Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders/Archive 2

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. ''

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 : https://twitter.com/ZaidJilani/status/1208259904789721088. 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)
 * , it is attributing what a CNN journalist said. How is this undue weight?--SharabSalam (talk) 18:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Because you are conflating the words "pundit" and "journalist." WMSR (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The word pundit means expert. I wish people would understand terms they use when they try to put things in negative lights.-- Will C  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.-- Will C  11:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , 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)
 * , 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)
 * , 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)
 * , 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 22:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , 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)
 * , 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 22:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , 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)


 * 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 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC) a
 * 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.-- Will C  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 &para; 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 ✅ - Attribution to a radio station and listing specific dates is of no encyclopedic value. The other changes were cosmetic. Would you please explain on your objection to this? - MrX 🖋 16:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 2 "Noting" is a WP:WEASEL word. The addition reaction from Fair.org 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 ✅ - I fixed a citation error. - MrX 🖋 16:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 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 ✅ - I can't tell you how ridiculous this recent trend of listing specific dates for non-noteworthy event is. Wrestlinglover, Would you please explain on your objection to this? - MrX 🖋 16:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 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 ✅ - This was a cosmetic change per MOS:PERCENT. Wrestlinglover, Would you please explain on your objection to this? - MrX 🖋 16:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 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:COATRACKS. - 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 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.-- Will C  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.-- Will C  18:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 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. -- Will C  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.-- Will C  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.-- Will C  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":
 * - 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.-- Will C  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 Shane 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.-- Will C  06:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * See additional comment below on the reliability for Paste agreed at Wikiproject Albums.-- Will C  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 Fair.org 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)
 * 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 Fairness 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.-- Will C  06:46, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , you're out of bound suggesting that I was canvassed here. I came of my own volition.- MrX 🖋 14:14, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.-- Will C  05:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how you "recognize that [I] feel deeply about this topic". 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 FAIR's 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 '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 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 commondreams.org. ("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 . 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)
 * The whataboutism argument is flawed to begin with, as there are several media coverage articles on wiki. Media coverage of global warming, Israel-Arabia, Iraq, etc. There are plenty of articles about media coverage. Even a Media bias in the United States.-- Will C  21:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding 5, I'm not sure the Politico article you cite really makes your point, Selvydra, (does it, maybe I read too quickly?), but it does make another one... this entry should have some mention of Shareblue Media and David 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:
 * 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)
 * 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. Media 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. Chris 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 Laffer 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, List of Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign endorsements, Political positions of Bernie Sanders, etc do.-- Will C  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, 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.-- Will C  10:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Another source covering the Axelrod statement among other subjects regarding his media coverage and chances.-- Will C  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)
 * , 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)
 * , that's fine. If consensus flips, I will have no problem accepting it.- MrX 🖋 14:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , 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.-- Will C  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.-- Will C  16:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You have not addressed any of the new statements by myself nor any of the concerns raised during 's opposition either. How can you declare a consensus through discussion without consensus on this. Wikipedia is not a WP:STRAWPOLL.-- Will C  16:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Interested editors should weigh in on the discussions going on at Reliable sources/Noticeboard.-- Will C  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.-- Will C  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, . 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.-- Will C  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, WP:EDITCONSENSUS takes precedence (do correct me if I've missed something): 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 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.-- Will C  00:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.-- Will C  00:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If content is disputed, the implicit consensus as described at EDITCONSENSUS is null and void. Everything from Your statement plays out... 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)
 * Correct, 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 (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 avoid a situation where this logic can be extended to blanking this entire page 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.-- Will C  01:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Piecewise: Which editconsensus clearly says to not do and which is what has occurred on this page surrounding this very material. - Indeed. "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. - No individual policy is all-encompassing; this aspect is covered at WP:VANDALISM. "there is not a consensus for deletion" - incorrect, there is a result of no consensus. - These are not incompatible or incongruous statements. 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. - No. 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. - 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. The ultimate conclusion of the rules as you describe them is ... - No, it's not. In addition, no regard seems to be given to WP:TE as a whole here. - Yes, because it was a comment on an interpretation of EDITCONSENSUS. If one editor feels that another is editing tendentiously, they should address that. The picture you paint ... - 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. If one editor feels that another is editing tendentiously, they should address that. 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 it [becomes] quickly apparent that they are editing tendentiously 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 "I know it when I see it", 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.-- Will C  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-- Will C  04:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
I have gone ahead and done the following: 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)
 * Pulled up the version before extensive changes by and then
 * 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 (,, 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 and MrX that deletion holds priority, and inclusion requires consensus. (This is still under discussion)
 * It is currently being argued by Ryk72 ... that deletion holds priority. 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, Correct, "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". 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 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)
 * , 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)
 * 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.-- Will C  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.

https://revolutionmessaging.com/cases/bernie-2016/

″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.

https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00577130/?tab=spending&cycle=2016 — 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.-- Will C  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 Trump Derangement Syndrome and even Ted 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 WP:GNG. I recommend you don't just take my word for it though, and skim the 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.-- Will C  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.-- Will C  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 WP:EDITCONSENSUS? 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. 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.-- Will C  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, 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 '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, 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 '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 here, after first starting one here (which was apparently not the right venue for policy feedback). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.-- Will C  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 Brookings 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.-- Will  C  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:

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 ThinkProgress shut down in September.

🌿  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.

🌿  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.-- Will C  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 Gaming_the_system, 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. 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 amid SashiRolls's threat to have me sanctioned and goading others into filing a case against me on the edit-warring noticeboard. 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). 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)
 * 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, 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.--<b style="color: Red">Will</b><b style="color: Blue;">C</b> 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)"--<b style="color: Red">Will</b><b style="color: Blue;">C</b> 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."
 * 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.--<b style="color: Red">Will</b><b style="color: Blue;">C</b> 09:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

, 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)

Suggestions
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 NY 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...  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 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 208.75.30.195 (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. 208.75.30.195 (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)