NBC News in January 2019, Brock compared Sanders' statements in 2016 with Trump's subsequent statements, suggesting that Trump's borrowing of Sanders' thunder may have helped cost Clinton the election." [3]
Confusing? sure. Precise description of the article? yep. SYNTH? erm... no.


🌿 SashiRolls t · c 22:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
I need to keep these comments saved because I've just been given evidence that Snoogans has no idea what SYNTH even is and it just claiming it because it sounds good. Literally doesn't know that the policy is about making new claims in the main space.--WillC 09:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:Ping, this undiscriminating revert overwrites all of my citation and sourcing work with no explanation. Please either describe your objections to those edits or restore the material. czar 19:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

  • That was unintentional. Is there an easy way to restore the citation information? I do not have much experience on that front. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Just as a general comment on this dispute: I support the inclusion of content on Tanden and Brock (Think Progress / Shareblue). Since both Snoogans and Sashi are saying that the content could be better written, I think people should put forward suggestions for improvement instead of getting hung up on disputing the inclusion of hastily written lines. Selvydra (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


Articles that focus on timing will be helpful. Most Bernie fans disliked the timing of the WaPo's 16 stories before a key primary. I remember the negative coverage of the Daily News interview before the NY primary was quite pivotal. Democracy Now found Clinton's performance for the same editorial board (regarding the Honduran coup) much more shocking as I recall (yep), but DN isn't the MSM. I know Juan Gonzalez commented that he thought Sanders had done pretty well in the interview given the wide-ranging scope of the questions... [27] DN: April 6, 2016. ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 18:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Such statements from DN would probably have to be attributed, given that they're "described as progressive by fans and critics". But they ought to be valuable for telling the progressive opinion. I did already add in language about the timing re: the 16 WaPo stories that is still there – but the NYDN thing could be added as well along with that DN citation. Selvydra (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Author Bias

On December 1, 2019, author both created and published an article originally titled Media bias against Bernie Sanders. In this article, author makes a multitude of dubious assertions supported by flimsy, incomplete, and often extremely absurd citations; so much so that the article had to be rewritten by other editors; the title had to be changed, and the general premise of the article was completely altered. Author repeatedly engages in discussions online demonstrating not only a bias in favor of Senator Sanders, but also a belief that him being elected is a matter of human survival. On author's Template:Redacted YouTube channel, the following comments were located, appearing on pro-Bernie videos:


Author has not, at any point, openly communicated the existence of his own bias in favor of Senator Sanders. A version of this section was posted on author's talk section, but it was not addressed and summarily censored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant. TonyBallioni, can you hide the identifying info above? The user links to an editor's purported youtube channel. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
It isn't irrelevant, especially given that the author claimed a media bias against Senator Sanders when in fact the actual bias (meant to paint Sanders as a victim) originated from the author, that both the premise and conclusion of the article had to be changed because the author's "evidence" was clearly slanted in one direction, and that author's bias is extreme enough to the point of openly spreading propaganda. (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
The 'premise' was changed because editors on both sides of the argument agreed upon the more careful/NPOV wording in a consensus, and the 'conclusion' is undergoing changes because Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as WP:BRD , allow it. Selvydra (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


RfC: Content by "Paste magazine"

Should the following content by "Paste magazine" be included? If so, which version: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Version A:

  • Shane Ryan from Paste Magazine reported that 48 hours after Sanders' declaration to run, the Post published four negative articles about him, two of which were by the same author, Jennifer Rubin. Rubin had criticized Sanders as a dated, unpopular candidate, predicting that his launch would be a resounding failure; the next day Sanders reached record fundraising numbers. Rubin continued to disparage the senator's success in what Ryan called, "a great big point-missing whiff, and a lame attempt at self-justification after being made to look like a fool a day earlier."[28]

Version B:

  • Paste Magazine criticized The Washington Post for publishing four negative opinion editorials about Sanders, including two by conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin.[29]


  • Should not be included. If it's included, then B is the better version. - This should preferably not be included, because it's (1) by a non-RS, (2) incredibly petty (who cares that WaPo published four negative op-eds about Sanders over the course of two days?), (3) this is not a RS so it's unclear whether WaPo also happened to run positive or neutral pieces about him during this period, and (4) because it's a BLP violation: Rubin does NOT describe Sanders as a dated, unpopular politician whose campaign launch will be a resounding failure.[30][31] If it's to be included, then B is better than A, because it's short, to the point and free of the BLP violation. Version A claims that this is a "report" by Paste magazine but Paste magazine is not a RS; it should be attributed as an opinion. Version A is also incredibly long, obscures that the author is criticizing WaPo for publishing op-eds ("articles" may make readers think these are news reports by WaPo), and includes some in-the-weeds tangential criticism by the author of one of Rubin's op-eds. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
What makes Paste a non-RS? Cause it has been sited by CNN and the Chicago Tribune, while having won an award by the latter. Seems like a reliable source to me. You ask why negative posts by a mainstream publication is important in an article about media coverage? Why are spiders important in the [32]. The answer is pretty clear. Certainly when the article isn't focused on the fact it happened but the speed and number of articles with relation the fact it happened before. This article is about media coverage. Stop trying to downplay all media coverage.--WillC 14:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:U, It seems that Paste is highly factual as well according to I am not a fan of some sources, but I try to be neutral in my assessment. The data seems to show that it's a factual source. As for it being biased, I'm pretty sure there's a Wikipedia guideline that allows them if they are attributed. Correct me if I'm wrong on that last bit. MikkelJSmith (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Sources can be biased and still be reliable too according to RS.--WillC 14:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
MediaBias/FactCheck is not a RS: "There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable."WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:U, I didn't know that. MikkelJSmith (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
This doesn't demonstrate that Paste is unfit for Wikipedia.Rafe87 (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
You've completely misused the RS rule. Are you saying that Paste magazine is not a reliable source for the things that Shane Ryan says? RS is and never has been a blanket. If Shane Ryan prints in Paste that he thinks something, then Paste is RS for that. The only RS argument there would be whether Paste is known for making up fake people and posting articles under their name. Even still, Paste is completely RS for the fact that Paste printed it. The rest of your points fail by the same token. Whether or not Rubin said that, Ryan said she did. Well, there's also point 2, and it's completely irrelevant. Seriously, "who cares" has to be the weakest objection to inclusion of content on WP I've ever seen. - Keith D. Tyler 18:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely not. (1) This is not "reporting". (2) The piece is a petty superficial analysis in an obscure outlet, which would not belong on any Wikipedia page and would be easily removed if not for the gatekeeping that is unique for this page. There is nothing notable about a major news outlet featuring op-eds against a candidate. If the content is to be included (which it should not be), version B gets to the point. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:U, woah, I'm sorry to say this, but you don't need to sound condescending. I was merely trying to help. I have no dog in this fight and I've even thanked you multiple times for your edits. I've also added some RS to the page (NYT, Politico, ABC News, CNN & Business Insider). In this case, I was just giving my opinion that's all, since I think the option I gave still follows WP:DUE and I attributed the claims for the source. MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • What part of UNDUE does this cover? Cause I'm not seeing it.--WillC 04:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete it - I have asserted that Paste is not a good source for a subject like this. It's a music magazine. I don't see other newspapers or news programs routinely citing Paste in their coverage of politics (WP:USEBYOTHERS). With all due respect to Shane Ryan, I simple don't find his attack of The Washington Post, and specifically Jennifer Rubin, to be substantive. This is not the type of material we should source for anything in a serious encyclopedia. - MrX 🖋 19:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:U, even though I changed my vote, I would be in favour of trimming it honestly -- especially since another editor on the noticeboard mentioned that Paste was an RS. I'm partial to what I wrote before by the way, since it fits better on the article. In case you missed it, this is what I mentioned : Shane Ryan from Paste Magazine reported that 48 hours after Sanders' campaign launch, the Post published four negative opinion pieces about him, two of which were by columnist Jennifer Rubin. Ryan argued these columns were a way of consent. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:Tq. (consider: "reported that within 48 hours of Sanders' campaign launch...")🌿 SashiRolls t · c 09:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:Re Right now, the RSN RfC is trending no consensus. In my view, shortening the wording does not fix the issue that the source article is little more than a swipe at a respected newspaper by a devoted Sander's supporter. It's not very objective and I don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia.- MrX 🖋 13:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
WaPo might be respected on Wikipedia, but outside of it, many left-leaning people have been wary of it since its acquisition by the world's wealthiest person, and its countless negative stories against Sanders during crucial time windows. This last point is something that people are constantly overlooking. For instance – in statistics, they could theoretically reach 50/50 positive/negative or inclusive/exclusive coverage of him by covering him at 60% positive/inclusive at most times, and at 10% positive/inclusive on the days after debates and before important primaries. (And I don't think I need mention right-leaning people's respect for WaPo.) Selvydra (talk) 12:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Status quo option (keep) I'm changing my vote due to another editor showing me that Paste is actually an RS on the RS noticeboard. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 13:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove it - Followed the RSN thread here. This sort of subject has a lot of reliable sources writing about it. A music magazine doesn't carry enough weight with such a body of literature available. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Change to C. Consider shortening it from A (though B is a little too devoid of context) – the version (C) above by Template:U seems like a decent compromise. As incendiary as Rubin is against Sanders (and sometimes Warren), the Wikipedia account of it needn't be such. I would support B for this incident if it was then augmented with more examples of WaPo's or Rubin's coverage of Sanders. Selvydra (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep A. It is relevant to the article topic and there is nothing wrong with version A. - Keith D. Tyler 18:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Change to C, a significant improvement over A, or remove. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 09:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support C as it is more encyclopaedic than A. Don't oppose leaving it out though. --X2 BEANS X2 (X2 talk) 11:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • C. Article needs to be a lot shorter to remain readable. I think C can be further shortened; i.e., is it questionable that the "four negative opinion pieces" is a fact? If not, remove the "according to" and move it closer to the claim of manufactured consent, the attributable opinion. I'm all for raising the bar for RS but I don't think this is the battle. There is the reliable, reported fact of WaPo's output and then there is Ryan's attributable opinion, both of which should be kept to a minimum unless itself the subject of secondary source commentary. czar 04:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: during the RfC the sentence in question was removed from the article leaving the reference stranded only in the lede. I have removed the reference in the lede which summarizes nothing in the body while we figure out what to do about it. [4]


🌿 SashiRolls t · c 11:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Altering lead

FYI I've change the lead to this:


I've changed the first sentence in accordance with [33] and [34]: Template:Tq The subject in this case is "Media coverage of Bernie Sanders."

What the coverage of Bernie Sanders is, is largely unbiased according to reliable, independent sources. If this article is really about Sanders Campaign's allegations, then the article should be moved to Blackout or whatever they're calling it. – drew Andrew and Drew Anne drew 03:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Please dont put that in Wikivoice, independent sources you mean the corporate media? It is what this article is about. Also what are these "multiple studies" that say the coverage is unbiased? We have only one study and another study by FAIR that says the media is biased.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
This is the heart of the problem behind this article: there is a constant push to turn this article back to what it originally was - a poorly written soapbox. We should absolutely be writing in what you call "Wikivoice" and we should absolutely use "corporate media" sources because what you consider to be "corporate media" are reliable sources in the eyes of most Wikipedians. Additionally, we have multiple studies cited in the article showing how Sanders' coverage was overly positive compared to other candidates. If you don't want to write in a "Wikivoice" and ignore reliable sources, you are free to do so on your blog or any other website, but please don't do it here. — Chevvin Chevvin 12:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
We have multiple "non-corporate" studies, and they didn't find bias against Sanders. There was a Harvard study about his coverage in 2016 that didn't find any bias against him. For the 2020 campaign, we have studies by Northeastern University's School of Journalism, which showed Sanders having a more positive media sentiment than both of the other leading contenders, Biden and Harris.
I'm all for documenting the allegations of bias, but we can't just regurgitate COISOURCE talking points in the first sentence and call it a day. – drew Andrew and Drew Anne drew 22:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
That is not a neutral point of view lead. That is objectively stating right out that this article is lies and a marketing tool. It is not handling this article as a national discussion in media beyond just the Sanders campaign. To start an article with "is unbiased" is basically going against every source in the article that points out that media coverage is not equal among the candidates and that several sources have published multiple negative articles in small timeframes. Yall forget, that NPOV goes both ways.--WillC 07:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
The lead cannot actively take a stand on this issue. It cannot say it is biased nor can it say it is unbiased. That would be an automatic violation of NPOV.--WillC 07:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:Tq That is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. We must weigh our sources according to their reliability, as not to present a false balance. Wikipedia recognizes that some sources are better than others.
The Trump Campaign often alleges that the mainstream media is biased against him. We cannot have an article called coverage of Donald Trump that starts with:
Instead we must look for scholarly sources to see whether or not they support this claim. – drew Andrew and Drew Anne drew 16:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:Od I believe the fundamental issue is that the first sentence of an article must simultaneously: Template:Ordered list Right now this article is article is written from the POV of the Sanders Campaign, with actual studies of bias against Sanders delegated to the "Response to criticisms" section. I now realize that this article used to be called "Media bias against Bernie Sanders", and it shows. – drew Andrew and Drew Anne drew 16:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Business Insider cites NYT analysis as proof that media is under-covering Sanders relative to Biden and Warren, and suggests Sanders' chances are being played down in the press:

Sanders gets less media attention that other top-tier candidates like former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, according to an analysis from The New York Times. Though some of this is likely due to Biden's name frequently being referenced in relation to the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, it could also reflect that the media is discounting and perhaps underestimating the Vermont senator.

In addition, Politico has published stuff on Sanders that has been widely lambasted as anti-semitic.

Wikipedia has yet to mention the article in this entry, apparently because editors here are approaching this subject from a pro-media perspective.Rafe87 (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:Ping, This is where I found the reference. I've read it referred to by quite a few authors in addition to those cited here. Could you explain your reasons for deleting this content in a new section?
There were a couple articles in Haaretz, at least one in the JP, as well as mention from Halper in one of her three articles, not sure which... there's also Jacobin, TYT. After looking into the story, I'd found a lot of outlets covered this, that's why I added it.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 14:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:Reflist-talk 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 14:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:U I guess I would have to read the other articles to be convinced that this is noteworthy. The content itself is very thin. It doesn't explain why Silow-Carroll's opinions are important, or how it fits into the overall context of this article's subject. The whole thing was based on an awkward tweet. How is this encyclopedic? It seems more coatrackish and trivial. - MrX 🖋 15:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I guess Halper refers to it obliquely in the 2nd line of the 2nd para of this article. Searching the article for "Zionist" also suggests this is not an isolated issue. I chose this article not because it was first, but because it seemed honest and well written (and also because he's a well-known journalist/editor-in-chief). In fact, you've slashed two editors in chief today (Jewish Week & The Nation). such bold, so cutting room floor. :) 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 15:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Template:Ping I completely agree the the lede as it is constitutes a flagrant NPOV violation. I restored your rewording of the lede and it has since been reverted again. Template:Ping if by Template:Tq you mean prioritizing reliable sources, then yes, editors should certainly approach their work with such a perspective. WMSR (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
There's no united "reliable source" view on this subject. Editors like you are cherrypicking the views they wish to promote as the only correct one.Rafe87 (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
There definitely isn't a consensus on "media not being biased according to reliable sources" as to change the entire lede to reflect it – especially not in such a straightforward, nuance-free fashion. Time and again, even sources concluding that media bias allegations are largely unfounded still make concessions that Sanders does suffer from it in some ways (see the 'Response to criticisms' section). If there's a consensus, I argue it is this: Sanders has benefited from positive coverage on average (especially from leftist media), but the low amount of coverage he's received has at the very least canceled out that benefit. On top of that, the negativity of it has spiked before important election days – e.g. the 16 negative WaPo articles in early March. So, as you can see, it's hard to draw simplistic conclusions on the topic, meaning it should be treated with nuance and care.
I should also add that the reason behind the name change discussion (that led to "bias against" -> "coverage of") was to address title NPOV concerns – not to move the goalposts for the article's contents. Several editors raised concerns that this change would act as validation for changing the tone of the article over time to, "Media coverage of him is fair & allegations of bias wrong, unless proven otherwise." This backdrop should be kept in mind when using the new title as grounds for major changes in the content or tone – particularly as the merits of the existence of a page on media bias against Sanders were already litigated in the lengthy AfD that did not result in article deletion. Selvydra (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, the result was "no consensus", which means the article may be put back up at AfD in the future as the community did not definitively rule on the merits of this article's existence. Slywriter (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The "unbiased" lead was a plain violation of "Prefer nonjudgmental language" section of NPOV. It was taking a stand on the issue that isn't supported by a clear majority nor supermajority of sources.--WillC 14:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia. Research studies are preferred as sources over political opinion pieces. – drew Andrew and Drew Anne drew 23:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
The version you've just inserted is a clear violation of WP:IMPARTIAL . Saying "X says P, even though Z says P is not the case" is WP taking a stance in favour of Z and against X, by implying P to be incorrect. The studies are already described at length in the following paragraph and there's no need to insert them into the very first sentence. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 04:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Those same studies say the coverage was positive but still say he received less coverage. I wouldn't call that strictly unbias. Regardless, it still takes a judgment on the situation which violates NPOV.--WillC 10:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:Ping How does this version violate NPOV?? Template:Tq is an impartial description of the situation. It is "neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view", as prescribed by WP:IMPARTIAL .
I see. You just want your preferred POV to be the only thing mentioned in first sentence. – drew Andrew and Drew Anne drew 13:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
It is clearly in violation of no judgmental language. It is taking a stand in an issue when sources are conflicted and there is no clear majority. The only way a majority is seen is by having an impartial view on the subject and thus it would be making a judgment in language. The current lead as least isn't trying to make a judgment but is clearly stating the subject of the article. Saying it is clearly unbiased is not stating the subject but is trying to convince the reader of a position in the first sentence. That isn't NPOV.--WillC 05:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Questions about some recent contributions

This is a thread for anyone who has questions about contributions.

To kick off the thread here are a couple:

1) This page has always had the following quote on it: Template:Tq

On 24 Dec 2019 a regular contributor changed it to read,

Template:Tq, five Republican contenders—Trump, Bush, Cruz, Rubio, and Carson—each had more news coverage than Sanders during the invisible primary."

Why was this change made? Was it related to the extensive rearrangements made? (Things previously introduced by "In 2015" are now introduced by "Throughout the 2016 primaries"... Was there confusion about the four mentions of the calendar year 2015 in the original text (not including the title of the document, or "invisible primary" in the sentence itself)?

2) A radical change was made to this paragraph by the same author on the same date. Could that author explain the use of the categorical term "rejected", when in fact what the writer being quoted said can be read below.[5] I would also be interested in why the spin of the paragraph changed direction 100%: surely the two descriptions linked above (at "paragraph") couldn't both be faithful representations of the source document? Was the original more faithful to the text? Template:Reflist-talk

🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for tagging me in some weird effort to pick fights again over nothing ("radical change", "spin"). #1 is obviously a simple error. As for #2, Malone literally says "There's not a media blackout." when she's asked whether there has been a media blackout. Again, what leads you to create a talk page discussion about this is beyond me, but I hope you find it all very fulfilling. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I find the systemic tolerance of this sort of mistake troubling. But you know that.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Both of these changes seem like improvements to me. The excessive use of quotes bumps up against WP:COPYVIO , and it's lazy writing. I don't see that we lose anything by losing the excessive detail. - MrX 🖋 22:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Saying "Throughout the 2016 primaries" rather than "Throughout 2015" amid a large overhaul to paraphrase large blocks of direct quotes is completely outrageous, and I should be banned for it. Furthermore, who wouldn't sift through dozens of edits to find out who made this "radical change", create a separate talk page discussion about it and tag the editor who made the error? Thank you so much for creating a talk page discussion about it. The world needs to know about this error. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Removing all mentions that Clinton got negative coverage

It's obviously relevant that Sanders's main opponent in the Democratic primary got the most negative coverage of any candidate per academic analyses. At numerous points in this article, it's mentioned that Sanders has received negative coverage relative to other 2020 contenders. If that belongs, then clearly it's relevant that he got more favorable coverage relative to his 2016 contenders. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Right, I've removed a bunch of coatracked stuff about HRC (true as it may be, though I remember one of the sources was Brock's Media Matters), because it wasn't about the subject of the entry. Thoughts? 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 18:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I see this in the entry already. "Template:Tq Isn't that enough to say it once? 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 18:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
If multiple RS report this occurring, then it makes no sense making it appear as if only one or two RS report this. If we are going to cover the findings of a study on media coverage in the 2016 election, then we don't scrub findings from that study that other studies have also found. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Someday maybe another article will be written about HRC's bad press in 2015-. Perhaps you could start one... 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 03:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Non-response noted. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


Template:Tq was removed from the first sentence by Template:U with the edit summary Template:Tq. I do not see those studies referenced in the article. Could you please provide them here? Thanks – drew Andrew and Drew Anne drew 18:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:U, there are many. Like "Bernie Sanders’ campaign was largely ignored" or this [35] or the one by FAIR. Also cherry-picking studies and not the analysis reports in the lead doesn't sound like balance.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Okay, let's go through the three links you provided.
  • A study by Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy
Here's an excerpt: Template:Tq
Not sure why you think that study supports the allegation that "the mainstream media in the United States is biased against Bernie Sanders".
  • An article in These Times, "an American politically progressive monthly magazine of news and opinion"
This is not a study nor a scholarly source. However, it is already mentioned in the first sentence: Template:Tq
  • An analysis by FAIR, "a media critique organization"
This source is listed in WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, which notes, Template:Tq
Unless there are actual studies that back-up the allegations, we should add "this has been disputed by studies" back into the first sentence. – drew Andrew and Drew Anne drew 19:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:U, I think you are correct here and the claim should be added back. MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

So, in summary: (For each edit's reasoning, see the edit summaries by using the links)

  • 1Template:U first contributed "this has been disputed by studies."
  • 2 I edited it to, "this has been variously disputed or validated by studies and analyses."
  • 3 Template:U changed it back.
  • 4 I reverted the change.
  • 5Template:U removed the part entirely.
  • 6 Template:U changed it back to "this has been disputed by studies".
  • 7 This was reverted by Template:U.

Template:U, kindly note here the distinction between 'studies' and 'analyses'. Other editors (largely those opposed to this article in the first place) have stressed that 'only analyses' have been used to support the idea of bias against Sanders. Taking their concerns into account, I added that word into the lede too. In addition, the studies have also made some concessions to their overall verdicts:

For these reasons and WP:NPOV , I think the lede should mention both the 'for' and 'against' sides – and the analyses in addition to the studies, if a mention of the latter is wanted there. I hope this clears up some of it. Please ask me to elaborate if I didn't convey something clearly enough. Selvydra (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:U, the summary of edits has confused me... MikkelJSmith (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
It's just meant to be a chronological listing of changes to this particular disputed line, so that editors wouldn't have to go through the revision history page one edit at a time. Still, I reformatted it in the hopes it'd be clearer now. Also, I noticed I missed some detail in between. Selvydra (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Those analyses are already mentioned in the first sentence: Template:Tq. That's the "for" side. The "against" side are the actual studies that have called that allegation into question. – drew Andrew and Drew Anne drew 21:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
They are still the same function, The difference is the academic background or the corporate structure. It is still looking at the ratio of positive vs negative coverage and therein. The question then comes are those published and peer reviewed by a journal or just released by the institution.--WillC 21:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:U – I see your point, but it says 'alleged', not 'used analyses to allege'. As I explained in my first reversion summary at 2, this leaves it as "allegations" vs. "studies", which is misleading (statistical analyses are not allegations). Selvydra (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
So you're saying that the analyses give credence to the allegations (the 'for' side), while the studies give credence to the 'against' side, and so we should include the analyses in the first sentence, as to present a balance? – drew Andrew and Drew Anne drew 01:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, in the sense that there isn't such a clear-cut consensus of bias being roundly debunked that it could be worded to appear such in the very first sentence of the article – that wouldn't be WP:NPOV . It's more nuanced than that, and that should show. But note that last time it commented on studies and analyses in each direction, Snoogans objected to and deleted the whole bit about it. So, adding those mentions is going to be complicated. Personally, I think a reader of this article is best served by reading on and forming their own idea, instead of being told what to think in the first 1–2 sentences. Selvydra (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Okay I understand your point. I still have a problem with how it was phrased: Template:Tq. That makes it sound like there have studies that support the allegations. In reality, there were studies that disputed the allegations and informal analyses that support the allegations. If I may offer a compromise revision which sounds less misleading:
This revision also makes the first sentence conform to [36]. – drew Andrew and Drew Anne drew 16:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:Od I do not think we should write "X have accused the media of bias; studies have disputed and analyses have validated it. I don't think we should combine the accusations and the studies, because the studies do not explicitly respond to the accusations. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

What do you propose then? Have the first sentence—which has to define "Media coverage of Bernie Sanders"—only include the allegations of certain WP:COISOURCE s? – drew Andrew and Drew Anne drew 18:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
i think having a second paragraph on the studies suffices. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Opening sounds fine.--WillC 19:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
The word 'alleged' is already critical of the left-media / Sanders campaign assertions, as it does not confirm nor deny them as being true. Contrast that to if the word 'stated' had been used instead.
This most recent version is better than the mere "has been disputed by studies," but it's still would up in a state of using loaded words that I don't think are accurate. The word 'quantitative' there is misleading (makes it seem the analyses are merely qualitative). Moreover, as I've already said, the studies don't exclusively dispute the allegations.
One study says Sanders got more coverage than his polling in 2015, the other says he got less. Then they talk about positive/negative coverage, which is a different dimension altogether. None of this has discussed the timing of any bias or coverage-frequency, such as if negativity has been focused before important primaries 1. When the lede contained the following: "variously disputed and validated by studies and analysis," it was ambiguous enough to include the fact that, "parts of the studies dispute and others validate them."
Moreover, your suggestion again removes the useful links to related articles that were there before.
Combine all this with the fact that the body of the article is undergoing heavy restructuring and editing right now. I suggest we leave the lede conversation until later, when we properly know what it is that it's summarizing. Selvydra (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I've changed the word "quantitative" to "academic" per your feedback. Let's remember that these are allegations of bias and misconduct by people in the mainstream media. It would be a violation of WP:BLP define "media coverage of Bernie Sanders" by those allegations alone, when there is evidence against those allegations. – drew Andrew and Drew Anne drew 22:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

The dlspute you're havlng would be solved by slmply not trylng to summarlze the studles lmmedlately after the lntroductlon of the accusatlons of blas. You clearly do not agree on what the studles are saylng ln regards to medla blas or you do not agree on how to summarlze lt conclsely, so why not just say what the studles found ln a separate paragraph? Also, we should not conflate "analyses" by ln These Tlmes wlth actual peer-revlewed research by recognlzed experts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with it not being included in the lede, as I've stated earlier. It's been added back in some shape or form by Anne drew repeatedly after being removed. (I don't mean to sound accusatory or to insinuate that they're doing wrong, here.) Selvydra (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Per BRD, lt should not be ln the flrst paragraph unless there ls consensus here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Done. Selvydra (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
You both aren't listening. Let me repeat myself – please tell me if you disagree with any of this:
  • The first sentence must define "Media coverage of Bernie Sanders"
  • There are many perspectives on "Media coverage of Bernie Sanders"
    • Accusations of bias are just one of those perspectives. A perspective supported by academic studies is that the media was not biased.
  • Defining "Media coverage of Bernie Sanders" from just one perspective violates WP:NPOV
I am trying to assume good faith here, but I cannot understand this consistent effort to remove everything but the POV of the Sanders campaign from the first sentence. – drew Andrew and Drew Anne drew 00:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Concur. It's original structure is a hold over from when the article was written by the Pro Sanders camp as a media bias article. The article can not and should not have a lead that is POV - Slywriter (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to sound like a broken record here because I find myself having to constantly repeat the same things, but here we go one more time. Please take the 3 minutes to read carefully before replying.
  1. Of course I agree with the MOS:FIRST quote. What I don't necessarily agree with is that "definition" = "summary of opinions on the topic". That is a matter of interpretation (unless that's found in a policy or guideline somewhere else; it wasn't at MOS:FIRST). Trying to summarize the opinions of academics and journalists immediately in the beginning is what I think has a greater chance of veering into POV territory, not leaving it out, as I will discuss next:
  2. Template:Tq I have to disagree with "allegations" being pro-Sanders. If anything, it sounds to me like a shortening of "allegations without proof". It is a false balance to assert that "allegations of bias" and "bias has been refuted" create a fair balance. That's tantamount to saying that "the media has been fair" is a balanced POV. (I mean really, are you going to believe self-benefiting allegations or studies?) Please, for once, engage with this argument re: 'allegations' (or 'characterized as', or whatever word/s you choose to use in its stead).
  3. The studies have not reached a pure, easily summarizable conclusion of "there was no bias." Again, read the quotes I posted above. At best, they have disputed parts of the allegations – and Snoogans seemed to object with that form, so off it went (why it has to be removed until a potential consensus is explained below).
I'm not going to relitigate this same stuff before you engage with the arguments in question. It has been determined in discussions at [37]] and WP:DRN that, in this new article, older revisions and/or deletion have right of way, and changes/additions require a consensus. To that end, Template:U Anne drew Andrew and Drew, I recommend not changing the lede every time you come here, because it will be seen as edit warring and eventually I or someone else has to take it to the DRN. It's called [[WP:BRD], not BRBRBRBR...
Template:U – Just a heads-up that the lede is being discussed here right now. I appreciate your work on this article, but I'm not sure your re-work of it was an improvement. Let's try and reach a consensus or keep it at the stable version. Selvydra (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I haven't been changing the first sentence back to the same version, I keep rewriting the it address your concerns – which seem to be a moving target. What, exactly, did you find wrong with the latest version? Three other editors seem to be fine with it.
  1. Template:Tq
    • The latest version you reverted just says that some people have said it was biased, some have said it was not biased.
  2. Template:Tq
    • The version you reverted just says: Template:Tq. Not sure what you're referring to here.
  3. Template:Tq
    • Did you read before you reverted? Again, it just says Template:Tq. No longer mentions the studies. Are you denying that sources have called the media unbiased toward Sanders? Here's one: [38]
By the way, BRD doesn't require you to revert – just if you disagree with the edit. I don't know what you could find objectionable about my latest revision. – drew Andrew and Drew Anne drew 19:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Template:U: I missed your ping somehow until now, sorry about that. I'm not sure why those wishing to spin the lead line to say there is no story keep claiming that the Shorenstein study only says positive things about Sanders' coverage. Perhaps they have been misled by the fact that only the first part of the text was included in the sourcing (corresponding to the "invisible primary" period). There were a number of false and misleading claims as a result of this omission (and the changing of dates from 2015 to "throughout the 2016 Democratic primary"). Snoogans has said below this was just a minor mistake in a massive edit. I have noticed that this is how mistakes most often get lodged into en.wp, hidden in the sea of a larger revert. This is important because in the second part of the article, Patterson observes that from March 15-May 3rd Sanders' coverage was qualitatively worse than Clinton's (i.e. that the percentage of negative stories was higher than the percentage of Clinton's negative stories, throughout the bulk of the relevant voting part of the primary).
Also does anyone know if any studies mention the alt-right 4chan offensive led against Sanders' supporters? Is 4chan media? You can find more about this in Weaver's book by searching for "Bernie won Brocktopus" at the Google fair (you'd have to look longer at the Dogpile...) 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 17:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Content to be added back after most recent big revert

As was agreed with Template:U and Template:U, the big revert was done and I'll now be bringing up some removed sections for discussion per the 'D' in WP:BRD .

To coin this list, I used this 'Difference between revisions'. (It includes most edits made since.) I recommend using it for reference for the below points.

Removed part (Copy & Find at above link) – Why I think it should be added back, and how

  1. Ed Schultz incident – Should be included, as it's a rare piece of insight to the inner workings of mainstream media. Trim if necessary.
  2. Katie Halper in Fair documented [...] - Isolated incidents being added separately has been a common complaint, and this source helpfully collected several of them. Include in trimmed form (was quite long).
  3. MSNBC panelist Zerlina Maxwell [...] - The reasoning for including this has been discussed here on the talk page. It was an important moment in Sanders' campaign, and Maxwell was the first one asked to talk. Include it & criticism that followed – in trimmed form, if necessary.
  4. Politico released an analysis of the 2020 [...] - Maybe include this rewritten with a focus on how Sanders (and Warren) got 1/3 of Biden's coverage? IIRC this was objected to because, as it was written, it focussed on Biden.
  5. PBS News Hour hosted a segment [...] - While an isolated incident, it is notable in its starkness. In this extensive segment, below-1-percent-polling candidates such as Bullock and Sestak were discussed. Biden, Warren, Buttigieg and Harris were all covered. Sanders was the only (even slightly) notable candidate absent. Trim if needed, although this part wasn't that long to begin with.
  6. Grim of Intercept used examples of media coverage [...] - Here, a sentence was removed that mentioned the contents of Grim's reporting (examples of inequal media coverage) and one was left in saying (the aforementioned) may have in fact helped Sanders. For parity and context, the first sentence should be added back.
  7. On December 15, 2019, Silver, [...] Nate was deemed important enough to add in another part of the article, where he and Enten dispute the media bias. Thus, this part should merit addition too. (Yes, it cites social media, but as it is from ABC News' account, it should inherit their RS status.
  8. (NYT Columnist Leonhardt) agreed with John F. Harris — the co-founder of Politico [...] John F. Harris actually wrote about this himself – if this doesn't merit a mention in the sentence about Leonhardt, I think we should write about it in its own sentence before that. restored here.

While this might not cover everything yet, as the revert was enormous, it should get us started. Hopefully, decisions/consensuses here will also ease similar ones in the future. Selvydra (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Main issue with Schultz is that while there are a variety of sources, they all trace back to his comment. As he became a supporter of Bernie, I don't know that a political operative can be trusted to talk about a fmr. Employer.
PBS should not be included as I don't think it is covered by any Reliable Sources. It's objectivity verifiable by all of us but don't think it can't be sourced properly.
No real issue with first politico, Intercept or Nate Silver
I have concerns with politico editor because the writer is motivated to take on MSM. He has an anti-center bias of his own.
Slywriter (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I disagree concerning #1. The story about Ed Schulz should be in, regardless of whether he and Bernie were friends or not. The network's denial concerning the reasons for his dismissal should also be presented... someone else should feel free to work on this, I won't steal anyone's thunder... I'm not going to poke around on this page for a few days, since my text editor is making me quite... cumbersome (and I have other things to do). ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 03:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Regarding #2, I've reinstated the topic sentence of that paragraph Template:Small, but fear that getting too far into the weeds will end up drowning out the story. This is admittedly an extra-trimmed form, but I don't think it's a bad idea to leave the exercise to the interested reader in these sorts of cases. Feel free to expand it if you think it needs expanding. I also think Halper's Dec 19th FAIR article should added. ps: you were right to delete "quantitative", I felt the sentence needed an adjective and also felt that "quantitative" almost certainly wasn't the right one, but I forgot to go back and fix it. ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 03:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Process suggestion: Please consider putting disputed content in separate sections in the future to facilitate threaded discussion, and always provide a diff or the text of the disputed content. It was a huge effort to try to cross reference this list to the list I started above.
1. Shultz material should be omitted unless much better sources can be found. "Rare" is not something we desire when writing in an encyclopedia.
2. Halper is fine in a trimmed form.
3. Maxwell I can live with per my previous comments.
4. "Politico released..." this is a bit tangential per my previous comments. If we include it, I would like to see at least one source that cites the Politico article and we should include a paraphrase of "the biggest online support belongs to Bernie Sanders".
5. I still can't support the PBS New Hour segment unless better sources are brought to bear.
6. Ryan Grim's "blackout" opinion should be left out unless other sources have taken note of it, per WP:DUEWEIGHT . The Intercept tends to take consistent position against mainstream media, which makes it questionable source for that subject. - MrX 🖋 12:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
7. Nate Silver cited to Tweet? No thank you. Nate Silver does find the occasional nugget of gold, but if this is noteworty, there should be an actual article written about it.
8. I have no idea what this refers to. Always include a diff or the actual text, please.- MrX 🖋 12:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Template:U, for 7, I had added the official ABC News sources. MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Template:U, Template:U, I don't know if I was ignored here.
I just want to mention that first I had added two official sources for the segment as you can see in this edit [39], this solves the complaint you raised I think.
Furthermore, I think Selvydra's is right here. Hopefully, I'm not getting policy wrong but from what I understand the following applies here Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. It was not just a tweet by the way but an official analysis for ABC News. In the end, the tweet remained since the video was sometimes unplayable on ABC's site. MikkelJSmith (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Template:U I didn't ignore you; there was no reason to respond. Twitter is a terrible source for an encyclopedia article. If there is an actual news article, then that can be used and the problem is solved.- MrX 🖋 16:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Template:U, as for 8, it refers to the following In an opinion column for the NYT, Leonhardt — American journalist and columnist — agreed with F. Harris — the co-founder of Politico — about the media having a [40] bias. The former argued this centrist bias hurt Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.[6], but that had not been disputed by any editors per the quick look I did, so it should remain in the page no? MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The Ed Schultz stuff is literally in his article with the same sources, none of which have been deemed unreliable at WP:RSPSOURCES . It should be fine to include regardless if Schultz was biased.--WillC 16:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Not questioning the publication as a reliable source. Questioning whether Schultz should be considered a reliable source for a workplace disagreement with his employer. If others have commented on this matter without Schultz as the source then I am fine with it Slywriter (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Logically you are asking for a reliable third party source to comment on the ongoings of a dispute between Schults and MSNBC in which he wasn't allowed to cover the Sanders' announcement because you think Schults wouldn't be reliable but somehow an organization not connected at all to the dispute would be more reliable? Also logically, that third party source would only be provided the exact same statements as MSNBC or Schults would be saying directly.--WillC 18:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Template:U, I just want to mention that I had added official ABC News sources for the Nate Silver comment in an edit, so that solves the issue of reliability. MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Template:U: Your input is appreciated. I did provide a diff in my second line in this section: Template:Tq (link) As I explained above, the bold parts could be copied and used with Ctrl+F to find the changes in question from there. I wished to keep these together because the talk page is very long as it is, without lots of additional titles cluttering the place and disincentivizing people from participating. But I'll do so for a potential future batch.
1. By 'rare insight' I meant valuable insight. As in: how often does a cable TV personality open up about the biases at his workplace? Also, help me understand why for content like this having a 'good source' is pivotal, when it's Ed Schultz whose word is being relied upon – as long as there isn't reason to believe that the sources would straight-up fabricate what he said.
4. Support the addition. I will try to find another source (to anyone reading this: help is appreciated).
5. Fair enough, but again, it this because you suspect the source cannot be trusted to be truthful about the segment, or why? If the segment contained what it did, it's not like it will change depending on who reports it, as long as it is done truthfully. Or is this a rules-are-rules matter? Help me understand.
6. So you mean the part that's left there now should also be removed? I was talking about the fact that, in his article/video, he showed examples of flawed media coverage. What's there currently feels a little unbalanced to me without that context.
7. i) More specifically, it is a video found on ABC's twitter account. If the same video were found on ABC's YouTube account, that would inherit their RS status, so is the same not true of tweets on verified Twitter accounts? ii) Do you mean that a written article is more noteworthy than an interview (and that the threshold of noteworthiness in this case exists somewhere between those two)? I'm interested if WP policies/guidelines have something to say of this; if so, where could I find it?
8: Template:Tq
Actually, I could've sworn it was truncated to something shorter, but now that I'm looking at the diff, it was in fact removed completely. I think this part should be added back, unless someone wants to argue it's not noteworthy enough or something. Selvydra (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Template:U, I thought the policy regarding official tweets was the same as a news channels official videos. That's what we did on pages related to Canadian politics when it came to using tweets by the CBC. There was always consensus to use them and after checking policy it seemed to fit. Even if we ignore that. I had added official sources that answered Template:U complaints in another edit (one of the subsequent ones). You can find it when looking at the edit history. Also, yeah, per my memory no one objected to 8, it was removed in the revert that we agreed to (the one that led to this discussion). MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


(1) Schultz should not be included because the sourcing is awful, and the content violates BLP (poorly sourced accusations against living persons). Furthermore, Schultz is a crank.

(2) The FAIR content should be trimmed considerably (I'd also be fine with deletion) for concision.

(3) I'd be fine with deleting this (one panelist on a 24/7 cable news show said something false about Sanders?). If it's to be included, it should be trimmed considerably (i.e. Glenn Greenwald's piling-on does not belong).

(4) I do not recall this content.

(5) Absolutely not. Adding content that a PBS Newshour segment dared to cover candidates that polled under Sanders is straight-up ridiculous. If I recall correctly, the sourcing was awful. If it's to be included, it should go something like "Nathan J. Robinson of the left-wing magazine Current Affairs complained that a PBS NewsHour segment covered some low-polling candidates, but not Bernie Sanders."

(6) I do not recall the content.

(7) No, plucking comments out of transcripts fails WP:DUE . Analyses written by Silver for 538 undergo fact-checking and editorial oversight. Comments made by him on air don't. I'd also presume that the written word is more nuanced, whereas comments made on-air would drop qualifiers and nuance that someone might make if they were writing an article about it.

(8) I do not recall the content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I have restored #8 here and believe I may have ended up cutting a shorter version out again after the date of that diff when I culled through the most recent(ist) items. I have no objection to its inclusion. (It can be spun differently too if someone wants to, but I do wonder if "wealth tax" isn't a good topic for this page. Cf. Just Refs, which I've heard called the "Naked Wikipedia" has an interesting representation of the entry, stripping away all of our blabla. Quite a cool little tool actually. ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 22:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Template:U, I agree that 6 would probably be better if it's included as something like "Nathan J. Robinson of the left-wing magazine Current Affairs complained that a PBS NewsHour segment covered some low-polling candidates, but not Bernie Sanders." It's attributed and is much more condensed. It also serves as a compromise position. As for 7, while one of the sources was a transcript, the other was the official ABC News website source, which included the analysis segment. He wasn't brought on for punditry in this case, but to resume the state of the race in an official analysis. As ABC is an RS I think it should probably be included, especially since we didn't just have a transcript, we also had the video segment in two separate occasions. MikkelJSmith (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
(1) Does your invocation of BLP here refer to Schultz himself (who is deceased) or to MSNBC bosses? And is the former employee of a company a poor source for what the company did? All throughout this talk page and the VPP / DRN discussions, not a single person has explained why a source is required to be of pristine quality to report on something that is verifiable independent of them, i.e. an interview.
(2) (3) Fine with trimming.
(4) (6) (8) Full quotes below. I will note that I had (what I thought were) clear instructions on how to quickly find the content, at the start of this section. But apparently editors are routinely skipping over what I'm writing.
(5) Sanders was the only candidate polling above 5% who was not mentioned in the lengthy segment. However, I had to revise my understanding of it after recognizing Sestak and Bullock were covered because they'd just dropped out. Still, it was pretty jarring to watch when numbers 1, 3, 4 and 5 in polling were included but number 2 wasn't. My opinion on this has softened somewhat, but I think a short attributed passage on it would still be merited.
(7) I'm inclined to agree with your argument here, even if not with its practical outcome. I just think this statement of his could have been used to bring nuance to the other segment where his and Enten's article is summarized strongly against the thesis of media bias, given how contrary it is to that. Selvydra (talk) 10:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Phase Two

So here are full quotes of the sections, per earlier criticism.

You can use THIS LINK as aid to refer to my original comments on why I thought they should be included. Grayed items have been restored.

  1. Template:Tqb
  2. Katie Halper in FAIR documented a number of cases where the media was utilizing selective poll reporting and distortions of graphics.[7] In her article, she starts with an MSNBC 2020 matchup against Trump poll on March 7. The poll showed Biden at 53 percent, Sanders at 49 percent, and Warren and Kamala at 48 percent. Sanders however, was listed as being in fourth place. A similar sequence error was made on MSNBC on March 15 with Sanders in a third place order despite being in second numerically. On May 24, Todd of The Press reported a Quinnipiac Poll that found Sanders had gone up by 5 points between April 30 and May 21 whereas Todd signed it as if Sanders had gone down by 5 points. On April 29, Velshe and Ruhle of MSNBC inaccurately displayed the data of a Monmouth poll that put Sanders at 27 percent polling with white voters and Biden at 25 percent. The MSNBC graphic showed Biden at 28 percent; a three-point difference not in accordance with the poll.
  3. Template:Tqb
  4. On November 20, 2019, Politico released an analysis of the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primary which showed that, like Donald Trump in 2015, Biden received more coverage than his rivals, receiving nearly three times the amount of cable news coverage as Sanders and Warren, and eight times as much coverage as Buttigieg.[8]
  5. Template:Tqb
  6. Grim of Intercept used examples of media coverage and the In These Times analysis to argue that the media misreported on or omitted coverage of Sanders instead of treating him as a "top-tier candidate." He hypothesized that this alleged "Bernie Blackout" was a positive for Sanders, as it could prevent him from receiving the level of scrutiny that other front-running candidates, such as Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg, have received.[9]
  7. Template:Tqb
  8. In an opinion column for the NYT, Leonhardt — American journalist and columnist — agreed with F. Harris — the co-founder of Politico — about the media having a [41] bias. The former argued this centrist bias hurt Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.[10]

I'll be waiting for Template:U to comment on 4, 6 and 8 before beginning to summarize opinions. (My reply to his is above this sub-section.) Selvydra (talk) 10:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


I don't have any major problems with 4, 6 and 8. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, so in summary:

(1) No consensus. In that case, should we also be removing this info from the page about Ed Schultz, where it is stated with the same references?

(2) MrX and Snoogans are fine if it's trimmed

(3) MrX is fine; Snoogans wants it trimmed (particularly the pilings-on by Greenwald etc.)

(4) MrX wants to see another source citing this Politico source & paraphrase Bernie's big online support; Snoogans is fine

(5) No consensus. I'm willing to drop this one.

(6) MrX objects over WP:DUEWEIGHT and Intercept's anti-mainstream-media bent. Snoogans is fine.

(7) No consensus since it's something Silver said in an interview, not from an article with editorial oversight.

(8) Snoogans is fine. Slywriter says John Harris has an anti-center bias. MrX has yet to comment.

I'd support adding (5) somewhere else later if it's possible to concisely summarize isolated incidents without it being OR, because it was particularly striking when, in the lengthy segment they covered the #1, 3, 4 and 5 polling candidates but not #2 (Sanders). Also, the journalist who did the segment (Yamiche Alcindor) has been described by FAIR as having an anti-Sanders bias. More generally, I have asked MrX on his opinion about the isolated-incidents / continuum-fallacy dilemma.

I'm a bit baffled over (6) as well. I think most leftist sources can be described as being critical of the mainstream press. Why is the Intercept – arguably one of the better-reputed among them – an exception, here? It'd be hard to find a better place to voice criticism on mainstream media, given that mainstream media itself obviously isn't an option (no incentive to cover it fairly). I also think people may have missed that Ryan Grim brings up multiple examples of misleading / lacking coverage in the article/video – he doesn't just dig up an opinion out of nowhere. He has also lead a team that were finalists for the Pulitzer price twice (won once) – and he doesn't have the same controversy around him that Greenwald does. That has to count for something. If his opinion is a problem, we could just add something like, Template:Tq

Have Template:U, Template:U and Template:U objections or comments to add?

Selvydra (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I've been busy arguing for article changes and with the Iran stuff happening I've been focused elsewhere. I'll look and get back to y'all later.--WillC 20:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
6 is fine. I've copy-edited by substituting a pronoun for a repeated mention of Sanders. As for MrX it may be an Omidyar thing, who knows, maybe they'll tell us.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
4 could be shorter: Template:Tq but is otherwise fine. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
2 has already been restored (in ultra-trim form) as has 8 (which was not trimmed as severely). 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
All four of the even deletions have been restored. None of the odd ones have. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 23:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Section: perspectives on social media and alternative media coverage

A section titled "perspectives on social media and alternative media coverage" was deleted yesterday with the edit summary: "Removed section. Social media, while it contains the word "media," does not constitute media coverage."

This seems to me a mistake. A number of the sources already in this article talk specifically about alternative media and social media coverage of Bernie Sanders, for example the Washington Post piece by the publisher of The Nation [42]. The title of the page is not "mainstream media coverage" but "media coverage" which includes alternative media coverage and social media coverage.

Now, I understand that the person who deleted it (Template:U) probably was focused on the fact that the specific detail I chose to create that section with was Bernie Sanders' campaign manager's expertise concerning which troll armies were covering the Sanders campaign's social media instruments (Facebook, for example). (One of the "disadvantages" of being pushed to social media is that anyone can edit social media.)

I believe this section should be restored as social media coverage and alternative media coverage are important parts of the subject "Media coverage of Bernie Sanders". 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 10:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:U was justified in removing that section. It has nothing to do with media bias against Sanders, and social media is obviously a completely different thing than "media" in the sense used in this article (the press). It doesn't matter that some sources used in this article happen to mention social media when describing Sander's coverage in THE media. - MrX 🖋 12:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Is that so? Consider:
I thought this had been mentioned before, but not finding it I'll risk repeating: "The Anatomy of MSNBC" at Jacobin mentions the Ed Schulz story. I assume there is coverage of RT/Sputnik coverage of Sanders just as there is coverage of RT/Sputnik coverage of Stein & Gabbard? Maybe it would be worth adding the Atlanic Council's take on that? [43] ^^ I see that the NYT covered the Internet Research Agency's non-aggression towards Sanders in February 2016.[11] I learned that through coverage on a social media site owned and operated by the Wikimedia Foundation.


🌿 SashiRolls t · c 12:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
This is a reach. It seems to me that you're saying that the media covered social media trolls, and therefore the social media trolls are notable enough to be included. If the solution to this is renaming the article again to "Press coverage of Bernie Sanders" then I'm fine with that, but we all know what media means in this sense, and the deleted section did not contain anything related to the substance of the article. --WMSR (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Sh, don't tell, but Gutenberg's defunct... Concerning the page title there was nearly univocal agreement about this entry title (Media coverage of Bernie Sanders) because it's a smart one. Media bias against Bernie Sanders & Press coverage of Bernie Sanders are not as good. After all, what place would there be for discussion of the grassroots (#FeelTheBern) hashtag, (the trajectory of which was remarked by scholars[12] & journalists[13][14] alike, and certainly is/was frequently borrowed by journalists and editors looking for a headline.[44], [45], ...)


🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I supported the move as well, and I did not foresee this discussion because no reasonable person would interpret the current title as including non-journalistic media. I understand that you have political views—we all do—but please keep them out of this article. If you can't find the information you want to include in a reliable source, there's probably a reason for that. It doesn't matter if the reason is corporate control of the media; WP:RS still applies. WMSR (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Template:Od

Please identify the articles above which are not RS. If you cannot do so, cease and desist with insinuating I want to use non-"RS" sources.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:U, I misspoke. I should have said "relevant sources." Sanders's social media presence is not within the scope of this article, nor are any other social media campaigns. I apologize for the RS statement. WMSR (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
OK, apology accepted, I'd come back to change "cease and desist from" to something like "please don't". One thing I've always disliked on en.wp is those who respond who have clearly not read the articles you've just posted to determine their reliability (or relevance). I'm sorry to have responded so peevishly. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
All good :) That said, I stand by my comment several threads up (which was not directed at you, but the user above you). That was probably the source of my confusion—there are a lot of threads going on here. WMSR (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Removed mutiple issues tag, placed before rewrite

In the interest of finding out whether people still think this page violates NPOV or undue now that it has been rewritten, I've removed the tag pending discussion here. Neither the initial page author nor Snoogans is the primary contributor to this entry any more. I've written a bit less than a third at the moment and became the primary author yesterday, apparently. Feel free to change that... 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 17:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I won't add it back yet but the lead does have problems of placing a single point of view above others. A resolution on that issue is needed for the tag to remain off. Slywriter (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I've rewritten the lead to correspond more to the content, might still need some POV scooped out, I'm not sure. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Template:Re A side issue, but the last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead doesn't seem to scan correctly - Template:Tq - What's the significance of "led"? Or of "as in previous campaigns"? I had a look at the online reference, but couldn't find an easy, unambiguously correct, fix. - Ryk72 talk 23:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I removed the line because it was just bizarre. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
David Brock's role in the Media coverage of Bernie Sanders is attested by multiple sources in the body of the document. Why don't you want the lead to summarize the body? I have reverted your edit pending discussion on the Talk Page that is more policy-based, or argumented, than "because it was just bizarre". 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 13:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
This is a brazen violation of WP:BRD . You're mass-restoring newly added challenged content, most of which was horribly sourced, had nothing to do with the topic, and was incredibly poorly written. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
As for the line you are edit-warring back into the lead, the single RS (a Huff Post article[46]) does absolutely not say that Correct the Record "led" the negative media campaign against Sanders. The other source is a book by Sanders's former campaign manager (not a RS). Also, there's literally one line in the body of the article that mentions Correct the Record, and it's sourced to the same Huff Post article. It's just your own poorly sourced original research and it absolutely does not warrant a place in the lead. The text is also just confusingly written ("as in previous campaigns"?). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
The idea is to give the reader an idea of how banal such media campaigns are in elections, and to make a link to the larger Media bias in the US page. Do you see a way of improving it? I added the Internet Research Agency, because they are mentioned too in the context of Sanders, (see the quote tag).🌿 SashiRolls t · c 14:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
This article is not a blogpost for you to present your poorly sourced and dubious theses on how "media campaigns" work in US politics. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Cf. WP:BAIT & WP:SANCTIONGAME #1, 3, and 4. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 16:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
There are myriad PACs with run negative campaigns in every election. The fact that Sanders was a target of one such campaign is not WP:DUE in the lede. Template:U, your efforts to improve this page are appreciated, but please try to check your own biases when you edit. I'm with Snoogans on this one. --WMSR (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Were there other PACs whose action the media covered concerning Bernie Sanders? I provided 9 solid references for media about Brock-Sanders coverage below (in the section about the lead sentence). I provided another about the IRC (that can be developed). Do you see other examples in the body the lead is supposed to summarize? If not, feel free to add them. Negative (and positive) media campaigns are indeed a big part of media coverage. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 20:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. Media "coverage" does not include media "campaigns" and PACs are not "the media". WMSR (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I did not say that PACs were the media (you've inadvertently built a strawman argument there). If media covers media campaigns against Sanders (as Brock's campaign is covered by 9 articles gathered quickly) then media campaigns against Sanders are part of media coverage of Sanders. That seems pretty easy to understand to me, I'm puzzled by your comment. Nice to meet you WMSR. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I have no further comments on the lede right now. That said, David Brock has been covered by the media pretty regularly – oftentimes for his comments on Sanders – as merely a "Clinton ally," without disclosure of his past position as an outsourcee of negativity (of which Sanders was a target). Add to that CTR's intimate coordination with the Clinton campaign and past incidents of the Clinton campaign placing stories in media (not saying other campaigns don't do this), and the CTR–media connection is suddenly not so inconceivable. Selvydra (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about the lead sentence


The Bernie Sanders campaign and certain media sources have alleged that the media in the United States is biased against Sanders, primarily concerning both his 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns. Accusations of bias often revolve around corporate ownership of news organizations, misleading graphics, and a perceived lack of coverage of Sanders. Template:Collapsebottom

problems: the stated subject of the page is Media coverage of Bernie Sanders now, not accusations of bias. I did not vote for that title, in fact, but maintain that it entails discussion of efforts to influence media coverage, such as those undertaken by Team Brock, TeamIRA, and Team 4chan.

Template:Collapsetop Media coverage of Bernie Sanders became an object of study during the 2016 Democratic primary in the States. Quantitative studies augmented by software evaluating qualitative article slant (positive or negative) have agreed that overall Sanders received coverage proportional to his polling and that within that set of articles his coverage was more often positive than Hillary Clinton's coverage was.[15][16][17] Negative media campaigns were led, as in previous US elections, this time by a super-PAC called the Record[18] and a foreign operator called the Research Agency.[11]

Template:Reflist-talk Template:Collapsebottom

With the removal of this version of the lead the only mention of the fact that the Internet Research Agency had instructed its multipliforous minions not to criticize Sanders is gone. Poof! We also lose all reference to one of the themes mentioned in the body of the article (though there are renewed efforts to remove them, I see).

Perhaps Team X could instead add the relevant reports on Russki Meddling in Homespun spinner-space, so we can see the bigger picture, rather than deleting reliably sourced information. (Will add a list of all the deleted Brock stuff once its ref-group assembles itself.) Time-consuming all that. Hm. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 18:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

As far as I understand, the subject of the article is (purported) Media bias against Bernie Sanders. The title changed, but the subject of the article did not. Let's please try to keep this (and all) discussions on a collegial level. - MrX 🖋 18:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
In terms of your preferred version (1) "Media coverage of Bernie Sanders" is not an "object of study". (2) The quant-qual dichotomy is a misrepresentation of the cited research. The description of "software" used in some of the studies is undue. A lead should be clear and concise. (3) The last sentence is bizarre. It's poorly sourced original research which is not only barely readable, but hypes Correct the Record and Russian interference as the key actors on the subject (which appears to only be your personal take on the topic, rather than one reflected by RS). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I have put the Brock references a (very) cursory search has turned up in the course of rewriting this entry from top to bottom. Several have been deleted from the page entirely. I've put this all back into the "revised version" above. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 19:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Also, the assertion that the focus on quantitative analyses (and software driven quantitative analyses of quality) is misleading is an assertion. No evidence or argument has been presented to convince me that assertion is correct.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 20:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I like the studious approach in the revised version, and the added references. I feel like it might be missing the mark a little on the topic, though. This article started as detailing numerous cases (and some analyses) of Sanders being misreported on or omitted from coverage – where many individual cases seemed to paint a consistent picture. Then, as counterweight there are the studies that give a more nuanced and reserved picture, as well as rebuttals by journalists and pundits affiliated with mainstream media. Now, the individual cases and analyses are not mentioned in the lede at all – it seems you've chosen to address that 'side' with the CTR and Russia stuff instead. As far as we know, neither of those parties have direct control over what mainstream media is doing, however.
It's also a bit hard to read and understand. I know it's far from easy to write text that's NPOV, precise, inclusive of necessary content AND easy to read at the same time. But I actually preferred the earlier title in that regard.
I hope you can put forward a suggestion that addresses some of these concerns. I can try myself too, but I'm currently busy trying to get consensus on content, so that'd only be at a later date.
Lastly, I would recommend leaving the lede be as it was before consensus is achieved on a new version. I said this same thing to the previous editor who kept changing it after it being reverted, so it'd be inconsistent if I didn't ask the same here, too. You could consider adding these new references somewhere else than in the lead to have a better chance of it sticking.
Selvydra (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, in fact, as I recall, I submitted this bold proposal partially because I accidentally tried to use the edit summary line as a search box. ^^ It is a general principle that we start an article with Title of article is/was... I just did a test and this was true of 5/5 random articles. This is why I believe the article starting with the title is better than not starting with the title. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:Ping The subject of the article is not Template:Tq. It is Template:Tq. The article was moved because the old title was not neutral. The lead must reflect that some sources say there is bias and some say there isn't bias. – drew Andrew and Drew Anne drew 18:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:Re I disagree. The title was changed because editors thought it was a non-neutral title. From the move request: Template:Tq I have seen no consensus to suggest that the subject of the article has changed. - MrX 🖋 19:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
In any case, the title was chosen by 17 people. You did not participate. Maybe next time you should. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
No case. The title is the neutral version of an article about media bias against Bernie Sanders. - MrX 🖋 22:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
From WP:TITLE : Template:Tq In other words, the title defines the subject of the article. – drew Andrew and Drew Anne drew 21:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I think you're confusing "indicates" with "defines". - MrX 🖋 22:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
k. From later in WP:TITLE : Template:Tqdrew Andrew and Drew Anne drew 00:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree, it usually should. I would have voted against renaming the article because there is plausible case, as borne out by sources, that Sanders has been treated differently than other candidates by major media organizations, notwithstanding the contrary point of view which also has merit. As is evident by the first edit to this article, the article creator did not set out to create an article about everything related to media coverage of Bernie Sanders, which some editors are not construing as meaning social media, and no doubt, will soon include oil painting, watercolor, and pastels. - MrX 🖋 13:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Seeking consensus for new first sentence

Could I get people's thoughts on this new first sentence? Template:Tqb For reference, here is the current stable version of the first sentence: Template:Tqb I think the new version addresses the WP:NPOV problem without getting into the weeds about studies/analyses. – drew Andrew and Drew Anne drew 16:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with the first one.--WillC 16:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree with the first one. The second one says "certain alternative media sources", this sounds like poisoning the well.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
To clarify, I am proposing that we use the first version. The second one is just the longstanding stable version of the first sentence that I included for reference. – drew Andrew and Drew Anne drew 16:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I think the first one is an improvement, but mainstream reliable sources have not alleged the existence of bias. WMSR (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
That depends on the definition of mainstream reliable sources. But that's a discussion unto itself. Selvydra (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I think the suggested change (or as others have referred to it, the first one) is okay as well. Let's have the links in it as well, and also link-ify the first instance of Bernie Sanders thereafter (since according to [47] we shouldn't add links to the bold title). Selvydra (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think either is a good hook which will encourage the reader to continue reading. Problems with the first include: 1) "Controversy" is not a good word for the lead and 2) "with sources variably describing the coverage as biased or unbiased" sounds like an invitation to querulous disputations. I think the lead should explain why Bernie Sanders in particular should have a media coverage page. This is what I tried to capture with the lead ADA&D deleted without a word of explanation (as modified by MrX): Template:Tq Just a word to add that I don't think I was particularly successful in making the lead engaging, and may have been under the influence of vanden Heuvel's op-ed in the WaPo (which MrX has since deleted from the body).🌿 SashiRolls t · c 20:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
That version isn't neutral. It only mentions the POV of people who say the media is biased. Also I don't think "hookiness" should be the top priority, at least until the lead satisfies our core content policies, namely WP:NPOV . – drew Andrew and Drew Anne drew
Media Coverage of Bernie Sanders during the 2016 and 2020 Presidential Primaries, particularly by mainstream media, has been the topic of numerous studies and analyses. These studies and analyses provide conflicting information as they have shown both a positive bias and a negative bias towards the campaign of Bernie Sanders, depending on the metrics used.
Slywriter (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
No studies show negative bias towards Sanders as far as I'm aware. Better to mention studies and analyses separately later in the lead to avoid conflating them. That's why the version I proposed just says "sources variously describing the coverage as biased or unbiased". – drew Andrew and Drew Anne drew 02:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Again, it comes back to quantity and quality. The center study shows he had lower levels of coverage in 2015 and 2016. However if it's true that his coverage is presented as qualitatively more positive, this is not really the end of the story. People published hit pieces, as people have always published hit pieces, at opportune moments. There is no reason why Sanders should escape from this logic. So yes, quantitatively, the "studies" seem to agree from what I've read that Sanders received less coverage (so negative quantitative bias). They also seem to agree that his coverage was, on the whole, but not necessarily in specific cases or at specific outlets, more positive than Clinton's. However, with a title such as this entry's one would expect to read about some of those specifics. So this pseudo-division between "studies" and "analyses" is not very clear to me, unless it be related to quantity of coverage versus quantity of positive-quality coverage in the case of studies and more targeted questions about quality of coverage in analyses. This is especially evident in the cited pages of the first reference in the academic studies section (Identity Crisis), which looks carefully at polls but does not study any specific texts. This is less true for the Shorenstein Center report, but the main point from the quantitative studies is simple: the Democratic race didn't get nearly the coverage Trump did. "The perception that Clinton had a lock on the Democratic nomination diminished journalists’ interest in the Democratic race generally and in Sanders’ candidacy particularly." 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 05:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion on the word 'controversy' in either direction – perhaps other editors could weigh in on that. As for Template:Tq, it occurred to me that we should consider augmenting the sentence that follows (Template:Tq) with an explanation on this. It's obvious to people savvy in politics and media ownership etc., but a less knowledgeable reader might want to know why corporate-owned media would be predispositioned to cover Sanders negatively. Would this be possible in a neutral way? Selvydra (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm also not a big fan of the high-drama word "accusations". I like Slywriter's proposal above, though the term "corporate media" so prevalent in headlines about Sanders and this issue, is missing. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 00:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Mainstream media can be replaced by Corporate Owned
That sentence was written last year :) by me when the article was titled media bias. It was a bold edit to achieve consensus and replace a laundry list of political theories that weren't actually covered in the article. Those 3 issues were the main biases claimed. Now, I am not so sure whether they are relevant. Or whether we need 2 sentences to follow the neutral lead... One positive, one negative. Slywriter (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
This has become exactly what I feared. The title was changed, then the article was hijacked. The numerous sources that were quoted in the original version of the article are systematically being removed and an entirely different message is being presented. We now need to start over and build an article covering the original subject, Media bias against Bernie Sanders. That is what the sources of the previous article established. Trackinfo (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
When the nature of wikipedia doesn't allow for biased topics then it is hard to retain the percieved bias that triggered the article in the first place.
The initial version misused the lead to build an unsourced lengthy and pointy narrative before running people through a chronology of events including Sander's statements, media lies & missteps, studies & analyses, news articles and opinions pieces. The connection between the 2 was left to the reader.
Slywriter (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
What we have is an article that has been sanitized. The information from the original article has been disappeared. Sourced content I know I included has been removed along with every supporting source for the rest of the former article. Yes, you found favorable dissenting opinions to reverse document the message you don't like, and used them as sources. By removing one side and replacing it with opposing content this article now serves as a deceptive tool to deliver an incorrect message. Bias, what bias, I don't see any bias. The current version of this article, starting from the first sentence is not WP:NPOV , it is a fraud. Trackinfo (talk) 08:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
The article has not been sanitized, but it has been cleaned up. Including an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of examples is poor writing style, and fails our readers by not putting things in proper historical perspective. In my view, that applies to examples from both POVs. The best way to gauge whether one side or the other is overrepresented is to evaluate sources, in both quality and quantity.- MrX 🖋 18:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I am having difficulty supporting this because it seems to expand the scope of the article subject to the extent that it will become even more of a coatrack. The article originated as an article about media boas against Sanders. That is a notable subject with reasonably clear boundaries. I'm not at all opposed to addressing the imperfect wording of the lead paragraph, but I wish we could all get on the same page about what this article is actually about. - MrX 🖋 18:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
This article got rolled. Exactly as Template:U and I anticipated in the RfC. The one-sided bias now in this article will necessitate the (re)-creation of an article to discuss the Bernie Blackout, which is where this article started. Currently, the re-interpretation of reliable sources has "The New York Times reports The New York Times is doing a good job." The sources in that original version of this article are exactly the alternative news voices that reflect what is outside the mainstream sources patting each other on the back. The unfair and inaccurate reporting of mainstream reliable sources has in fact spawned and spread this alternative media. When Wikipedia puts blinders on and reports "nothing to see here, move along" even though there are tons of reports to the contrary, it hurts Wikipedia's credibility as well. When you lose the trust of a segment of the population, it is very hard to get them back. Trackinfo (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear you are disappointed. I can only assume you haven't had to time to read all the articles which have been added yet. If you have constructive suggestions or things to add, feel free. I haven't seen you editing the page any time recently. Also note that there is a third lead proposal that might be combined with the first and the second in a savvy way that would make you happier. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 12:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
The sources, that primarily you have added, continue to build up the counter-narrative to the contentions of the original version of the article. You have all sorts of studies designed to deceive people who have read those reports listed in the earlier narrative. You are pushing the position that despite what you have read, there is nothing to see here. Move along. At the same time, there has been a full scale assault on every one of the sources of the previous article to mask that side entirely. When the suggestion of a Bernie Blackout is mentioned, once in the article, it is diminished by both "hypothesized" and "alleged" in the same sentence. This is now a one-sided article, presenting the opposite (propaganda) message from the original article. WP:NPOV be damned. I almost question if this content has been overtaken by operatives of the DNC. Trackinfo (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
No, the solution to the issues on this page is not adding unreliable "alternative" sources. WMSR (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
The preceding sentence is inappropriate behaviour.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Most of the left-leaning media sources added here to document allegations of media bias don't have a record of lying or otherwise being unreliable. They wear their political bent as a badge of honor, which should be allowed per WP:BIASED – at least with proper attribution. Put differently, a leftist site is usually a reliable source for leftists' opinion on something.
I can understand Template:U's feelings upon returning to this article and seeing the dramatic makeover it has undergone since it was first made by Template:U – because of the degree of weight that is given to a few studies that mostly tangentially cover Sanders' media coverage, and the way that left-leaning media's allegations have been pushed to the back. While the addition of the studies was definitely a benefit to this article's reliability, it could have come without diminishing the other side so. WP:COATRACK and WP:UNDUE concerns can be used as a valid reason for deletionism to such a degree that the removed "individual, unnotable incidents" put together would've formed a collective, and notable picture. Selvydra (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Template:Tq You mean quantitative studies determining that Sanders received a proportional amount of coverage given his position? Or studies showing that coverage of him was more positive than that of Clinton? This is sounding more and more like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT . Certainly Sanders has been portrayed by various sources in various ways, but the way the article was written before read like a the Sanders campaign's grievances against the media. The fact that the introduction of more reliable sources into the picture has moved the article away from that point of view is a good thing, even if it doesn't fit into the original author's narrative, and it's what we pride ourselves on at Wikipedia. WMSR (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
The technique you are using is WP:WIKILAWYERING . You are probably quite familiar with it, in your vast experience of 3,000 edits over 10 years proudly defending Wikipedia. Might I ask who in Washington you work for? Lets go to the first section I personally added. Under "Content that should be removed or trimmed" Template:Tq Snoogans proposed it. You, WMSR, were the first one to rush to Support. You have the audio track of Schultz saying it. Are you going to accuse that as being faked? This is a clear whitewash of an incident that belongs in this article. It doesn't fit with the narrative you have been pushing, so you want it out. Trackinfo (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Template:Tq You can't be serious.
Everything Snoogans said was accurate. The National Review is not a reliable source, and the statement at the end implies that the two incidents are related when there is no evidence to support that. You are not disputing either of those things. There is no Wikilawyering happening here. WMSR (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Template:Rpa In contrast, I have a long history of defending content. I am also saying that the sources I provided clearly show the quote from Shultz. Its there in audio in his own words. To remove it is snoogans and you wikilawyering to make legitimate content disappear. And yes, I am saying the Shultz getting fired from MSNBC is related. And more importantly Shultz believed the two incidents are related. And here is a source to that effect. Trackinfo (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:OutdentYeah, he did say that, on a Russian propaganda network which was paying him. There is no effort here to remove legitimate content; we are all here to build an encyclopedia. And lay off the personal attacks. This kind of behavior will land you at WP:ANI . --WMSR (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Your behavior here is inappropriate and not constructive. I urge you to strike that and all of your other personal attacks against me. That's not why any of us are here. --WMSR (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I honestly find it hard to fathom that editors are genuinely asserting that Schultz was being untruthful in his interview – or that we should be giving more value to Phil Griffin's immunity from Schultz' words than, well, Schultz' words. How is WP:RS even a variable when it's an interview complete with an audio recording – unless there's reason to believe that National Review fabricates audio records? Lastly, "X is not a reliable source" is not the same as "X is an unreliable source" – in this case it means, "there is no consensus on the reliability of X."
As much as I disagree with Trackinfo's manner of going about this, using WP:RS in such a whitelist-y way – with no consideration of whether or not the content is externally verifiable – seems like "[a]biding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles" to me. Perhaps we should take this question to WP:RSN or WP:VPP ? Selvydra (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I spent some time looking at policies, guidelines and an essay, and made a new section about it. This discussion is in an unrelated section, anyway. Selvydra (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
The interview was on RT, which was Schultz's employer at the time. RT is a straight-up propaganda machine for the Russian government. That makes it highly suspect IMO. --WMSR (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Deleted Ed Schultz interview

This section concerns the following deleted passage: Template:Tqb Reason: Template:Tq

I spent some time looking at policies, guidelines and an essay on interviews, which led me down a rabbit-hole of cross-references. Bear with me.

  • According to WP:IV , Schultz talking about things that happened to himself constitutes a primary source:
To my understanding, when there's audio or video of an interview, that should move the needle towards it being a [48]] in [[WP:RS#Reliability_in_specific_contexts that context].
  • Regarding primary sources, WP:OR#Primary and WP:RSPRIMARY have it that they can be used, but any interpreting of their content isn't allowed and should be relegated to a secondary source.
  • Meanwhile, WP:SPS has,
with some caveats (I suggest having a look at them). Of the caveats, two might apply: 1. Does the MSNBC President here constitute a third party? 2. Is Schultz talking about Griffin disallowing him from covering Sanders an exceptional claim?

In summary, the section should be allowed as long as i) it is not interpreted, ii) if the MSNBC President doesn't enjoy third-party protection and iii) Schultz isn't making an exceptional claim. Let's discuss. Selvydra (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I don't mind the removal of the section about Schultz' termination, if that does constitute synth. Selvydra (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

My issue is that the audio and video are from RT, his employer at the time. To me that's highly problematic. --WMSR (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
In and of itself it is problematic, but – as I detailed above (did you read it?) – as long as there isn't reason to believe that the source faked the interview, the source's RS status isn't inherited. Rather, an interviewee talking about themselves is a primary source and it counts as self-pub. Could I ask you to engage with this? Selvydra (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I tend to agree with WMSR. The first two sources are not good sources. Accuracy in media is probably fine for this article. For an article like this, we should almost never use primary sources, except to provide readers a reference for what is already covered in reliable secondary sources. If this material is important enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia article, there will be better sources that have covered it. If in doubt, leave it out. And yes, a claim about why someone was fired is an exceptional claim and WP:IV is not a policy or guideline. I recommend not looking for loopholes in our actual policies. - MrX 🖋 16:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  1. So is it a primary source like WP:IV says, or should we not listen to IV because it's an essay?
  2. I would argue that "better sources" won't cover this not because a former MSNBC host is untrustworthy, but because doing so is contrary to their interests. CNN, NYT or WaPo aren't going to cover MSNBC being biased against a leftist candidate. Of course it's going to mainly be picked up by right-wing and left-wing media, both of which have an interest in challenging established centrist media. For this article at large, it's going to be hard to find a reliable source that doesn't have a stake in this one way or another. The list of what editors consider RS is dominated by established outlets – mostly owned by very wealthy people – that stand to lose financially from the election of a 'big change' candidate. Of these revered outlets, the NYT is perhaps the least directly affected money-wise, and even they were in favor of his opponent in 2016. So, it ends up being a built-in POV issue in articles that challenge them – especially when the RS standard is used not just to attribute opposing views but to remove them entirely. Selvydra (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  3. Template:Tq A claim about why he couldn't cover Sanders' launch, not why he got fired. But if I understand correctly, person A alleging that person B said anything not-obvious is probably an exceptional claim and needs to be verified to be included.
  4. For me to "look for loopholes in our actual policies," someone would have had to present me with actual policy that addresses the aforementioned open questions regarding interviews. Thus far, I and like-minded editors had mainly been asked to take other editors at their word. I appreciate that your response here was actually substantive. Could I still ask you to comment on the dilemma I voiced at 2.? Selvydra (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Template:Tq I'm getting really tired of responding to accusations on this page. I clearly read it, because somehow, the fact that it was an RT interview, along with the fact that Schultz was employed by RT at the time, were conveniently absent from any mainspace additions. We are talking about a foreign and adversarial state media organization interviewing their own employee, so yeah, I tend to doubt whatever the interview "uncovers". For example, RT (along with many other media organizations, foreign and domestic) reported that Volodymyr Zelynsky said that he felt "no pressure" from Trump to investigate Joe Biden, and indeed there is video of him making this statement. Yet clearly, we cannot accept this statement prima facie because of the pressure applied to him. The same applies here, since there is a clear pressure that employers in the media place on employees (isn't that the entire point of this discussion?). There should be a healthy amount of skepticism surrounding claims like this. --WMSR (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I was under the impression it was an interview by Jamie Weinstein of the National Review, while Schultz was an employee of RT. While I appreciate the point that his employee could have pressured him to answer a certain way, it's another thing to say they did so to Weinstein too. (As a caveat, he may of course have had a pro-conservative-media line.) Were it an interview by RT, I think your arguments would be valid – so the fact that he was employed by them at the time does give the arguments partial merit. So, thank you for engaging with mine. Selvydra (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The correct title is "Media Bias against Bernie Sanders".

Neolibs are the worst.

Change it back.

AllThatJazz2012 (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Consensus was reached (between proponents of both keeping and deleting this article) on changing it to this name. Some of the more prominent editors here, though, continue to interpret the article and its content according to its original name, so this shouldn't be a significant change. It's the content that has been more contentious. Selvydra (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
{{Old AfD multi |date=1 December 2019 |result='''No consensus, but begin a rename discussion''' |page=Media bias against Bernie Sanders |date2=8 December 2019 |result2='''Speedy keep''' |page2=Media bias against Bernie Sanders (2nd nomination)}}
{{talk page}}
{{not a forum}}
{{WikiProject Biography|living=yes}}
{{WikiProject United States |USPE=y |USPE-importance= |class=B|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Politics |American=y |American-importance=mid |class=B|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Journalism|class=B|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Media|class=B|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy|class=C|importance=mid|logic=no}}
{{American politics AE|Consensus required=no|BRD=yes}}

| algo                = old(21d)
| archive             = Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders/Archive %(counter)d
| counter             = 4
| maxarchivesize      = 150K
| archiveheader       = {{Aan}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft      = 3
}}{{Auto archiving notice|age=14|small=yes|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}}

Brock, continued

Should we cite the Podesta-Tanden correspondence about Brock's campaign against Sanders?

When I have time will add this article: [49]

🌿 SashiRolls t · c 14:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Nothing in that piece has anything to do with Media bias against Sanders, except the line that is already in the article on Brock apologizing for criticizing Sanders too hard at times. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
1) The subject of this entry is Media coverage of Bernie Sanders. 2) reread the article, please. You can search for all the occurrences of "Sanders" pretty easily with ctrl-f.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 14:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
3) The piece directly supports the claim that negative campaigns were led during the 2016 election.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 15:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
In one place, Brock wrote criticisms of Sanders. In another, Brock apologized for criticizing Sanders. That is it. That is the only relevance this article has to the topic. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to say no. We need to approach the subject more generally and from a more scholarly perspective. It's already too coatrackish.- MrX 🖋 14:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I hesitate because, as Lessig said, they are stolen emails. I suppose a better pull quote from the article would be something more humble, like: Throughout the campaign, good government groups also criticized Brock’s Correct the Record for trampling federal restrictions on campaign spending by asserting its right to coordinate directly with the Clinton campaign. or During the Democratic primary, Brock declared that “black lives don’t matter to Bernie Sanders” and called on the septuagenarian Sanders to release his medical records in order to cast aspersions on his health. This article also doesn't mention the three filings with the FEC mentioned by Wald-Seitz. Brock led a media campaign, MrX, Snoog; nobody serious really sees it any other way. Media coverage is affected by media campaigns. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 15:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
The mere existence of Brock is not media bias against Sanders. The last line of your comment is the bizarre original research that you're trying to edit-war into the lead and other parts of the article: "a pro-Clinton advocacy group existed (sourced). That group caused media bias against Sanders (unsourced nonsense)." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Where, anywhere, does the en.wp entry say that? You are consistently confusing "media coverage" and "media campaign" with "media bias". 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 15:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Huh? You hesitate to what? You hesitate to approach the subject more generally and from a more scholarly perspective becuase they are stolen emails??? Please help unconfuse me. - MrX 🖋 15:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I asked, Should we include the Podesta-Tanden correspondence? You said no. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 15:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, why do I get the feeling you two are following me around? Granted I pinged you at RSN MrX after you followed my recent contribs to Talk:Tulsi Gabbard. And I don't know why Snoog is getting involved over there. ^^ (1 2) 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 15:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Let's try to stick to discussing content only here. - MrX 🖋 16:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Brock's 3 FEC complaints

OK. Why did you delete Template:Tq2 Template:Reflist-talk saying that it had nothing to do with news coverage? 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 16:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

That a pro-Clinton advocacy group or the Clinton campaign tried to create negative coverage of Sanders and good coverage of their preferred candidate (as is the case in every single political campaign) is not media bias against Sanders and is not notable in the slightest. That is politics. It's WP:COATRACK. What's next? Adding Clinton's criticisms of Sanders to the article? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
There is no mention of media bias against Sanders in that article. You seem to be suggesting that "sometimes are used more to generate news coverage than actual enforcement action." means that American Democracy Legal Fund was trying to drum up negative press about Sanders in 2016. If so, you need sources that say that unequivocally, not "sometimes are used". - MrX 🖋 19:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
lol. If you follow the links in the first paragraph of the article to the three complaints (conveniently marked complaint, another, and the third)... you will see that the AFDL deleted all three. It must not have gone that well, huh? :) Also, this is a page about media coverage, it says so right at the top of the page. Let go of that old title ("media bias"). It is history (because the vast majority of people surveyed found that it was a bad title for an entry, and that further developments should strive to cover "media coverage". It will remain history until there is another move proposal. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 23:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Now Template:Yo is arguing that we should include the "media coverage" aspect of strategic lawsuits over at Tulsi Gabbard 2020 presidential campaign (diff). I still think, as you may have guessed, that this should be included. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 00:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Template:U, I thought WP:FOC was sacrosanct? And no, I did not Template:Tq, I corrected the article based on what the source said, and added additional sources, not that that stopped editors from reinserting patently false information into the article. The fact that one source found one lawyer to make that assertion is hardly enough to argue that Gabbard might win her defamation suit against Clinton. As reliable sources have reported, there is hardly a legitimate debate over whether Gabbard's lawsuit is serious. Your justification for adding the above content is still a stretch. Stop mischaracterizing my edits. --WMSR (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
You really shouldn't repeat claims that have been shown to be false. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 00:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
True, false, favorite, underdog. This is exactly the problem with all these articles. Why is wikipedia recording anything other than a lawsuit was filed? The misuse of people's opinions presented as facts remains a staggering problem. Tulsi can be judged when it's over. Same for the Media and Bernie. Any attempt at 2020 is doomed to failure and violating NPOV. And balancing various POV is NOT NPOV. We are here to record the facts of humanity Slywriter (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
For 2016, les jeux sont faits. And Brock's filings in 2016 should be mentioned, lest we lose sight of the point of this section of the TP. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 00:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
No. Consensus has not changed. This article is about media coverage, not litigation. --WMSR (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
...except that they haven't, and this isn't about me. That I missed a detail does not change the fact that undue weight was/is given to the Time article. This page is not for discussion about the Gabbard article; if you take issue with my edits there, raise them on the appropriate page. --WMSR (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Media Matters

This sentence:

Matters, part of the Brock complex,Template:Synthesis inline[50] reported on a September 2015 study by Andrew Tyndall, which showed ABC, [51], and [52] devoted 504 minutes to the presidential race (338 to Republicans, 128 minutes to Democrats, of which 8 minutes were about Sanders).[53]

contains WP:SYNTH. The editor apparently wanted to school readers by combining two unrelated sources. I would appreciate it if someone could fix this.- MrX 🖋 17:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The line connecting Media Matters to Brock is synth and should be removed. The repeated additions of this over multiple challenges also constitute a violation of WP:BRD and possibly the 1RR editing restrictions on the page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
That's my impression as well. - MrX 🖋 18:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I notice there is a lot of talk about "weaponizing" info and "weaponized" politics in the article you don't like being used to provide contextual info. Here's a fine pull quote to speak of what Brock brought to the table just out of the 2016 election: In the run-up to his weekend donor confab, Brock promised to build a complex that would “weaponize” information to savage all things Trump. Media Matters would strafe the press, ShareBlue would be turned into a “Breitbart of the left,” American Bridge would churn out oppo research, and his legal center would bury Trump and appointees in legal suits. [54] 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 23:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • This problematic material is still in article, in a slightly different form. - MrX 🖋 14:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Brock blames Sanders for Clinton's loss in NBC News, 3 Jan 2019

The repeated restorations of "Brock wrote an anti-Sanders op-ed in 2019"[55] is a violation of WP:BRD and possibly the other editing restrictions on this article. Again, this op-ed has nothing to do with the topic: that someone wrote an anti-Sanders op-ed is not media bias against Sanders and it fails WP:DUE. The obsession with David Brock (which includes insinuations across multiple years that Wikipedia editors are working for Brock) and the attempts to turn this article into an article about him via edit-warring and over the objections of multiple editors needs to stop. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

For those wondering what is/was actually written in mainspace: In January 2019, prior to his campaign announcement, David Brock criticized Sanders in NBC News for having given Trump talking points.[19]


🌿 SashiRolls t · c 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Since this is a new subject I've added an appropriate section title based on the first line of the essay you don't think is relevant. Your habit of casting of aspersions without evidence, as in the comment directly above, is, of course, a major policy violation. You have no evidence of what you claim. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 08:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
The material needs to removed as WP:UNDUE. The heavy handed restoration of the material against the objections of at least two editors, and the apparent obsession with Brock, is very concerning. - MrX 🖋 16:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Just to the Record, I have only ever made one edit (in Sept. 2016) to Mr. Brock's en.wp BLP or TP (in order to add a hatnote still present in the article today). 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Snoogans and MrX. I also see no policy violations in Snoogans's comment. This is starting to get out of hand. The scope of this article is journalistic media coverage of Bernie Sanders. Lots of people have opinions that they express online or in advertising/social media or through PACs. None of that belongs in this article. WMSR (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, you have a consensus of three like-minded individuals. Do what you wish. Obviously I disagree concerning Brock's obsession with Sanders, but if you want to say that you think in good conscience that a political operative like David Brock having such free access to NBC News in order to say he "blames Hillary Clinton's defeat" on Bernie Sanders is not noteworthy, it is difficult to argue with you given the current situation at NBC News... (I do think it's funny he used the same word ("poisonous") that was used in the Jan 2017 to describe his methods.) [56]
Regardless, the claims made by Snoog above are not policy compliant: feel free to reread WP:ASPERSIONS concerning evidence-less claims. And saying an editor is "obsessed" is just a little poisonous, too. But I'm used to MrX and Snoog's methods. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 18:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Sanders's campaign manager is regularly on CNN. That is not evidence of a CNN bias in favor of Sanders, it's just CNN interviewing a primary source. If Sanders's CM worked for CNN, that would be a major problem, but that isn't the case. In terms of Brock having "free access" to NBC, nobody got more free media coverage during the 2016 election than the current president, who regularly took advantage of this coverage to attack Hillary Clinton. Yet there is no page on "Media coverage of Hillary Clinton" because it isn't notable; "the media" weren't the ones constantly portraying Clinton negatively, it was Trump and his campaign surrogates, which was exacerbated by the media's disproportionate coverage of—not bias toward—Trump. And all of that information either falls within the purview of her 2016 campaign page or the election page. For that reason, I'm still not convinced this page meets notability guidelines, but I especially don't see a single talking head as having as much influence or notability as you have repeatedly claimed he does. This article does not exist to make an argument, it exists to present notable and well-sourced facts. --WMSR (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
1) I've always seen then Weaver & now Shakir identified in those interviews as Sanders' campaign manager (usually both visually and orally, before he starts and often while he is speaking). NBC News does not explicitly identify Brock as being associated with Clinton at all in this article. (Granted, Brock himself does (towards the end), but NBC News does not, prefering to say: David Brock is the author of five political books, including Killing the Messenger (Hachette, 2015) and Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative (Crown, March 2002). He founded Media Matters for America in 2004 and then American Bridge 21st Century in 2011. source)
2) According to Patterson, Clinton received extensive negative media coverage except during the period March 15th-May 3rd. So, contrary to what you assert, she did, in fact, get a lot of what used to be called "bad press".
3) I remain agnostic as to where all this stuff should end up. As I suggested in the move discussion, Media coverage of Democratic presidential primaries (2000-2020) would be a good place to put coverage of Democratic presidential primaries. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 20:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
But once again, you're now moving into WP:SYNTH or WP:OR territory. And I didn't assert that coverage of Clinton wasn't negative, rather that it wasn't biased. Regardless, I remain unconvinced that any of this is notable enough for its own article; the lede plus sources could be moved to a section in the Sanders article and we could call it a day. Sanders's claims of bias would make much more sense there, where he is the subject, than here, where the subject is the media's coverage of him. --WMSR (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
This is a talk page, not mainspace. What I wrote in mainspace is neither WP:SYNTH nor WP:OR. People can discuss whether it's WP:DUE if they want, but let's not confuse the issue, OK? As I already said, "do what you want".🌿 SashiRolls t · c 22:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

CTR gets outed sending HuffPost journalists oppo research

I see that MrX has deleted a HuffPost article, and reference to Jeff Weaver's chapter on Brock, added about a week ago, because he was unable to find a chapter title in Weaver using google.

quote: I'm challenging this content. The book has no such chapter. Something is fishy here...

psst MrX: look!

Hmmm... what was the subject, again? Oh yes, CTR trying to compare Sanders to Maduro & Corbyn and getting called out on it. Go figure. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 22:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I have restored the reference as there was nothing fishy about the sourcing.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 20:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Template:U, There was no discussion here, let alone consensus to restore that content. Frankly, I did not even notice that you had posted here since you did not start this thread at the bottom of the page. I understand that you have your own opinions and beliefs regarding the content of this article, but please leave that behind when editing this page. I am also asking you to revert your re-addition of the content you mentioned here per WP:BRD. I am getting worn out responding to your constant additions of POV content, and I imagine other editors are as well. Please try to look at this issue objectively. Best, WMSR (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough, go ahead and revert the content if you wish. I think it should stand, it is well sourced and due description of issues surrounding media coverage. (There's more WP:V stuff in Weaver for those who want to dig.) 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 20:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I cannot revert it because of 1RR. And the fact that you're digging for more information that fits your POV speaks volumes. --WMSR (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I had a look at that ANI thread you started briefly. Here's some dig-reading: Archaeology of Knowledge The Archaeology of Sausage. Someone'll probably be along shortly. There is no deadline. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 00:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
See? Don't worry, be happy. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 00:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Question about CTR's deleted matter @ the Wayback Machine

Advertisement published on Wikimedia Commons

Can anybody dig up an archival version of the deleted press release from the CTR site saying it was inspired for its social media campaign by BernieBros? Here's the Daily Beast story: [57] Like the three FEC filings mentioned above, it seems to have been deleted from Correct the Record. Oh, that was easier than I thought, it's been archived 342 times at

So Brock *was* behind this, at least from 21 April... : "Many of Hillary Clinton’s female supporters in particular have been subject to intense cyber-bullying and sexist attacks from swarms of anonymous attackers."

Are Daily Beast and the Wayback Machine aimed at Brock's site sufficiently reliable sources to include in this article? I'm not a big fan of the Beast in general but this story does check out (using one of their links augmented by the Wayback Machine). 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm lost. What are you arguing here? --WMSR (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
You're not lost. I asked a question; I didn't argue. Let's mark those refs up while we're here and write some text:

Template:Tq2 Template:Reflist-talk New question: should this be included? Bernie & Sanders & media & false narratives are all mentioned in the CTR press release. Again this is related to social media coverage. I'm not sure the DB makes clear they covered this the day the press release was published, though you can see that at the wayback machine.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 00:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:Done After 10 days without response I've gone ahead and posted it. It is remarkable how many of these stories got deleted. I likewise had to dig up the original that The Guardian linked to for their story because the Las Vegas Sun had deleted it (§), just as this Daily Beast story linked to a deleted CTR page, just as the Huff Post story above linked to 3 deleted CTR pages. Funny coincidences that all of Brock's stuff gets deleted, even at the Las Vegas Sun. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 20:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Removed illustrations

I had a look at Wikimedia Commons for some images that might help illustrate the article. The result is here. I see Snoog couldn't even let me finish before deleting the one related to one of the themes of the entry. Which one? Well, I bet you'll be able to guess... 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 15:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:U do you know if there's a headshot somewhere I'm missing? 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 15:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


To keep track of things, here are some articles that have been deleted (either from the entry or from their original site). [18]



Since MrX doesn't want me painting any impressionistic rainbows, I won't suggest that we include Foundation|WMF data for page views on Bernie Sanders & Hilary Clinton for July 1, 2015 to May 31, 2016. Still... is WMFLabs a secondary source as regards en.wp? ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I do not understand what you're trying to say. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
In principle, the wikimedia foundation provides a media platform to those who can be trusted to keep their POV at bay. At tools lab there are a number of tools allowing one to study wikimedia coverage of many subjects in many ways. As it happens, several of the tools are down at the moment (find author / find addition). But pageviews isn't. ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 20:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


  • Prior to Sanders' announcement of his intention to run for the Democratic nomination on April 30, 2015, his Wikipedia entry was 54K in length, whereas Clinton's page was 208K. By July 12, 2016 Sanders' entry was 160% larger, having grown to 140K. By contrast, Clinton's page had grown to 242K, an increase of 16%.
  • From 1 May 2015 to 30 June 2016, Sanders' entry was modified 3279 times, 92% more often than Clinton's entry, which was was modified 1702 times.
  • During the two years 2015 & 2016, Clinton's entry was protected 15 times, Sanders' 10. 1, 2 The data does not indicate what level of protection was applied (pending changes, extended confirmed, full protection, etc.)
  • In terms of reader interest, the WMF does not provide data on the period from May 01, 2015 to June 30, 2015, but for the period from July 01, 2015 to 12 June 2016, Sanders' page was viewed 15.7 million times (45.2K views per day) and Clinton's page was viewed 7.9 million times (22.6K views per day) source

🌿 SashiRolls t · c 15:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:Hab Compare to search data below.

CNN's moderators have been widely lambasted for bias against Sanders after the last debate

The backlash on the part of Sanders supporters is big enough to deserve mention. But the backlash also came from media figures, and even a journalism think-tank, the Institute. Below are some links demonstrating it:

In addition, there has been criticism from the Sanders campaign and its supporters. The above, however, is just from nominally non-partisan sources, but even the narrow selection above, with the high number of articles and high notability of the sources, should justify the inclusion of CNN moderator bias against Sanders into the entry. — Rafe87 (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

You may have a point. But, your point would have been better made if you hadn't included some biased sources and a duplicate of a source. Quality trumps quantity. O3000 (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't see where I posted a duplicate? And a number of the sources above are considered bona fide Reliable Sources on Wikipedia, fit even as references for pure facts, even more so for opinions and criticism. — Rafe87 (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Rafe, this is a very helpful list for me and helping me to see things in a more accurate light. Gandydancer (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
If you meant both the citation to the Poynter Institute and the cite to AP covering it, that isn't a duplicate or redundant - it's useful to have both a WP:PRIMARY source as a courtesy to readers and a WP:SECONDARY source to establish due weight and to provide the interpretation and analysis we need to really write anything about it. Anyway, I think those and Rolling Stone are enough to justify a sentence or two on this. I'd avoid going into excessive depth, though, for WP:RECENTISM reasons. --Aquillion (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Does anyone want to take a try at writing something for us to consider? In my experience when it's something difficult like this it can sometimes need to use a little more than a little less... As for RECENTISM, anyone that reads our Trump articles knows that a lot of stuff goes in them practically within hours of when it happens, in some ways a sign of the times we are presently living in, perhaps. Gandydancer (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
The CNN-sponsored debate between Democratic pre-candidates on January 14, 2020, was the subject of criticism over perceived bias against Sanders, especially concerning moderator Abby Philips's handling of a controversy between Sanders and fellow Senator and pre-candidate Elizabeth Warren. The criticism came not only from Sanders' campaign and his supporters on social media, who made #CNNisTrash trend on Twitter, but also from journalists and political analysts from a wide range of political perspectives, such as Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone and Steve Cortes, CNN's own pro-Trump contributor. Journalism think-tank Poynter Institute lambasted Philips's treatment of Sanders, describing it as "stunning in its ineptness, and stunning in its unprofessionalism."Rafe87 (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I think you should start a new thread with this suggested wording. Gandydancer (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Matt Taibbi followed Trump's campaign for Rolling Stone and wrote a really good piece for them that is well-worth a read even now. He said that these days he found that there's such a mad scramble to be the first outlet to get news out that fact checking is a thing of the past. And here's a 2016 interview with Amy Goodman that is a short and good read IMO. [58] Gandydancer (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Gandydancer. I added this reference to the article. Template:Ping, would you consider adding what the actual "souped up" story was? It seems strange not to mention it. (i.e. that Sanders said or didn't say something to Warren in private in 2018). 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 17:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to mentioning it, but some editors have expressed concern over WP:UNDUE. Since the article is about Media Coverage of Sanders, I focused just on the media handling of the issue instead of the issue in itself..Rafe87 (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
I understand. I just think it fits very well with the more general criticism of media coverage of political horseraces (conflict between candidates) rather than treatment of issues. You've got an illustration next to your paragraph now that won't make much sense until the teapot tempest is mentioned. (Apparently progressive foundations are trying to get the candidates to cut it out.) 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 17:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:Ping "you hadn't included some biased sources" - Might I remind you that under RS, sources can still be biased and reliable. Thats not a qualifier for inclusion or removal. Only unreliability and non-verified statements.--WillC 02:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to point out, this is what I was talking about in the #Debate info section above.--WillC 02:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Okay but Fox News pundits bashing CNN is hardly out of the ordinary. --WMSR (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
This is important. Biased sources can be used, but for political controversies it's best to have at least one unbiased source at least mentioning a controversy to show that it's WP:DUE - partisan sources will eagerly cover everything that might advance their views, so it means less when they breathlessly treat something as world-shattering than it would from a less biased source. That said, the AP story and the Poynter institute is sufficient for that IMHO. (EDIT: Also, the AP story isn't just citing the Poynter institute; it also covers a lot of the responses on Twitter, which are the sort of thing we can't cover directly but can mention when a reliable secondary source does - especially a relatively unbiased one like the AP.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
What did you think of the paragraph I wrote above, as a suggestion for insertion into the entry? — Rafe87 (talk) 07:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Fox News contains a quote from a CNN contributor, Steve Cortes, criticizing his employer's bias against Sanders. That is hardly business as usual. —Rafe87 (talk) 07:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The header says moderators in plural. But, the sources seem to talk to one sentence by one moderator. O3000 (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Even Fox News & MSNBC (no friends of Sanders) have been highly critical of CNN, on this matter. Heck, even the audience at Iowa debate reacted with laughter. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Amusingly, no sign of this criticism in the three articles about it in the NYT. I saw that Frank was their go-to quote guy for an analysis of the Warren-Sanders rift. Somehow they forgot to mention just how much he loves Sanders. ^^ Sydney Ember, again... 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 19:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

The content belongs in one form or another. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Removal and re-writing of academic content

The editor SashiRolls has made numerous changes to the academic content in this article, whereby the editor has reduced this content, as well as re-written it in a way that makes it less coherent and readable. The re-writes also fail to accurately summarize the studies and academic assessments (often times removing relevant findings on media bias that relate to Sanders). This is what the page used to look like before/after SashiRolls's changes:

Template:Strikethrough Template:Strikethrough Template:Strikethrough Template:Strikethrough

The "Academic analyses" section (before SR's changes - with some compromises):

According to the 2018 book Identity Crisis: The 2016 Presidential Campaign and the Battle for the Meaning of America by political scientists John Sides, Michael Tesler, and Lynn Vavreck, Sanders benefitted from media coverage in 2015, which was more positive than media coverage of Clinton. The amount of news coverage he received exceeded his share in the national polls at that time. Throughout the campaign as a whole, their analysis shows that "Sanders’s media coverage and polling numbers were strongly correlated." They write, "media coverage brought Sanders to a wider audience and helped spur his long climb in the polls by conveying the familiar tale of the surprisingly successful underdog. Meanwhile, Clinton received more negative media coverage."[20]

In her 2018 book, The Unprecedented 2016 Presidential Election, political scientist Rachel Bitecofer writes that even though the democratic primary was effectively over in terms of delegate count by mid-March 2016, the media promoted the narrative that the contest between Sanders and Clinton was heating up. According to Bitecofers's analysis, Trump received more extensive media coverage than Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders combined during a time when those were the only primary candidates left in the race.[21]

A June 2016 report by the Harvard Kennedy School Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy on media coverage of candidates in the 2016 presidential primaries. The report found that the Democratic race "received less than half the coverage of the Republican race." Regarding Sanders, the analysis found that his campaign was "largely ignored in the early months" when he was barely ahead of the other lagging Democratic contenders, Martin O’Malley and Jim Webb. However, as the Sanders campaign "began to get coverage, it was overwhelmingly positive in tone. Sanders’ coverage in 2015 was the most favorable of any of the top candidates, Republican or Democratic." Throughout the 2016 primaries, "five Republican contenders—Trump, Bush, Cruz, Rubio, and Carson—each had more news coverage than Sanders during the invisible primary. Clinton got three times more coverage than he did." The analysis found that "Clinton had by far the most negative coverage of any candidate. In 11 of the 12 months, her "bad news" outpaced her "good news," usually by a wide margin, contributing to the increase in her unfavorable poll ratings in 2015."[22]

In her 2018 book on the 2016 election, studies scholar Colleen Elizabeth Kelly noted that Sanders and Clinton got a share of news coverage that was similar to their eventual primary results, until the stage of the campaign when Clinton pulled ahead in the primary. Sanders received the most favorable coverage of any primary candidate. Kelly writes that Sanders was both right and wrong to complain about media bias. Right, because the media was too little interested in the Democratic primary to give him the coverage he needed early, and wrong, because, on average, Sanders's coverage, though initially scant, was more often positive than any other candidate's coverage prior to voting.[23]

In September 2015, John Sides, a Political Science Professor at Vanderbilt University, found that the volume of media coverage of Sanders was consistent with his polling, noting that candidates who poll well get more news coverage.[24] Sides also concluded that the coverage Sanders received was proportionally more positive than that received by Clinton.[24] Jonathan Stray, a scholar of computational journalism at the Columbia Journalism School, wrote for the Lab in January 2016 that, "at least online", Sanders received coverage proportionate to his standing in polls.[25]

The "Academic analyses" section (after SR's changes):

Jonathan Stray, a computational journalism researcher at the Columbia Journalism School, wrote for Lab in January 2016 that, "at least online", Sanders got coverage proportionate to his standing in polls.[25]

A June 2016 report by the Harvard Kennedy School Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy analyzed the media coverage of candidates in the 2016 presidential primaries.[22] The report found Trump received more coverage than any other candidate, with the Democratic race getting "less than half the coverage of the Republican race." Patterson wrote that the Sanders campaign was "largely ignored in the early months", but that once Sanders did begin to get coverage in 2015, it was "overwhelmingly positive in tone": Sanders had the most positive coverage of any presidential candidate (Republican or Democrat) in 2015."[22][26] Patterson also found that coverage of Sanders was "particularly sparse" during the "middle period" of the primary (March 15-May 3).[27] Sanders himself focused on the data the Shorenstein Center provided showing that coverage of issues was vastly inferior (10%) to coverage of the primary process and the political "horserace" (90%).[28]

A 2018 book co-written by three political scientists said that the amount of news coverage Sanders received exceeded his share in the national polls in 2015. Throughout the campaign as a whole, their analysis showed that his "media coverage and polling numbers were strongly correlated."[20]

In her 2018 book, Rachel Bitecofer writes that even though the democratic primary was effectively over in terms of delegate count by mid-March 2016, the media promoted the narrative that the contest between Sanders and Clinton was heating up.[21] Bitecofer found that Trump received more media coverage than Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders combined during a time when those were the only primary candidates left in the race.[21]


Can we please restore the version before SashiRolls's changes? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Important: The following section has been moved by SS from the pertinent section above. They have also modified the text I was responding to, but still pretends I am the author of text they themselves authored. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 17:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:Tq2 evidence

You reverted my last proposal:


🌿 SashiRolls t · c 16:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes, it looks like I accidentally copy-pasted a portion that you added to the body to the lead while I was reverting your edits. I'll go ahead and restore the version of the lead that summarizes the studies. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Regarding your recent comments, I can remove the two versions of the lead above or strike through them for the sake of clarity. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Some people would call this lying, others disruption, but we Wikipedians know that it's a sin to accuse someone of lying, and not a sin to actually lie. If you want to call your edit a mistake, that's fine. An apology would come naturally to most people in such a situation. I'm sorry for reacting so strongly to your mistake. I appreciate you reducing the number of times you name check or initial check me from 7 to 5 and from 4 to 2 in your sub-headers. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 18:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to make any edits you want to the page. I believe that it makes sense to put 2016 studies before 2018 studies, and to have the Shorenstein study before the studies that rely on it. We also do not need to repeat the same thing five times and should definitely not ignore the middle period of the primaries as you wish to do. Again, John Sides, writing for the "monkey cage" doesn't really belong in academic studies as it is not peer reviewed. Likewise for the Vox journalists. I am willing to help you rewrite. Take things one at a time... as I've done here: 1) chronological order, 2) no repetition, especially of partial summaries which neglect the conclusions of the Shorenstein study as a whole (e.g. 90% of focus on the horserace, 10% on the issues), 3) Monkey cage squib & Vox do not belong in academic analyses. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 16:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
(1) It makes no sense to list the academic analyses in chronological order. Rather we should start the section with summaries of Sides, Tesler and Vavreck, and the Shorenstein Center report, as those are the most comprehensive analyses of media bias in 2016. (2) If multiple academic analyses have the same findings, then we ought to cover those findings. It makes no sense to make it seem as if only one analysis found X on the topic of media bias, when several did. (3) The Sides analysis in the Monkey Cage (which is the Washington Post's political science blog and run by recognized experts) is by a recognized expert on the topic, and is clearly an academic analysis. Furthermore, the Nieman Lab analysis and the Shorenstein Center report are not peer-reviewed, but that is not a reason to remove them from the 'academic analysis' section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
(3) So, you think that we should include a September 2015 WaPo blogpost at the end of the academic analysis of a section studying (in principle) whether WaPo (among others) showed bias in their coverage. If you'd like we could include the following quote from that September 2015 blogpost: Template:Tq This all sounds very "academic"and serious, doesn't it? paraphrased: "Unless we cover Wilma, she won't win, so it's no big deal that nobody is covering Wilma." I notice there is no discussion of issues, only of "horseracing" in your expert's testimony for the WaPo. I think we can reject any claim that this is an academic analysis, even if WSMR cites John Sides of the WaPo saying it's super-serious academic stuff again. It's an op-ed. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 18:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Just to be clear: John Sides is a Professor of Political Science at Vanderbilt and is the author of a Princeton University Press book, which among other things looks at media coverage in the 2016 election. To say that his analysis, which is published on WaPo's Political Science blog, is not an "academic analysis" is just wrong. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
It's also a 500-word blogpost at the Washington Post. Get over it. That said, I would be interested in hearing others who have run across RS on how Sides used that "washy post-it" during the 2016 or 2020 primary. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
(1) It makes perfect sense to list the academic analyses in chronological order, since the 2018 studies base their claims on the 2016 study. Hello? (2) I'm sure you can find cherry-picked sentences from cherry-picked studies. However, as agreed above, we should try to find out what makes the studies unique, not have all of them talking about one part of the primary (pre-voting) and all agreeing with Mr. Sides that "polling" rather than "issues" are the most important factor in determining media coverage. This is a presupposition that is indeed widely shared in the for-profit media. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 18:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Neither the Sides, Tesler and Vavreck PUP book and the Bitecofer book base their findings on the Shorenstein Center report. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
It does however cite the Shorenstein Center study quite a bit. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 19:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
"It" being what? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Template:EcThe first...
It's a Princeton University Press book. It cites a lot of things. The content that the Wikipedia article cites the book for is the authors' own analysis. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
And Bitecofer's book is not a media studies book. It barely mentions media coverage of Bernie Sanders. I think you found the two occurrences, one of which was (in fact) focused on coverage of Donald Trump. (Don't get me wrong, the book seems pretty good, it's less POV than the Kelley book, though the specific "heating up" claim contradicts the hard data in terms of quantity of stories. I assume she is making a qualitative claim about the relatively small number of stories which appeared post March 15). 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 14:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
It's a peer-reviewed political science book, which contains an analysis of the media coverage of the candidate. It's incredibly tiring to have to debate every single snippet of what 99/100 editors would consider basic uncontroversial content, including this debate on whether peer-reviewed academic research on the topic in question should be considered RS and DUE, and whether political science professors who write on the topic are recognized experts or nor. It's mind-numbing to have to debate these kinds of things again and again and again. Hours and hours and hours are wasted on this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Template:Od

Proposed improvement of the 2nd paragraph of the lead which treats at least three elements in the body that Snoogans' version glosses over and eliminates some of the misleading bits & unchallenged presuppositions.

Template:Tq2 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 19:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

This version is badly written, confusing and puts undue focus on the 6 weeks during the primary when Sanders received slightly more negative coverage than Clinton. You also conflate in a very confusing way the fact that Sanders received slightly more negative stories than Clinton during a 6-week period with his share of total coverage. The lead should not get into the weeds of specific numbers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Fact-check: no, Sanders did not receive "slightly more negative stories" than Clinton. 70% fewer positive stories and 40% fewer negative stories were written about Sanders than Clinton during this important part of the voting primary. We've been through this. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 20:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm obviously talking about the ratio of positive-negative stories, which is the way everyone talks about this topic, except you (who are taking numbers from sources and recalculating them according to some meaningless metric). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, number of total stories in the sample. That's meaningless, to be sure! Meanwhile... how about that first line? Why no mention in the lead about the principal complaint? 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 20:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
The "horserace" thing has nothing to do with media bias against Sanders per se. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Reminder, the subject/title of the page is media coverage not media bias.
7% of the pre-primary stories about Sanders covered issues, according to Patterson, whereas 28% of HRC's did. "Template:Tq Patterson1 (sourced to Media Tenor). Just a quick response using the same source, there's plenty more sources that argue the same thing, including Sanders himself. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 20:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Cillizza's ratings of candidates performances in debates.

In the seven Democratic presidential nomination debates held so far, has CNN's Cillizza declared Sanders a winner, at least once? If so, perhaps this can be sourced & added to the article, per balance. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

What does that have to do with media bias? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, if Cillizza is always giving Sanders a bad rating & he works for CNN whom among their sponsors are pharmaceutical companies (which oppose Medicare for All), it's likely that CNN (and Cillizza) would be seen as biased against Sanders. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
CNN has a lot of pundits. These people have opinions (usually very unremarkable opinions). That a CNN pundit doesn't like Sanders or his debate performances is not media bias. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that could be evidence of bias, GoodDay, but we're not allowed to take that conclusion ourselves to insert it into the entry, because that violates WP:OR. Instead, a media, academic, or political source would have to denounce the bias of his ratings in a reliable source. Rafe87 (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

This article exists because of ample sources of mainstream news media bias against Sanders. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
This is way too far a reach. We cannot say that someone that offers an opinion at a news outlet defines bias in the corporation. For one thing, maybe he's right. But even if that isn't true, it still isn't an indication of bias. It's one opinion. It looks like we are trying (like some alt-right sites) too find a path to show bias. WP:OR O3000 (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
This in conjunction with the recent articles about CNN bias would work within a section of actions by CNN that wouldn't synth, OR, undue, or NPOV. There is certainly a source somewhere out there discussing Cillizza's views.--WillC 07:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Media coverage of Sanders outside of presidential elections

One of the biggest weaknesses of this entry (as titled) is that it only focuses on his presidential runs. Could that be fixed? 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 14:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Has he actually gotten that much coverage outside of presidential elections? He wasn't very well-known internationally prior to his 2016 run, and most of the coverage since then was either of that run or in anticipation of the 2020 run. We could definitely dig up primary coverage (clearly he was mentioned in the news as a Senator), but I doubt we could find much secondary coverage of how he was covered in the news outside of passing mentions, which probably aren't enough to support anything. --Aquillion (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I think you are right Aquillion. I'm an elderly progressive so I've known a fair amount about him for years. But until his first run outside of a few elders and people from Vermont nobody knew a thing about him, especially young people. Gandydancer (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Alternative media sources

I removed this from the first chronological position in "timeline" (2016) because it is a 2019 article and talks about (news show), [59] and Now!, not just Young Turks.[29] There's another on Krystal Ball covering Bernie Sanders here: [30] Template:Reflist-talk

Anyone have an idea how this article about Sanders' more sympathetic coverage (relevant also to "bias" though that is not the page title) should be worked into the entry?

🌿 SashiRolls t · c 12:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The Gladstone Cartoon on political handicapping

Political horseracing: "What gran' race is this that's gaun on here, Donald?"
I'm curious why this late 19th C. British cartoon was removed from the article. It helps readers see how some commentators (including Patterson, Higdon, Huff, Grim, Goodman, FAIR, etc.) understand the oft-repeated term horse-racing (which is in fact the title of Patterson2). This is basic encyclop(a)edic context.
Template:EcAccording to the edit summary the rich illustrations on Brock, Disney, the Washington Post, political handicapping, the January debate in Iowa, and West Virginia rallies were "unrelated" to subjects treated on this page. Perhaps I should have included a somewhat more sober image of Disney HQ? Or not. Did anyone like the illustrations?🌿 SashiRolls t · c 23:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Walt Disney Studios Alameda Entrance.jpg
All of the removed content failed [60] because it did not serve to aid the reader's understanding of the article. --WMSR (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Bare assertions not worth their weight in pixels. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 20:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
"Horse-race" is such a common phrase regarding election coverage that readers hardly need a 19th century political cartoon to explain the concept. Even if some explanation were needed, that image is certainly not the best way to do so. Maybe a link to race journalism would be better? Of the other pictures, the Disney one is only tangentially related to the subject of the article and definitely unnecessary. The others removed didn't really add anything either. Rock Canyon Red Rock Canyon (Rock Canyon talk) 19:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
1) interesting. in my part of the world it is certainly not a common phrase regarding election coverage (probably because there are very different rules regarding strict network time parity for candidates). You can use the search engine of your choice and look for "courses hippiques" (horserace) and "élection": you will learn about elections for positions in horseracing itself. 2) not sure I agree that the WaPo image adds nothing to the page... it has shown quite clearly by its presence on the en.wp Washington Post page for over 3 years that the paper is closely associated with HRC. The absence of David Brock images on commons and the association with Ready for Hillary and Correct the Record clearly makes for a very useful illustration. As for Reverend Barber and the Poor People's campaign lobbying for the discussion of real issues at the January 2020 Iowa debate rather than manufactured controversies, we can respectfully disagree... (as for the size of the rallies, well, that too has been extensively mentioned in the secondary literature). In particular, Sanders observed -- as mentioned in the entry -- that the national press did not follow him when he went to poor communities in West Virginia (only the local press did).
Pre-debate gathering in Des Moines Jan. 14 (Rev. William J. Barber II, leader of the Poor People's Campaign)
🌿 SashiRolls t · c 20:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
While the term may not translate well, it still does not need to be defined on English Wikipedia. And, as Red Rock said, if an explanation is required, a 19th-century cartoon is not the way to do it. The cartoon adds no context or definitions. The Washington Post image would certainly belong in a "Media coverage of Hillary Clinton" page, but it does not fit here at all. The fact that it is's infobox photo is also not relevant to this article's subject matter. Not to mention you have provided no evidence whatsoever supporting your assertion that it is Template:Tq. It is not. The absence of images of David Brock does not mean that a tangentially-related image of an invitation to an event should be added because it has his name on it. This article is neither about about the debates nor the Poor People's Campaign, so the Barber picture really does not belong either, not to mention that the national media usually does not follow every candidate everywhere, especially in states that aren't one of the initial four primary states. --WMSR (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Since you went to so much trouble I'll answer. First, please don't misquote me in bright turquoise. I said "associated with", and on English Wikipedia, the Washington Post has been associated with Hillary Clinton & Bernie Sanders (who both have their picture on the page) since 2016... to be precise, since June 17, 2016. Since that date the entry (with its non-free image which I dutifully filled out the non-free use template for) has been viewed 3.7 million times. It is a picture of Bernie Sanders on the cover of the Washington Post. For Brock, see the talk page section above. For Barber, see below, in this section. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 23:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Template:U, I do not understand your point here. Why is a Washington Post front page depicting Hillary Clinton related to "Media coverage of Bernie Sanders"? --WMSR (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
It did have a side column about Bernie Sanders (I think that was his picture on there) but the resolution was so low even the headline was unreadable. Maybe that's meant to prove some kind of point? I don't know, I think it's basically standard practice in election coverage to give the more space to the winner than the loser. Either way, it's not really a great image for this article since it's not specifically related to any text in the article itself. The Washington Post is mentioned a few times, but nothing about that particular edition. Also, if it's not a free image, then I'm not sure Wikipedia's non-free image policy allows its inclusion except on article specifically about that image. Not 100% sure on that though. Rock Canyon Red Rock Canyon (Rock Canyon talk) 02:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
You are correct. It can only be used one place. --WMSR (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Please provide proof of this claim. The non-free use conditions do not specify only using it on one article as far as I see. It actually wasn't how the forms were initially filled out on June 17, 2016, but that does not make it law... Were it true, though, we could also retire it from use at the WaPo after its 3.5 years of loyal service. ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 04:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
From WP:NFC#NFCUUI under Unacceptable use: Template:Tq. In this case, the main article would be Washington Post. Also, per WP:F, Template:Tq. You did not provide a fair-use rationale for its use on this page. Images also must satisfy the requirements of WP:IUP, which all of the deleted images fail to do in this article. --WMSR (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:OdOK. I filled out the fair-use rationale template for its use on this page and provided the link to that form in the comment you are responding to. I'm not sure I follow your logic, about images about images but reading the page you link, it looks like sufficiently thick wikilex jungle that we should all throw up our hands and run in the other direction. :) 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 05:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:U, I read your rationale. Are you trying to assert that Wikipedia is biased against Sanders because on their page for Washington Post, the image is a front page featuring Hillary Clinton after she won the primaries? That is a huge stretch, and will not pass muster. It is also not an assertion made anywhere in the text of the article (nor should it be). In addition to everything I've said before, which still holds true, this article is not about Wikip edia, and Template:Tq is not a legitimate fair-use rationale. Per WP:NFCCP, you must demonstrate that Template:Tq --WMSR (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
No, I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. The only thing I think is that Wikipedia has associated the Washington Post primarily with Hillary Clinton in advertising their June 8, 2016 front page for the last 3.5 years to 7.4 million eyeballs. This is not entirely surprising given all the Clinton Foundation people (e.g. Minassian, Oliver) on MoveCom and all the Democratic activists on en.wp. I will remove the word "satire" as indeed it is "parody", "comment" and "criticism" which allow for fair use... but as I see there's no way that you will allow the image to be used on this page regardless of what the actual law governing free use is, it's really not worth my time to play with it. Consider the issue of using the WaPo infobox illustration in this article closed, despite the fact that it shows WaPo covered Bernie Sanders on the date in question. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 18:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Again, this is not presented anywhere in the text of the article, and conspiracy theories are not adequate substitutes for reliably-sourced statements of fact. And fair use requires all of the criteria be met, including the ones I listed before, which the image does not and cannot satisfy. You are correct that I will revert any edit to re-add the image, with a clear, policy-based justification. --WMSR (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
All those who have left that image on the Wa.Po entry after the general as a nod to the Chicago Tribune "Dewey Wins!" cover are excellent satirists. We need more people here capable of such humor. As for your claim that somehow using the WaPo cover showing Sanders would be using "an image to illustrate an article passage about the image N/A, if the image has its own article N/A" ... knock yourself out with it. There is one rule on that page (about magazine/book covers) which could be stretched to make the fair-use claim inappropriate if this were a BLP rather than a media coverage page, but the one you picked is unrelated to anything. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 20:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I think the picture of the Washington Post page is okay, but if we're going to have pictures of media, wouldn't it be better to have them be coverage of Sanders, since that's the topic of the article? As for the Reverend Barber picture, neither he nor the Poor People's Campaign are ever mentioned in this article as far as I can tell, so there's no reason to have pictures of them. Rock Canyon Red Rock Canyon (Rock Canyon talk) 20:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I do acknowledge that Barber is the image I had the most doubts about, because while Sanders has worked with Barber quite a bit (cf. Bernie's Podcast #1 on his senate site (Feb 2017?), their public discussion at Duke in 2018), it does seem to me unfair to associate him with one particular campaign: this would be much more justified in a media coverage of the Democratic primaries (2000-2020) article. It does illustrate the paragraph pretty well though. :P I also appreciate the link you added above, it has some sources, whereas the link I've added to the lede is one of en.wp's many zero source articles. I think that link should probably be changed. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Renewed BRD violations and other behavioral problems

The editor SashiRolls has now on many many occasions made new changes to the article that other editors have reverted and challenged on the talk page. When these changes are reverted, SashiRolls follows up with an immediate restoration of his changes, thus putting other editors in a position where they have to revert him again (edit-warring) or effectively let SashiRolls write the article as he exclusively pleases, even when he is in a clear minority on a specific issue on the talk page (this is covered well under WP:OWN). Furthermore, when attempts are made to address content, the editor not only casts aspersions but fills the talk page with ramblings that are completely unrelated to the topic at hand or tangentially related, thus making it nearly pointless to try to discuss content with him and others. Given that I have volunteered not to edit-war (per Awilley's pressure) and given the extensive nature of SashiRolls's tendentious editing, it is nearly impossible to edit this page anymore.

  • On 19 Jan, I reverted a new change made by SashiRolls.[61] Twenty minutes later, the content was restored.[62] Furthermore, multiple editors have challenged all the David Brock related content that this editor has added to the page.
  • On 21 Jan, I reverted new changes to the lead made by SashiRolls.[63] Ten minutes later, the content was restored.[64]

It is not feasible to edit under these conditions. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware nobody has objected to the Brock content in the article right now. As I recall MrX put it exactly where it is right now.
Team "Notherethere" has deleted multiple RS in their crusade against having too much front-facing information about Brock in this entry. That's a possible choice, not my preferred one admittedly, given all the solid sources. Goodness, six name checks. What terrible thing could I have done? Oh, yes. Made the title of the entry the first words of the entry, as per convention.
Also, this is your history on this page. (Thanks, Σ) 🎻 SashiRolls t · c 00:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Template:U, your assertion that Template:Tq is simply untrue. Your tendentious editing has just made it impossible to edit this article. As time goes on, I (and I imagine others as well) am less likely to edit this article because I don't want to deal with the roadblocks you constantly put up. Template:U hit the nail on the head. --WMSR (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
This same behavior has been used by Snooganssnoogans. So you aren't really making a good example there. Attempts at editing and then reverting any changes made.--WillC 08:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Let's be clear, the facts show that WMSR has only ever deleted content or added POV tags to the entry, they have done none of the work of actually building it. (Their one consequential "green" edit was a self-revert after Bbb23 called for an admin to block them for edit-warring with another contributor.) 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 12:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Since SS has seen fit to bring a whole new section to the TP to complain about "behavioral problems", I think it's only fair to give my opinion of SS. SS has long had what I have considered a biased opinion of Sanders as seen here [65] where he removed long-standing info on the media coverage calling it "nonsense." Furthermore, I try to avoid SS, for example just staying away from from working on the ecology section of our Trump articles (where he does a great deal of editing) even though I am the leading editor of the Trump environmental article after he in one strike wiped out all the changes I was making to try to improve the rambling of what was rather a rat's nest at that article. Then when I went to his talk page, for example he complained saying that I too should have have made all of my changes in one swoop, something I sure hate when other editors do and I'd guess that most other editors do as well. At any rate, I have not followed this discussion but considering my experiences with SS anyone that tries to work with him here has chosen a tough row to hoe. No doubt he will complain about my post but he is the one that started this section wherein to place negative comments about other editors. Gandydancer (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The "behavioral problems" in question: (1) I made one bold edit on the Sanders and I do not believe I reverted when you reverted my bold edit.[66] Zero problem. (2) The other problem that you bring up is when you made a bold edit (which inaccurately suggested that Trump became a climate change denier after his election in 2016)[67], and I reverted you. I then explained to you that inaccuracies should be reverted immediately[68]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The question here is not whether any editor has Template:Tq. We all do. We are human. The question is whether editors can successfully check their biases at the door when editing on this project. If your argument is that Snoogans should not be allowed to edit this article because of their perceived bias against Sanders, then the same should certainly apply to several editors of this article who have clearly demonstrated bias in favor of Sanders. Furthermore, nothing I have seen from Snoogans's edits indicates anything other than good faith. I cannot say the same for editors who have engaged in personal attacks on this talk page and mischaracterized others' edits. We are here to build an encyclopedia based on reliable sources and verifiable facts. Sometimes that information might not fall in line with your perception, and that's okay! We are not here to litigate what you believe, but the solution to that issue is not focusing your search for sources on unrelated material that portrays someone in a more positive or negative light. It is certainly not discouraging community editing by making tendentious edits. Your views matter, but so do others', and that's what makes Wikipedia the excellent resource it is. --WMSR (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Speaking of your behavioural problems WMSR, why do you revert edits (images) and then refuse to discuss when sections are opened about your revert on the talk page, preferring to rant about others rather than to explain your slashing? Smells like typical tag-team WP:GAMING to me...🌿 SashiRolls t · c 18:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
You are again moving into WP:PA territory, which I would urge you to stop. I am not attempting to game the system. Regarding the removal of images, I explained myself in the edit summary; the images were not relevant to the text of the article, per [69]. Regardless, these debates should be about content, yet you constantly find it necessary to go after editors instead when they make edits that don't fit your view of the subject. --WMSR (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for finally replying 24 hours after your reversion and after being called out on it. Your bare assertion carries no weight. Red Rock Canyon made an argument, which, while it was inaccurate, was pretty clearly meant to be constructive.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 20:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Nothing Red Rock Canyon said was incorrect. Please stop casting aspersions at other editors. Your conduct at this talk page has been less than civil, and I really have no desire to go to a noticeboard again about this article. --WMSR (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Reminder: saying that someone made an inaccurate argument is not casting aspersions. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 04:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Alleging that I have Template:Tq most certainly is. --WMSR (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
This section was created to accuse SashiRolls and is called (Renewed BRD violations and other "behavioral problems").--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
First of all, I did not create this section. The editor who did laid out specific instances, with diffs, of SashiRolls's violations of BRD in the article and lack of civility on the talk page. Second, I have no record of any wrongdoing (beyond an accidental 1RR violation which I acknowledged and self-reverted), so accusing me of having Template:Tq with no evidence is the literal definition of casting aspersions. --WMSR (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • General note: the purpose of an article talk page is to discuss improvements for the associated article, not to discuss the behavioral problems of other editors. But since this is here... Template:Ping This article is currently under a 1RR restriction, but per the examples you cite, that's not preventing SashiRolls from immediately reinstating their changes over your objections. Do you think adding an additional "24hr BRD" sanction on top of the 1RR would help? (In my mind it might help level the playing field a bit and would prevent the 10 and 20 minute knee-jerk reverts, but wouldn't fully prevent slower long-term gaming of 1RR.) ~Awilley (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Procedural note: I opened a WP:FOC compliant section below.
  • The present header—having been edit-warred onto the talk page—should be closed now.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 20:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Awilley, it's totally understandable that you're too busy to get into the weeds of this, and I hope all is well in your personal life. This is more an example of an editor, which I have a long history with, exploiting my voluntary editing restrictions, which is precisely what I warned would happen. Due to my editing restrictions, I'm essentially incapable of editing this page anymore, even to restore a status quo version from controversial new changes. The two examples I mention above are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of examples where (i) SashiRolls makes a new change, (ii) I revert part/all of the change, and (iii) SashiRolls immediately restores the contested new changes. As you can see from the editing history of the page, I've mostly given up editing this page since early January (the two examples above are among my rare edits since then), because SashiRolls steamrolls over every edit I make. The current state of the article (which I would consider to be very sub-par, both in terms of writing and substance) does not reflect consensus and compromise among editors, but is essentially whatever SashiRolls has decided should or should not be in the article (albeit with some exceptions). A clear example of this mind-numbingly tendentious editing is that content sourced to a 2018 Princeton University Press book (Sides, Tesler and Vavreck 2018 – the most comprehensive treatment of the subject of the article) has been dwindled down to two brief sentences in the body and is wrongly summarized in the lead of the article (SashiRolls has even basically admitted that he hasn't read the book). If I were to respond in kind and slowly edit-war to restore the status quo version, I would violate my voluntary editing restrictions. And given that SashiRolls contests every single change I make, it is not feasible to seek multiple dispute resolutions (because I have a life, even though SashiRolls insults me as some kind of "unemployed" loser[70]). I don't think there is much point putting up 24-hr-BRD and 1RR rules when the other editor in question is willing to game those rules (I'm also pretty sure that the editor has on several occasions violated the existing 1RR rule but I don't have time to compile the data – confirmed on at least 1 occasion where he was formally "warned" by an admin on the EW noticeboard) to slowly edit-war rather than abide by the spirit of BRD and consensus requirements for new changes. The solution here is to make sure that the other editor starts behaving in the spirit of the rules, because the rules alone do not work. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
🌿 SashiRolls t · c 22:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Template:U, the change proposed by Template:U would apply to the article, not the talk page. There was no discussion at all of imposing additional restrictions here. Your edit warring on the talk page is certainly worth bringing up somewhere, but it's not what's being discussed here. --WMSR (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
WP:FOC is policy. I was trying to help Snoog avoid being blocked for their 2nd clear-cut policy violation in 21 days (510 hours), weirdly. I stopped as soon as I realized how dumb that was. Snoog did not.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 22:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Template:EcTemplate:U I'm with you on this. I'm having the same issues you are without any self-imposed restrictions, just trying to abide by 1RR. Editors have made little effort on the talk page at civility (see the title of the thread below) and the article as a whole is clearly written to make a WP:POINT, no matter how hard editors work to maintain neutrality. If you have any ideas on how to go forward, I'm all ears. --WMSR (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
SashiRolls has nothing to apologize for. This entire section is a fatuous personal attack and should be deleted.GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Should AWilley's 24hr BRD disciplinary doodad be installed on the TP?

Comment -- I wasn't asked.  :) 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 20:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Reply -- You're welcome to comment anyway, but it's not really a vote. ~Awilley (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Don't care too much: It tends to keep pages shorter, but is as open to abuse as all rules (as a general rule, it makes tag-team inclusion difficult, but facilitates tag-team deletion). 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
The 24hr BRD rule was suggested for the article, not the talk page. --WMSR (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
For it to be valid it is supposed to be included in the TP header. The mass revert Snoog effected was a revert of a lede change that has stood ever since with two or three modifications (one responding to his one legitimate (and quickly fixed) concern about "political handicapping"). Reverting any change to the lede allowing the title to be in the first line would have been possible with this BRD. Rewriting (substantially to respond to specific complaints) is a legitimate reaction to a reversion on a 24h BRD page. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 22:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
What are you talking about? --WMSR (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
politics AE. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 23:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Might I suggest renaming this thread to be more clear then? --WMSR (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Sure! Suggest away... 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 03:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Please answer SashiRolls question. It's completely legitimate.GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


I cleaned up content from the 2020 section about the January debate, as the last paragraph was just repeated assertions that CNN was being unfair. That point is still made, without rebuttal, but Template:U reverted my edit. My edit was in good faith and, at very least, moved that paragraph closer to compliance with WP:NPOV. My edit should be restored. --WMSR (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Paragraph is an awesome use of sources to create POV especially the use of a RS to claim relevance that Bernie supporters made a hashtag go "viral". Look forward to every "viral" hashtag getting it's own Wikipedia immortality. Slywriter (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree that WMSR's changes were an improvement. That paragraph is unduly long. Both the "2016 primary campaign" and "2020 primary campaign" are written as blow-by-blow accounts of every minor and major event and controversy, and give far to much weight to coverage from the time. The goal should be a broad overview of events from secondary sources written after the fact. This is somewhat unavoidable in the 2020 section since it is a currently ongoing event, but Gandydancer's revert made the article worse. Rock Canyon Red Rock Canyon (Rock Canyon talk) 01:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't agree. The wording "he said she said controversy" was changed to "Sanders allegedly told Warren" and then more than half of the section was removed and called a "clean up". Considering that this entire article is supposed to be about the media's treatment of Sanders, I see no reason to make everything as brief as possible. Gandydancer (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Everything that I removed had already been stated in the paragraph. There is no reason to list every single pundit and columnist who took issue with Phillip's question. I also defined the nature controversy, which the article now fails to do. --WMSR (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
There has been a lot of media coverage of Sanders over the years. There have been a half dozen debates just for this primary cycle, and there are going to be several more. If someone were to write a biography of Sanders after his death, or if an academic were to write an article about how the media affected the 2020 elections, how much space would they give to this particular incident? Of course, we have to guess, since that is necessarily making predictions about the future, but I'd say by any reasonable metric, we're giving way too much space to this single incident. We're covering it in an entirely one-sided way, and relying mainly on opinion pieces written shortly after the event took place. It really needs to be pruned down to comply with NPOV. Rock Canyon Red Rock Canyon (Rock Canyon talk) 03:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
I think I thanked WMSR for the changes. Even though the result was at least as POV as the original text (probably more), I do think this should be much shorter, unless/until more in-depth analyses are published. I would probably chose the three best refs (Taibbi, Poynter, ...) that talk about the CNN manufactured controversy. (I didn't understand what grounds there were for deleting the Institute reference, however. Perhaps WMSR will explain why they chose to delete that particular reference.) 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 18:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
As I said before, there is no need to bludgeon the reader with different sources all saying the same thing. --WMSR (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The dispute over the debate should be covered, but it should be done so concisely. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be no support for my position so I will stand aside. However, I still don't like the change from "he said she said controversy" to "Sanders allegedly told Warren". Gandydancer (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the he-said she-said aspect is well-sourced to Taibbi citing CNN itself admitting that's what it was. It should not be deleted. I also think the Poynter ref should be kept (without the lambasting language). The Intercept article provides further analysis of a few other rhetorical tricks. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 00:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
This article is not a review of literature. The source needs to back up whatever is in the article. --WMSR (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
🐟 🎣 🍥
Template:Done 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 03:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


Template:U, please revert your edit adding Template:T to sentences in the lede. The citations can be found in the body of the text. The lede of an article usually does not contain citations. --WMSR (talk) 04:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually I believe that WP suggests that if there is likely to be contention lead citations should be used and it seems that there is plenty of that surrounding this article. Furthermore, in my experience if some statements in the lead have citations but not others, as was the case here, you can bet your bottom dollar that someone will soon come along asking for a ref. (Thanks to Sashi for fixing it.) Gandydancer (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Further number-crunching for the 2016 primary

This article by studies from June 2015 to January 2016 and observes the following correlation:

Candidate Web searches Press Coverage Ratio
Hillary Clinton 9,235,231 87,737 105:1
Bernie Sanders 21,536,032 29,525 729:1
Donald Trump 37,046,010 183,903 201:1
FWIW. Compare to consultation of en.wp numbers given above... -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 03:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
This is precisely why WP:SYNTH exists. We cannot and should not draw conclusions from this (or any) data. --WMSR (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
The denialism is strong with this one. Corroborating hard data from every direction, but lalala didn't hear that. ^^ -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 03:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Coverage from June 2015 to January 2016 is actually coverage from 2015, no? Not 2016. Liz Read! Talk! 05:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
2016 as opposed to 2020. I've edited the header to make that clearer.-- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 19:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The following was deleted on the basis that caucus states would make it such that Sanders' would be massively underepresented in the 78% total (since caucuses, which Sanders primarily won by wide margins except for IA, & NV) are excluded from the tally):

"According to Patterson, Sanders got two-thirds of the coverage Clinton got during the Democratic primary as a whole,[16] as compared to 78% of the votes she got in the Democratic primary.[31]"

So, for example, in Washington only 19K votes were counted for Sanders, though he won by a 45% spread in a state with a population of over 7 million. [71]. Hilarious. Template:Reflist-talk

-- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 21:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I opposed it for two reasons: (i) This is WP:SYNTH. Your own personal analysis of media bias does not belong on this encyclopedia. (ii) I do not have much interest in debating your own analysis with you, but raw vote count is an imprecise and flawed measurement if the goal is to try to link vote count to an appropriate share of media coverage. Not only did a bunch of states have caucuses (which massively reduce participation and thus alter vote shares), but a bunch of primaries took place after the Associated Press had called the race for Clinton, thus affecting participation in those primaries. Furthermore, coverage closely tracks polling, and if one candidate is an overwhelming favorite in polls before the actual primary voting starts, then the amount of total coverage will reflect that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm glad you agree that media coverage lagged even farther behind voter interest (and online interest) even than the clear data I presented above. I also notice that you cited Hillary Clinton's memoir in the first line of her section in your new entry: [72], after deleting Jeff Weaver's book with lots of verifiable facts about media dirty tricks from this page. I hope most people see your double standard and selective quoting. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 22:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
(i) That has nothing to do with the topic at hand. (ii) Clinton's memoir was cited as WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV ("In her book, she argued X") and it was sourced to BBC News. I'm unclear what you're referring to with your "Weaver" content, but this content[73] was not cited as WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV but instead stated the content from his book as fact. Furthermore, there was no secondary RS coverage of anything Weaver said, making it WP:UNDUE. It's an illustrative example of what policy-compliant content looks like, and what policy-noncompliant content looks like. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
As anyone can see, Weaver's name is in both sentences with the claims attributed to him. This isn't the only time you deleted the source. You also deleted it here where it draws attention to an article in the HuffPost about ol' Brock. MrX had previously prétendu (means "claimed" in French, amusingly) that there was no such chapter title. ctrl-f: fishy. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥
The HuffPost article does not mention Weaver. The HuffPost article also has nothing to do with media bias against Sanders. A pro-Clinton Super PAC criticizing Sanders is not media bias against Sanders. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
As you very well know Weaver talks about the HuffPost article and Brock. Weaver is an excellent reference on Brock.-- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 03:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
"reported" and "described" suggests that what Weaver is saying is factual. It's not ATTRIBUTEPOV. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Remind me did I ever restore that content once WMSR decreed that we should not have a social media coverage section? -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 03:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
That is clearly not within the purview of this article. In the case of this article, "the media" refers to journalistic media. --WMSR (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Template:EcIn-text attribution is very different from attribution in the ref. And, again, what happened to WP:FOC being sacrosanct? --WMSR (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

1RR Reminder

Template:U, please revert your most recent edit, as it violates the 1RR restriction on this page. --WMSR (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:U, can you explain why this statement of fact is not sufficiently corroborated by a Rolling Stone columnist when the same source is used for several other parts of the article? If you have an issue with all of them, that is the purpose of the AfD.
Template:U, can you suggest a wording for the AM Joy segment that avoids whatever problems you were hinting at earlier today? The fact that you can pull this on MSNBC and not be fired hasn't generated the 1,000 articles I might've hoped for. But it clearly generated a notable backlash that fits in nicely with the paragraph that already covers the Warren-Sanders dispute. Behan Connor Behan (Behan talk) 18:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I can't. That source (and also Dreams) really shouldn't be anywhere in the article. I will say that the facts presented are WP:UNDUE, as the purpose of this article is not to list and dissect every time Sanders received negative coverage. Including content from op-eds, even if attributed, is problematic, because they are more likely to point out negative coverage as opposed to neutral or positive coverage. --WMSR (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
If you "can't [sic]" explain why my source is not sufficient, then it should go back. Grammar aside, I am clearly not trying to add every piece of negative coverage. But I am trying to add this one because (1) Sanders took the rare step of demanding an apology regarding it, (2) it's sourced to an author already used in this article, (3) it fits the topic of a paragraph we already have and (4) any reasonable person can see that it's blatantly dishonest... the kind of stuff you find on RT. Your claim that we shouldn't use WP:BIASED sources is not the usual standard. For many contentious topics, the most reliable sources are also biased. We satisfy neutrality by using a wide range of them that represent all non-WP:FRINGE points of view. Behan Connor Behan (Behan talk) 00:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Template:Tq was in response to your question (Template:Tq). As I stated in my answer, the reason I can't justify its inclusion there is because I can't justify it anywhere in this article. It is true that WP:BIASED states, Template:Tq, but this is only true when multiple points of view are expressed in an article. That is not the case here. You said yourself that Template:Tq, yet every partisan source cited in this article is advocating the same POV. --WMSR (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the point of view defending the media is barely represented here outside the academic sources. Sources that could help change this are a Washington Post article which calls Bernie's critique bogus and a Guardian article which asks if it's Trumpian. Are there other sources along these lines that have been pushed out? The disputes that appear most active right now focus on a Clinton Super PAC which has little to do with the topic of media bias or lack thereof. Behan Connor Behan (Behan talk) 03:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Template:U, I admire your desire to compromise, but the answer to the issue of putting too much weight on opinion from one side is not to add more opinion from the other side. That would create an to moderation, which we should absolutely avoid. We should be relying on facts, not opinions, in this article. --WMSR (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not talking about opinions. I'm talking about facts that are most heavily discussed in opinionated sources. And in this case, WP:NPOV and WP:DUE do require us to balance one side with the other. Tired proseline like "X said Sanders was right, Y said Sanders was wrong" would not help the article but there are a lot of things that would.
  • Joy Reid interviewing a guest who claimed she could "read" Sanders" is a fact.
  • Sanders being asked about wealth inequality at least five times in 2016 and then ignoring or forgetting about this is a fact.
  • Sanders referring to a political journalist as a "gossip columnist" early in his career is a fact.
  • Sanders still using Amazon platforms despite his criticism of Bezos and his holdings is a fact.
There's also some statement about him pranking CBS and AP which I had trouble parsing. If the AfD results in "keep" again, I think this is the best direction for this article to take. From the history I've seen, there have been relatively few attempts to improve the neutrality of this article through additions rather than deletions. Behan Connor Behan (Behan talk) 17:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
All of your points are true, but very little of that has to do with media coverage of Sanders. The article isn't about Sanders's responses to questions posed by members of the media, nor is it about his views of the media, nor is it about his criticisms of Amazon. Turning the article into a WP:COATRACK won't really help either. If the Reid incident wasn't notable enough to be covered anywhere besides opinionated sources, I would argue that it's not notable enough to be covered here either. --WMSR (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
You say, "The article isn't about Sanders's responses to questions posed by members of the media, nor is it about his views of the media..." So you are saying that the article should not cover his responces? Why is that? Gandydancer (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:OdBecause this article should not be a WP:COATRACK. It is, at least nominally, about how the media covers Sanders. Nothing more. A sentence about his responses may be appropriate if his response to specific media coverage was notable, but that should not be the focus of the article. The example above does not satisfy that criterion. --WMSR (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

That's an essay and not a very good one at that. There is no good reason to not include Sanders' replies to what has been written about him if it has a RS. Gandydancer (talk) 03:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
That essay is widely cited on this project, and itself cites policy. Regardless, WP:NPOV, specifically WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASP, also apply here. --WMSR (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Naked 1RR is out, enforced BRD is back in

A while back I lightened the restrictions on this page from enforced BRD to just 1RR. This, due to consensus among admins that, as a general rule, we start with the basic restriction, and only if they prove inadequate add either the enforced BRD or the Consensus required enhancements. Anyway, I am getting the sense that 1RR is not really working out here, so I'm reintroducing enforced BRD. Now, in the case of violations —as for your various Arbitration enforcement requests— I recommend submitting these at AE, not at the more chaotic, threaded AN/I. El_C 00:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


Any suggestions as to how we should write up the confirmed information about Donna Brazile leaking CNN townhall questions to the Clinton campaign but not to the Sanders campaign in March 2016?

[74],[75], [76] etc. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 22:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

This was not a media action. It was a DNC action. She was also a contributor to CNN and was terminated when this was discovered. She now is a Fox contributor. This is not relevant to media coverage of Sanders. O3000 (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for the misclick, I did not mean to revert your comment, I meant to reply. I wonder why you think that it would be "nothingburgerish" for CNN to be employing an operative who was sent debate questions which she only released to the Clinton campaign? This should be added to a section on DNC control over media debates and townhalls, IMO. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 22:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Template:EcShe did not "only" release debate questions. She was a panelist, as she is now on Fox. She did not do this at the behest of CNN. She did it in her role at the DNC. And shame on her. But, CNN fired her when they found out. To suggest CNN purposely employed someone to release debate questions is devoid of evidence. O3000 (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Strawman alert: I did not say Template:Tq I said that CNN employed a DNC operative (who apparently was sent questions by Roland Martin [77]). Again, structural bias... -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 22:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, actually you did. Template:Tq But you edited it out while I was responding. As for "structural bias", that belongs elsewhere as any such bias was in the DNC, not the media. There is no evidence that CNN played any role in this entire affair. O3000 (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Obj, don't be tendentious. The two turquoise claims in the two preceding comments are not at all the same. Mine says it is pretty dumb for CNN to be hiring such people in the first place, not that they did so in order to send her stuff. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 23:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
As I alluded to in my Delete vote, a great deal of discussion of the Bernie Blackout, remember that is what this article was supposed to be about, entails the bubble of corporatists these journalists are surrounded by at places like CNN and anywhere in Washington DC. The opinions of these theoretically well meaning journalists are easily swayed by the barrage of people with an agenda. It is an unconscious reflex from that environment to assume, Bernie can't win so lets move on to who else will replace him. And that is what is conveyed in their coverage. The perpetrators behind this message might have malisciious intent, Brazille included in that, but front line journalists, possibly even the management who hired Brazille, might not even be aware of the inherent bias of their decisions and words. Trackinfo (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Sashi, I made my point. I see no reason to continue discussion with you since you are now falsely claiming I'm being "tendentious". Not unlike your recent accusation that I was tag-teaming you and you reverted my defense to the accusation. You need to learn to discuss instead of lashing out when you can't find a good response. O3000 (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
[78] -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 23:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
You really need to read FOC instead of continually violating it and then using it against others. Have a good debate. O3000 (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
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...). 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 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, the admitted DNC corruption to fix debate scheduling and content (Brazille), actual election tampering and the systematic, pro-establishment corruption of 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 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. 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 Democratic Party presidential debates and forums or Brazile. --WMSR (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
The Donna Brazile incident is outside of the scope of this article. - MrX 🖋 16:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

regulatory capture / category:criticism of journalism



(MrX deleted the above here, in one of his three reverts to this article in the last 12h). I am surprised by the brash nature of this act. Some say being brash is being bold, though, I suppose. In which case, if all of their edits were "bold" revisions, this removal of the category "criticism of journalism" is accompanied by some rule-breaking. I am filing a report at the appropriate venue.

Here, let's focus on content. Should the two sentences above be included on the page? (h/t to the person who made me aware of this en.wp page incidentally) Are they due or undue?

Should this page be in the category "criticism of journalism"?-- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 23:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a coach complaining about the referees or press. And please stop interspersing your comments about editors with demands that others FOC. O3000 (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
No, because this is a primary partisan source, which is exactly what this article does not need more of. And good on you for filing a report in the proper place. This is not the proper place to complain about other users' conduct, as you have repeatedly pointed out here. --WMSR (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
You are still not learning. Stop talking about other editors. As it is you have ownership issues with this article as evidenced on this talk page and your need to respond to every comment in the RfD. And no comment from Sanders' Campaign should be used. It's simple, they are a biased source. Slywriter (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for teaching me that your point of view is that the Media coverage of Bernie Sanders page should not contain any actual media coverage of Bernie Sanders' campaign. I feel so much wiser now! Nobody has answered the question about whether the "Category: Criticism of Journalism" should be included. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 13:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Can you make one edit without being snide? No, it doesn't belong. It's someone whining about the press not giving them enough coverage. Just like a coach whining that the refs aren't fair. O3000 (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
You said that already. Could you tell me explain why the category "Criticism of journalism" was removed, please? Do you agree with that removal? I see that both Sources (the source cited above) and Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Dinner are in that category. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 13:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
It's like playing the ref in the hope that they will rule in your favor next time. Like a football player that fakes a serious foul. An extremely common tactic. It doesn't mean anything coming from the supposed aggrieved as everyone does it. As for other entries, that's WP:OTHERCONTENT. I don't have an opinion on whether they belong. O3000 (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I weaned myself from watching or participating in competitive sports years ago, Obj. I do not think competitive games are the way that we should be modeling our thinking on the writing of this encyclopedic entry. What we have above is a CNN program, whose stated goal is to analyze US media, asking Faiz Shakir what the media should be asking him but is not. His answer, replaced here, is admittedly a bit of mise-en-abyme: ask not about the Trumpeter's tweets, but about those tasked with enforcing the rules. It is fascinating how that "criticism of journalism" category page is riddled with folks from Comedy Central. If I could put on my slavophile "we don't need no stinking articles" mask for just a moment I would tell: it's also all about US.-- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 14:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
The content does not belong because it is primarily sourced, it is the non-noteworthy opinion of the subject's proxy, and it lacks independent analysis. Obviously this content is WP:UNDUE absent sufficient third party coverage. - MrX 🖋 16:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Here is a secondary source (@ = 1:45) already in the "sources cited" section of the en.wp entry providing independent analysis, suggesting that that opinion expressed was not quite as non-noteworthy as you state. Unless Grim / The Intercept work for Sanders, which I've not seen alleged yet. Reminder: obviously means "in my opinion". -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 18:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
@ = 1:45, he claims that big pharma is basically controlling coverage and one example of a drug ad is given as evidence. O3000 (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Reminder: basically means "which I am going to summarize as follows:". It is a sentence adverb so it can be placed anywhere in the sentence.
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. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 19:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  1. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  2. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  3. Template:Cite news
  4. Template:Citation
  5. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  6. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  7. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Halper2019-07
  8. Template:Cite news
  9. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  10. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  11. 11.0 11.1 Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  12. Template:Cite book
  13. Template:Cite news
  14. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  15. Template:Cite book
  16. 16.0 16.1 Template:Citation Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Patterson2" defined multiple times with different content
  17. Template:Citation
  18. 18.0 18.1
    • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
    • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
    • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
    • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
    • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
    • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
    • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
    • Template:Cite book
    • Template:Cite news
    • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1". Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "BrockGroup" defined multiple times with different content
  19. Template:Cite news
  20. 20.0 20.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named :12
  21. 21.0 21.1 21.2 Template:Cite journal
  22. 22.0 22.1 22.2 Template:Citation
  23. Template:Citation
  24. 24.0 24.1 Template:Cite news
  25. 25.0 25.1 Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  26. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  27. Template:Citation
  28. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  29. Template:Cite news
  30. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  31. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".