Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

We should stop pretending that the Ed Schultz interview didn't happen or isn't notable.

User:WMSR is trying to keep the section on Ed Schultz's firing from MSNBC using the following reasoning: Removed section; the entire section is based on a now-retracted interview, conducted by a non-RS right-wing site, of an RT employee. Subsequent sources were also not RS.
So what he's saying is: National Review can't be used as source for interviews that National Review itself performed, and Ed Schultz can't be used as a source of information regarding Ed Schultz.
I can't believe that this is backed by Wikipedia policy. Schultz is a notable enough that he has a Wikipedia entry on his person -- how can he not be deemed as notable source of information on things that happened to himself? Rafe87 (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Please revert yourself immediately. This is a violation of 1RR restrictions placed on this article. --WMSR (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

1RR is only valid a day. I only reverted the deletion once today, so I'm not in violation of it. And I have already been reverted, so no need to go crying to the administrators again. Rafe87 (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, you should take the opportunity to tell the other editors here how Ed Schultz (who's notable enough to merit an entry on Wikipedia) is, nevertheless, not a notable source of information on things that happened to himself? Rafe87 (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The article history says otherwise. You have reverted twice in the last 24 hours. For your second point, Wikipedia requires reliable WP:SECONDARY sources, so Ed Shultz is not a reliable source on himself. 109.152.208.48 (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

You'll need better secondary sources for this. O3000 (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

That's not what this is about. It's about certain users who think (or do they?) that a Ed Schiltz's interview can't be used as a source of information on Ed Schultz himself. I challenge anyone to show that it's Wikipedia policy to ban the use of personal interviews (or secondary sources commenting on the interview) as a source of biographical information on the interviewee himself. Rafe87 (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

This has already been discussed on the talk page and consensus was reached. 1RR applies to periods of 24 hours. I have just reverted some of my own edits for this reason, as I did not read policy closely enough and did not realize that the rule applied to reverts of different sections. WMSR (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• It was widely reported that he said this so can be included only as Ed Schultz's opinion of why he was fired. I'd support including a modified version only if the inadequately sourced BLP content was removed. Dartslilly (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
• In addition to the poor sources, I think there may be a problem with adding Ed Shultz’s opinion about why he was fired at MSNBC in this article or the MSNBC article given that this interview appears to have occurred while he was working for RT America, a Moscow outlet. MSNBC coverage has been very negative towards Moscow. Tying this to Bernie Sanders increases the length of the stretch. With better sourcing, I could see it in the Ed Shultz article as to his opinion. O3000 (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The interview has been retracted in full by the National Review. There is absolutely no reason for its inclusion anywhere in my opinion, but especially not here. WMSR (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

What is even your source for this? The interview is still available at the NR website: https://www.nationalreview.com/podcasts/the-jamie-weinstein-show/episode-55-ed-shultz/ Rafe87 (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Try to play the interview. WMSR (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Politico's "antisemitic" article against Sanders

I inserted the following, but was reverted due to its length. Can anyone suggest a shorter version? The article is clearly an important piece to understand the media's relationship with Bernie and it garnered a lot of attention of its own (mostly negative):

In May 2019, Politico published a feature article on Sanders's income. Both the article and tweets from official Politico accounts on Twitter promoting the text, described him as "rich" and "cheap"; the article itself also contained a montage of a giant Sanders holding three houses. In part because Sanders was then the only Jewish candidate in the race, the article was considered anti-Semitic by many on social media. Politico deleted one of its tweets promoting the text and replaced the aforementioned illustration with another, showing Sanders in a backyard with a money tree in the background. Criticism, however, continued to flow in Politico’s direction, including from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; she, who later endorsed Sanders in October 2019, asked on Twitter: "Can ⁦@politico ⁩ explain to us how photoshopping money trees next to the only Jewish candidate for president and talking about how “cheap” and rich he is *isn’t* antisemitic? Or are they just letting this happen because he’s a progressive politician they don’t like?" Articles in other media outlets, such as Buzzfeed News, Jacobin, and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, also disagreed with the tone and arguments of Politico’s article or warned that upholding Sanders to "double standards" risks inflaming anti-Semitism. Sanders himself labeled the article anti-Semitic days later.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafe87 (talk • contribs) January 13, 2020 20:11(UTC)

This material was disputed before, but the discussion dwindled. Can you indicate which of these six source best explains how the Politico article and tweet represent media bias against Sanders? - MrX 🖋 21:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I've put it back. There's nothing wrong with it.GPRamirez5 (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, I've looked at each of these sources. None of them relate to media bias against Sanders. I think this material should be omitted, and I know that the proposed text is far too detailed for any encyclopedia article (and WP:UNDUE. - MrX 🖋 23:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The entry is not called "media bias against Bernie Sanders", but "media coverage of Bernie Sanders". In addition, several of the references described the Politico article as anti-semitic. I honestly don't understand your confusion. Most of the references frame Politico (or at least its article) as biased against Sanders, and even as anti-semitic. Rafe87 (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The article is about supposed media bias against Sanders. That didn't change when the title changed. This is not a WP:COATRACK for everything loosely related. - MrX 🖋 23:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

It's also rich how you revert GPRamirez5 under the 1RR, but fail to understand you did the same thing as he. Rafe87 (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I adhered to WP:1RR. What exactly do you think I failed to understand? - MrX 🖋 23:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The article is about supposed media bias against Sanders. No, it is about the media coverage of Bernie Sanders in general?. The content is obviously related to the article.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm unwatchlisting this coatrack per WP:IDGAF. Cheers. - MrX 🖋 23:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

To illustrate how this is relevant, read this if it makes sense: Media outlet^Politico "racist" coverage^{"antisemitic" article} against Sanders. Is it obvious now how this is related to "Media coverage of Bernie Sanders"?. BTW, in the edit summary I meant to say WP:Stonewalling not WP:STONEWALL.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

This is not how WP:BRD works. There was not clear consensus to restore that edit, and I suggest that whoever restored it revert themselves. It makes sense to include a sentence or two about the Politico article and the resultant pushback, but devoting an entire paragraph to it is absolutely WP:UNDUE. WMSR (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh so it is now UNDUE, I thought it was a coatrack? One sentence for a controversy that promoted many social media angry because it was racist and Politico deleted the tweets. Also, AOC criticised the anti-semite article. How can we write all of this in one sentence?. These are all related.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

"In May 2019, Politico published an article on Sanders's income, which some, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders himself, deemed anti-semitic." WMSR (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a decent start, but it should make at least some mention of the words and picture used. To that end, I suggest (feel free to work on this further):

"In May 2019, Politico published an article on Sanders's income. Some – including (any less biased parties?), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders himself – deemed the coverage anti-semitic, because the article described him as "rich," "cheap" and featured a montage of a giant Sanders holding three houses, and later an illustration of Sanders in a backyard with a money tree."

I think this is better split into 2 sentences for clarity, although you could probably mash it into 1 long run-on sentence if you really felt that it is otherwise undue. Selvydra (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Antisemitic depictions of Sanders are obviously an example of media bias against him, and even more obviously a significant example of media coverage. To shorten the section, I would recommend not quoting AOC's tweet and simply mentioning that she questioned how the article couldn't be seen as antisemitic. — Bilorv (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Erroneous figure in edit summary

Sunday night, I was warned for "edit warring" because I removed the word "slightly" which I had erroneously added to the lede. I was actually not warned before the filing, it was sort of a gotcha' thing...

For the math, I added it in an edit summary but sadly typed 31% instead of 39% total coverage for Bernie Sanders. So, in sum: Bernie received 46 percent positive stories out of a total of 39% of the total coverage: this makes for slightly less than 18% of the positive coverage in the Democratic primary being for Sanders during the bulk of the voting period. By contrast, HRC received 61% of the total coverage, of which 51% was positive: this means that more than 31% of the positive coverage in the Democratic primary was for HRC. A simple calculation: 31% of total coverage divided by 18% of total coverage = 1.73. This means that HRC received significantly more positive coverage (73% more) during the March 15-May 3rd part of the Democratic primary, not slightly more. 🌿 She also received 41% more negative coverage (<30% : 21%). 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

This is clear WP:SYNTH in addition to cherrypicking; there is nothing significant about those dates. --WMSR (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Then why did the scholar Patterson chose to report them? When was the New York primary again? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I do think it would be good if the entry would note which outlets were covered by the study. I may go back and read more carefully to see what I can do there, but I have page numbers to dig up at the moment. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The calculations you're adding to the lead are mind-numbingly bizarre (of course, the candidate that gets far more coverage gets both more negative and positive stories) and a clear example of WP:SYNTH (you're plucking numbers out of secondary sources and re-interpreting them). It's beyond understanding why you consider it wise to make these calculations (which are absolutely meaningless) and to then opt to highlight "Hillary Clinton received 73 percent more positive coverage in the Democratic primary than Sanders" without mentioning that she received a larger share of negative coverage, as well. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, this is not the Media coverage of Hillary Clinton page. Such a page would talk about all of those stories about Goldman Sachs speeches and email servers (which, as you recall, Sanders suggested the press stop obsessing about) and DNC leaks and destabilizing Libya and etc. and etc. which could explain her negative coverage. This is not the page to develop such things, but I encourage you to create one where you do. Once you do, I would be happy to look into, for example, whether anyone commented on the Jacobin's extensive coverage of the Clinton efforts in Haiti in the week before the general, which I remember surprised me.

Also, as concerns the mid-sentence quote which Snoog has stood alone above, I would remind the reader never to trust what they read on the talk page as being an accurate representation of what has happened in mainspace. (cf. intra-sentence cherry-picking of wiki-text explicitly linked to a particular time period by use of that crazy adverb "when"). Breaking news: I've updated to the crazy adverbial "during which time" and provided explicit link to the supporting source. As I said in the edit summary, remember that Fox was included in the pool of media outlets and someone (not me) deleted the data provided on their anti-Clinton bias from the entry. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 08:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

What on Earth has anything to do with creating a Media coverage of Hillary Clinton page? Please stay on topic and stop all the inane rambling. The point is very simple: you're plucking numbers out of a source and misleadingly presenting them to give readers the false impression that the coverage of Clinton was vastly more positive than Sanders by omitting the negative coverage. Per the source, the positive-negative balance of coverage was 51-49 for Clinton, and 46-54 for Sanders during this period. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Analysis of the language used concluded that media coverage of Sanders was more favorable than that of any other candidate, except from March 15 to May 3, during which time he received 73 percent fewer positive stories than his primary opponent did in the media outlets surveyed in a Harvard Shorenstein center study.

I would not be opposed to replacing "73 percent" with "significantly", incidentally. Both accurately summarize the data presented in the source. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 09:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

51-49 for Clinton, and 46-54 for Sanders is not "significant". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I see that Objective3000 has now made their third edit to the entry: the first was to remove the inaccurate word "slightly" a couple minutes after MrX filed an ANEW report about the word, following WMSR's similar reversion without having studied the source. The second was to revert WMSR's self-revert on another matter (after WMSR had been called out for clear cut 1RR violations by Bbb23 at ANI), the third was to revert new text again to the mistaken word "slightly" after it was demonstrated by 1+1=2 that the degree adverb was misplaced / wrong. (Also removing the reference for the claim.) One might wonder how Objective3000 suddenly found this page (& ANEW) and why it is of such interest to them suddenly that they want to restore a misleading claim . Difficult to guess. I notice that all of Objective3000's contributions have been reverts and there is still no sign of them on the TP... though they did make a couple comments at ANEW. Most curious, as always. Again 46% of 39% of X is slightly less than 18% of X, where X is the total # of stories in the media outlets studied from 15.03 to 03.05.2016. 51% of 61% of X is a bit more than 31% of X. 18 times 1.73 = 31.🌿 Thinking back to chemistry class: since there are only two significant digits, we really should say 70% more (or significantly more). I'll see if there's something more direct in the article to satisfy the (again) curiously stubborn... SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

SashiRolls:One might wonder how Objective3000 suddenly found this page. I’m an editor here. I tire of people asking why I edit articles. Seriously, considering your block history you should drop the WP:BATTLE attitude. As for your text, it was obvious WP:SYNTH. We don’t take data from a source and manipulate it to come up with new numbers. Now, I do think that the text could use improvement. If you have a suggestion on how to make the text more clear, make it. Meanwhile, we can’t let your WP:OR stand. O3000 (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Better to mislead the reader than to get out a calculator, I guess. (Cf. WP:HERE) From the article about what Patterson calls "the middle period" (15 March-3 May) during which the Republican primary dominated the Democratic in the sources he studied 64:36: The tilt was such that Clinton got barely more coverage than Cruz. Sanders’ coverage was particularly sparse. He received only two-thirds as much coverage as Clinton[.] Later, he says, concerning the positive or negative quality of that sparse coverage: The middle stage of the primaries was the first time in the campaign where a candidate other than Sanders got the most favorable coverage. That candidate was Clinton[.] Earlier when presenting the same figures I demonstrated the significant difference with above, he says: In terms of the volume of media coverage, the Democratic race was one sided, with Clinton getting 61 percent of the coverage to Sanders’ 39 percent. Would you consider self-reverting, or do you prefer that the article have an NPOV tag and a failed verification tag because of your desire to talk about "battles"? We've already talked about my role in exposing Sagecandor on this page, that's done. You're welcome. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

If you strike the pointless crap at the start and end of your post, I'll respond to it. O3000 (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

NPOV & failed verification tags

Aw obj don't go all truculent on me. I've given you what you need to rewrite the misleading text. I also added a bit more detail in the body to help the reader understand what's wrong with your preferred lead.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

fixed. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Second paragraph of the lead which summarizes research should be restored

Amid SashiRolls's edit-warring of his preferred changes to the lead and attempts by others to restore the stable version of the lead, the 2nd paragraph which summarizes the research on the subject has not yet been restored. It should be restored. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

This long and winding paragraph was summarized in one sentence (the second one) below in "revised version". 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I understand that SashiRolls has tried to summarize this in the sentence "A quantitative study of qualitative coverage by Northeastern University's School of Journalism found that Sanders initially received the most positive coverage of any major candidate in the primary and later the third and then fourth most favorable of eight candidates.", (you are mistaken) -- SashiRolls but that leaves reader a bit in the dark. The paragraph should be restored in some form.

Perhaps something along these lines:

Studies of media coverage have shown that the amount of coverage of Sanders during the 2016 election was largely consistent with his polling performance, except during 2015 when Sanders received coverage that exceeded his standing in the polls. Analysis of the language used also concluded that media coverage of Sanders was more favorable than that of any other candidate, whereas his main opponent in the democratic primary, Hillary Clinton, received the most negative coverage. A study by Northeastern University's School of Journalism found that Sanders initially received the most positive coverage of any major candidate in the primary.

Sources

- MrX 🖋 12:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Could you integrate the fact that the qualitative analysis is done by algorithm? Giving at least a vague idea about methodology would be appropriate when speaking of studies. Also, it might be better to avoid the present perfect, which is not an encyclopedic tense/aspect. Perhaps add dates for the studies and use the simple past. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, could you provide a pull quote and page number about the Northeastern Study from Colleen Elizabeth Kelly's book please. (I just want to be sure you haven't gotten us confused with the 2019 study.) I'm fairly certain you wouldn't have just moved that 2019 study back to 2016, so I will be interested to read about the earlier study in Kelly's own words. The Post's 32 stories (16+16), at the very least, should probably be mentioned somewhere in the lede as it is probably the most widely known story.. ( Clinton is still celebrating victory on the en.wp Washington Post page).🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I can't but maybe Snooganssnoogans can. I am accepting on faith that this study is authoritative/representative based on the fact that you two have advocated for it being in the lead. I'm just reaching for a compromise here. I'm not necessarily apposed to including that the qualitative analysis is algorithmic, although that doesn't seem noteworthy given that we all work on an encyclopedia that does the exact same thing without anyone batting an eye. - MrX 🖋 14:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Yep, you've misunderstood completely (so I'll take the time out of my day...). The second line of the first paragraph is the summary of Snoogans missing paragraph. The current second paragraph of the lede does not need messing with as it has nothing to do with Snoog's long paragraph (or 2016), though I gather you would like to see the paragraph about 2020 deleted too? Nice job confusing everyone MrX! :D Also, as I mentioned repeatedly to Snoog, this is not the Media coverage of Hillary Clinton page. Maybe you could help Snoog get that one started? The main quantitative study being cited by the books about 2016 is "Patterson" in the bibliography/works cited. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Why does the lead now only summarize the Shorenstein Center study when there are multiple academic assessments, including a peer-reviewed Princeton University Press book on the topic? And why does the lead get into the nitty gritty of mentioning specific numbers? That's not how a lead works. The second paragraph of the lead is barely readable now. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

A Rhetoric of Divisive Partnership

I have removed this paragraph because the wiki-text is exclusively based, as written, on parts of the already summarized Shorenstein Center study. Moreover, no mention is made of Sanders' coverage data during the "middle period" of the primaries, for example, as far as I can tell, so the study is used selectively. As mentioned above, it has a strong POV, with claims like how it is "unsurprising" that BS "had no sense of party loyalty" (one example among many). If the book were used for something that the entry didn't already cover we could include it. For example, I believe Kelley suggests that Sanders ran as a Democrat because it allowed him to have more media coverage. That is not mentioned anywhere in the entry, unless I'm mistaken. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Sanders is not a member of the Democratic Party. Are you saying it is surprising that he had no sense of party loyalty? --WMSR (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

It's a peer-reviewed book by a recognized expert. There's nothing to suggest that it is unreliable or that the book has a strong POV. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm saying very simply that we do not need to include a partisan source to say the same thing quoted in the first part of the Shorenstein Study and the Boston Globe article. If this source has something unique to contribute to the article, by all means, write it up and add it. Partisan sources can be used, but should not be used to restate the same material 15 different times, as was the case in this article. You asked me my personal opinion, so I will answer: the assumed premise of the argument "BS showed no party loyalty" is what I would object to, given that he campaigned for Clinton without fail. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing partisan about a recognized expert stating in a peer-reviewed publication that an Independent Senator "had no sense of party loyalty". You may personally disagree with this expert's assessment, but that has no bearing on anything. The book is clearly relevant to this article, because it evaluates Sanders campaign's claim that there was media bias in the 2016 election, concluding that he was right in one sense but wrong in another. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

And that conclusion of her study is on... page 6 7, right? Could we have a link to her en.wp page, please? some other sort of sign that she is an important scholar? Thanks. I haven't found much with google for the moment, but will continue to look, if you'd like. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

You're now disputing that she's a recognized expert? She's an Associate Professor of Communication studies at Penn State, and wrote a peer-reviewed book about the 2016 election. Give it up, dude. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that you need to provide something unique from the book if you want to include this book (apparently her first?) in the article. Saying "he's right and he's wrong" is not very interesting. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

It appears she has some previous pubs from Praeger press, now available in ebook form through Amazon and that she regularly works with Lexington Books an imprint of Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group. I'm not sure if that's a top-tier academic publisher or not. Perhaps that will be discussed in the RS/N thread you opened shortly after responding here, apparently without listening to the complaint about the repetitive nature of what was being cited.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm tending to feel it should be included. As for the "repetative" problem, where's the problem? So-called experts frequently come to very different conclusions. Gandydancer (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Here is the verbatim quote: "The Harvard analysis reveals that Sanders was right in his critique and also wrong." This is really a literature survey not independent analysis, but I don't wish to argue. I'd like to see something more related to Kelley's own analysis, as she makes some much more interesting claims in her book: e.g. citing Sanders: We concluded [...] that ... in terms of media coverage you had to run within the Democratic party. source 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, I'd agree that that sentence does not say much of anything. Do you have any other suggestions? I've not really looked into this article much but I spent hundreds of hours on our earlier articles and it was my impression that for whatever reasons the media pretty much ignored Bernie. I remember that after one debate that while Sanders' rallies were drawing more people than any other candidate, CNN commented on say five of the other candidates but not even one word on Sanders. Gandydancer (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC) ...Reading your edit, well now that is something new (though I don't agree with it, which is, of course, of no concern for us here ...). Gandydancer (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Indiscriminate revert of changes

I made numerous changes to the article.[1] These included:

• removing newly added content which lacked consensus (e.g. Sanders's proposals on changing the media)
• adding some new content (a Jennifer Rubin op-ed)
• restoring content that there was broad consensus on (e.g. academic analyses of media coverage in the 2016 election in the lead)
• copyedits and fixing factual errors (e.g. Sides et al. only find that Sanders's media coverage exceeded his polling during 2015).

These changes were reverted in their entirety by SashiRolls[2]. In one of his edits, SashiRolls simply stated, "No consensus for these changes"[3], but some of the content that he was restoring was newly added content (like the "Correct the Record"/David Brock type content that numerous editors on the talk page have challenged) which should not be in the article unless there is consensus for it (per BRD and per agreement by every active editor on the talk page, except SashiRolls who repeatedly edit-wars newly added content back into the article). Some of the content also clearly seemed to have consensus for it (such as including the academic analyses on media bias in the 2016 election). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I will not waste my time arguing with you. If you want to add the Jennifer Rubin page go ahead (though I would wait to get consensus). Removing Sanders' essay in CJR is silly, he's obviously talking about media coverage and this has been widely commented upon. List any specific content you wish to modify below, but be aware that there was no consensus for adding further wiki-text to the lead. The information on 2016 is already adequately summarized.

I also notice that you deleted the following (the only reference to the 2016 part of the Patterson study):

From March 15 – May 3, the Clinton/Sanders media coverage split was 61:39. For the first time in the campaign, Clinton's press was positive (51:49) and Sanders' press was negative (46:54).

References

Any reason why you claimed to be adding things about 2016 when in fact you were deleting them and only padding stuff about the 2015 period? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of this period, we should also mention the Daily Kos' decision to start kicking Sanders' supporters off the platform in March 2016.. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you please not use this part of the talk page to discuss unrelated changes? It's hard enough to try to talk with you and keep you on topic, as is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I did not delete that text from the Patterson study. I moved the text verbatim up into the right section of the article. Maybe you should look at the changes made before you indiscriminately mass-revert them. There also seems to be a clear consensus for including text on the studies of media coverage in the 2016 election in the lead. It's also tendentious to assert that I need to get consensus for any new content that I add while you edit-war your new changes into the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Right, you deleted it from the chronology and padded the pre-primary stuff in the lead, while removing Sanders' media critique. Also, should we include info about the person who Daily Kos apparently fired in 2020 after the Sanders' campaign complained?

I assume you are referring to MrX's confused section above where he was trying to say the Northeastern study was the Patterson study?

The academic / journalist distinction you introduced was tactical. But I notice you left stuff about Vox in that section... The presentation should be chronological as there were important differences in the media coverage of Bernie Sanders at strategic points of the campaign.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I've already explicitly asked you not to discuss unrelated changes to the article in this part of the talk page (note that this is occurring while you completely fail to respond substantively to all the content you removed and the new content you're edit-warring back into the article). Why do you then keep bringing up some Daily Kos content you want to add to the article? I have no idea what you're talking about with "MrX's confused section" – please stay on topic. The location of the "stuff about Vox" has nothing to do with the changes in question - please stay on topic. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with Snoogans on this one. Sashi violated BRD in these mass reverts, and is clearly pushing a POV on this page. The section title change was also inappropriate. WMSR (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

And I am going to leave en.wp (for the night, don't get your hopes up) ^^ Thank you for removing my name from the TP header (a clear violation of policy that you havv repeatedly been admonished for) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

So, to be clear: You (1) reverted every single change that was made, (2) insisted that all the changes needed consensus, (3) restored new changes made by yourself in the absence of consensus, (4) came on the talk page and misrepresented the changes that you reverted (indicating that you had no idea what you were reverting), (5) started discussions about all kinds of unrelated content you wanted to add, (6) rambled about your grievances with Mr.X., and (7) left the discussion without substantively addressing any of the changes you made and with zero indication that you're going to remove the newly added content that you just edit-warred back into the article over the objections of multiple editors. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

1 and 2 (correct). 3 (nope, this page has been stable for quite some time... I know you want to delete everything related to Brock, but I haven't added anything to this page in quite some time. 4) you *did* delete the Patterson study of 2016 from the chronology. I mispoke, suggesting you deleted it entirely. Interesting fact: earlier you were misrepresenting the pre-primary part of that study as the whole study. Prior to my intervention on the page, that reference was not included. 5) Yes, we need to talk about Daily Kos in 2016 & 2020 on this page. 6) Don't play dumb. You know I am talking about this part of the talk page where MrX was throroughly confused (notice footnote 3 which misrepresents Kelly), this is your supposed consensus, I assume... and 7) I have spent the time responding each of your claims. You're welcome. (Oh, there was also 8, I fixed the one "error" you identified by being more precise (substituting "in 2015" for "at that time") rather than rewriting the entire sentence to change its spin and 9) now that you've given me a moment to think, I've been able to improve your HRC-heavy version of the lead to something more NPOV and factually accurate. G'night. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 02:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The absurd CTR content that has been challenged by multiple has again been edit-warred into the article by SashiRolls.[4] How many times is this editor going to be allowed to edit-war newly added content into the article despite the objections of multiple editors? It's a brazen violation of BRD and the consensus-required requirements that all the other editors are abiding by. The editor was just days ago warned on the edit-warring noticeboard for edit-warring on this page, but immediately comes back to edit-war this nonsensical content into the article? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Chill. The content I restored was deleted on the grounds that the chapter title of one of the two sources was "fishy", seemingly suggesting that it did not exist. I restored the edit after proving that the source said exactly what I wrote that it said and providing a link to the page where it did. Please stop misrepresenting matters. I notice you did not provide a link to that discussion at ANEW which was closed within 27 minutes of being opened. In the interest of transparency concerning what really happened, I'll add a link since it was just archived. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 08:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Please explain why you are repeatedly restoring content that has been challenged by multiple editors, and which has not been supported by any editor except yourself. It's a direct violation of BRD and the consensus-required requirements, and it makes it impossible to edit this article. You were literally "warned" on the edit-warring noticeboard, so your link just shows what I said. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Please comment on content. The only comment on content you've made is a bare assertion that the content is "absurd", an assertion with which two publishers and three authors obviously disagree. Otherwise, you've been making accusations. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I just want to note that SashiRolls included a personal attack in his comment (another editor removed it because it violated Wikipedia policy)[5], insulting me as "unemployed or underemployed". When SashiRolls was unblocked in November 2018, he was allowed to edit again with the condition that he be kept on a tight leash, but he has since then on three separate occasions by two administrators (El C and Awilley) been blocked for harassment, personal attacks and battleground behavior, and been warned countless times by both administrators and editors. Some of these personal attacks that he was blocked for were targeted at me. Before his Nov 2018 block, he was explicitly warned by an administrator for engaging in a "strategy to harass" me[6] by following me around and removing content that I added (including removal of peer-reviewed research to obscure pages that he had no reasonable expectation to edit on). When is enough going to be enough? How much more of this am I supposed to put up with? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

It's true that 7 Nov 2016 (when I was first learning community culture of not looking into contributors edit histories to see if they were making a mess of other articles) is quite a bit before November 2018. I also noticed that while you were one of 5 contributors on Awilley's disciplinary sanctions/early warning "watchlist" compiled in Oct 2019, I was not. (I won't link to it, because some of the other contributors listed on Awilley's watchlist objected at ArbCom to the maintenance of such lists as "chilling".) Both El C & Awilley received blowback for their blocks, as you probably recall, though I did not officially appeal the latter. The former was lifted within a few hours. This section filled with false accusations and half-truths should be hatted, but won't be, as WP:FOC only applies to some. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you should take it to AE or AN/I, Snooganssnoogans. I, and I suspect Awilley as well, are rather burned out when it comes to dealing with SashiRolls. It's time other admins do some of the heavy lifting, if needed. El_C 16:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I have zero expectation that any case I bring will be successful, because it will just draw in every editor with grievances against me, leading to a mess of a noticeboard discussion and with a complete unwillingness by admins to sift through the information and take the correct decision. I also do not have the time to compile all the relevant data (what I mentioned above is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the harassment and battleground behavior by this editor), and be engaged in this at this particular time. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I think an AE request would be more orderly than you might envision. Also, you don't need to compile everything, just a few of the examples which you consider most egregious. But if you choose to do nothing, that is your prerogative, of course. My preference is to have quorum of admins involved, rather than placing it all on the shoulders of a single admin — that scenario seems unlikely to occur at this time. El_C 16:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:FOC All of the above should be removed as "personal attacks", so should "brazen, absurd, nonsensical, indiscriminate, obsession, plus all the unsubstantiated ad hominem claims meant to discourage/chill work on this entry. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to start a noticeboard request yourself toward that end, then. From what I've read, none of the comments in this subsection constitute personal attacks. When you stop making disparaging comments such as these, perhaps such subsections will not be needed. El_C 16:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Debate info

So I'm here to start the discussion on whether the material and backlash regarding the debate should be added to this article as several articles are popping up from name credible sources that say CNN has it in for Sanders. With the loaded questions that were asked and the backlash from them, I think a modest section would be warranted. Definitely notable.--WillC 21:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Putting aside the clear POV issues in your comment, I assume you are referring to the questions asked about Sanders's alleged comment to Warren questioning the viability of a female candidate. Those comments were verified by CNN and The New York Times. Obviously the two of them were the only people in the room during the actual conversation, but keep in mind that there are two sides to this story, and one has significantly more evidence than the other. From Warren's perspective, Sanders baselessly called her a liar on national television, and she was then subject to sexist internet trolling by Sanders supporters. My point is that there's a strong case that Sanders isn't the victim here. --WMSR (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

That’s a bit misleading. It is not possible to “verify” such comments if the only 2 witnesses disagree. Warren’s side has exactly the same evidence and weight as Sander’s - their own words. Maybe they verified that Warren told those people what she said Sanders said, but they are not able to verify if Sanders actually said it, due to his strong denial. Warren has been notably loose with the truth now in a few other situations. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Hearsay evidence is evidence. And when has Warren been notably loose with the truth? What matters is what reliable sources say, and in this case it's a range from ambiguity to support of Warren. --WMSR (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Although heavily covered at the moment, I'm not seeing any mainstream RS claiming any imbalance in coverage. Which is to say the episode has nothing to do with this article at this point. O3000 (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Objective 3000 - best to let go for a few days at least and see where it goes from here. Gandydancer (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

This is an absurd interpretation of the controversy. Make a greater effort to stay true to the spirit of WP NPOV, WMSR. CNN's Anderson Cooper himself reminded the audience that there is no proof on either side - that this is a he said/she said situation; there is no verification here, only regurgitation of rumors.
In addition, both Shaun King and the Washington Post found sources that failed to endorse the version provided by Warren's campaign.
As for Warren's credibility, it has been questioned for years by Native American activists; the media, too, has been documenting Warren's alleged tendency to fib for years, as seen in the stories below:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/join-my-tribe-elizabeth-warren/2018/10/16/3fb0867e-d181-11e8-b2d2-f397227b43f0_story.html
https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/even-warrens-cherokee-family-recipes-fakes-copied-french-chef/
https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/11/24/warrens-fib-on-sons-private-school-part-of-a-pattern/
https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/elizabeth-warrens-troubling-relationship-with-the-truth/
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/01/the-credibility-gap
Sanders, on the other hand, has a much stronger reputation for respecting the truth, according to polling data. He consistently ranks first among Democratic candidates for honesty and trustworthiness. Rafe87 (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

There's no way to evaluate whether to create a whole section on this when no RS have been brought up on this topic that suggest media bias. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

how's about you indenting here the way that the rest of us do Gandydancer (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Because I'm responding to OP. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@WMSR: Jess McIntosh is that you? Following the debate, McIntosh said the exact same thing as you, "It is verified" and Anderson Cooper right there on the pot said it wasn't verified because it is a "He said, She said" situation. It isn't verified. That is besides the point. It is the clear discussion that CNN violated ethical standards by ignoring Sanders' rebuff of the claim and followed up by asking Warren what she felt when he said it. To the point, even the audience thought that was a loaded question. There are several articles floating around discussing this very problem along with shows that have covered it. My statements don't have to conform to NPOV, the article does.--WillC 02:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

CNN violated ethical standards Come on. Journalists press for information all the time. CNN felt that they had enough information to corroborate Warren's story despite Sanders's denial. I'm not saying that CNN necessarily made the right move, but I am saying that this isn't a one-sided debate. There are two legitimate points of view here that ought to have equal weight. --WMSR (talk) 05:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, yet you claimed CNN verified something that can't be verified. It can only be alleged. Journalists press for information but this wasn't that. This was the ex Clinton Communications Director on air saying something wasn't a he said she said but was a verified fact to only have the host at said time say she was completely wrong. That's a violation of ethical standards itself. It was also a moderator asking a question as if something was a fact and not alleged. Ethically, that is like asking someone "How do you feel about vaccines causing autism?" after someone said they didn't.--WillC 09:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Creation of a "timeline" section and moving academic assessments to the back

In a series of bad changes[7] to the article, SashiRolls has decided to re-create the horrid "timeline" style organization of content (there seemed to be a consensus against this type of organization) and move academic assessments of bias so they fall after this timeline. The academic assessments should obviously be front and center, as they are providing overviews of bias and are the strongest sources. The "timeline" content is just back-and-forth accusations, op-eds and other low quality content. We should strive to summarize the content, not create a coatrack with a bunch of incidents, op-eds and other random content in chronological order. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

As time goes by, I am unable to keep up with all of the unwarranted, undue, and plainly POV edits to this article because of 1RR. Makes me think AfD is the next best option if editors are going to keep POV-pushing and edit-warring content into the article. This page is a WP:POVFORK and despite strong efforts from several editors, it seems that some people are determined to keep it that way. --WMSR (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

As you write more, you would think there would be more references, evidence, and argumentation. Sadly, this is not the case. Just more accusations being lobbed.

I notice, looking through archives 1, 2 and this page, that there was never any consensus for putting "academic assessments" (like the POV Kelley book) "front and center". Since you seem to think that there was such a consensus Snooganssnoogans to justify your late December 2019 rearrangement of the article, could you provide a link to that discussion, please? Could you also explain what problem you have with putting things in chronological order? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 08:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

"The academic assessments should obviously be front and center, as they are providing overviews of bias and are the strongest sources. The "timeline" content is just back-and-forth accusations, op-eds and other low quality content. We should strive to summarize the content, not create a coatrack with a bunch of incidents, op-eds and other random content in chronological order." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

In other words, no, you can't point to a previously existing consensus. Thanks for your answer. PS: "obviously" means "in my opinion". 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

It's hard for me to understand how anyone would complain that the academic commentary should not be divided into its own section. I did read that section while I could barely skim the other due to LITMTR (or whatever its called, something like lost interest too much to read). Gandydancer (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gandydancer. As far as I'm aware, nobody is saying that academic commentary should not be divided into its own section. I also agree that an introduction to the 2016 section of the page would be helpful before getting into the details. Unfortunately, putting things together by theme/outlet (Washington Post, Brock, NYT, "media blackout", etc.) is unlikely to gain consensus, so a timeline seemed to me like the best way to organize the info. Again, the main problem with the "academic analyses" part of this article two weeks ago was that it misrepresented the Shorenstein Center study (cf. how the original authors presented the study, & how it was rewritten (3rd paragraph) on December 26th). If there is consensus to move "academic analyses" ahead of "timeline", that's fine. But until now, there has been no discussion about that. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Hopefully I won't say too many more dumb things as I once again get back into the grove here at a Sanders article. Yes, I agree with everything you say here. I'd say academic analyses should be first. Gandydancer (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

SashiRolls is against placing the academic analyses section first. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. I was thinking that as we continue to work with the article we may be drawing from the Timeline section, both paring it down some and adding more smaller units of information elsewhere. Actually I have not even had time to read the entire thing yet as I am busy with reading related to a few other articles. Gandydancer (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Academic analyses – and how it's summarized in the lede

I haven't been able to check the contents of the books that have been cited in the Academic analyses section, as they're paid material. However, the one study I could check (Shorenstein) had been summarized selectively – leaving out the fact that Sanders' coverage was lagging even after he polled ahead of O'Malley and Webb, and that his increase in coverage or its positivity didn't make up for the previous lack of coverage. This last argument was attributed to him having a major name ID disadvantage, which is why amount of coverage was more crucial than tone of coverage.

The books, though, have been summarized in such a way that they arrive at a very different conclusion. Even Colleen Elizabeth Kelly's book, that cited the Shorenstein study, apparently overlooked what was outlined above. The lede has no mention of it either, instead concluding that – according to academic studies – his coverage was ample and positive.

If the editor who wrote these paragraphs is still around, could I get them to post the book text they used as source material?

Also, is there a reason why the John Sides mention is in the Academic analyses section? It's a journalistic study, similar to the In These Times one. The Nieman Labs one feels more rigorous, although I think "...at least online" should be replaced with "in online news".

I figured I'd post this and give people a chance to reply before I start editing, since I'm partially in the dark not knowing the contents of those books. Selvydra (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I've tracked both down. Sides Tesler Vavreck media coverage Sanders and A_Rhetoric_of_Divisive_Partisanship media coverage finds the books at google books. The latter rather artfully avoids speaking about the Shorenstein Center's analysis of the March 15th-May 3rd period on page 72. HIH. ps: there was a fun disciplinary interlude where I was taken to the edit warring board for removing a word I myself had added a few minutes earlier ("slightly") because it was wrong. I was sleepy last night, shouldn't have messed with the page. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Suggest in particular reading Chapter III (The "outsider" rhetorical behavior of Bernie Sanders") to understand Kelley's POV. There's some good quotes in there; e.g. "That Bernie Sanders lacked any clear concept of party loyalty was not altogether surprising considering his history. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The book is not POV, and the addition of the quote to the article should be removed ASAP, as it has nothing to do with the topic. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

John Sides is a political scientist. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Why on Earth has his academic assessment now been moved from the 'academic analysis' section to the godawful 'timeline' section? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps because it is from a newspaper column called "The Monkey Cage"? One wonders who the peers reviewing that "academic" platform might be.

Also, in addition to your recent use of "inane rambling" to describe contributions to this page (cf. WP:NPA), I appreciate you giving us two more modifiers as evidence of your cool attitude: "why on earth" instead of "why" & "godawful". 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 12:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

It's an analysis by a recognized expert, and should obviously be in the 'academic analysis' section of the article, not the godawful 'timeline' section where are all the random op-eds and other low-quality content is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

SashiRolls, I am not seeing any personal attacks here, just criticism of content. You aren't helping us build an encyclopedia by making accusations against other editors. Please stop. In regards to TMC, the publication has its roots in academia, and is now published in the Washington Post. Contributions are reviewed by a team of editors, and they "do not publish traditional op-eds or editorials that advocate for political parties, candidates, or public policies." Contributors are experts in the field of political science. The name "The Monkey Cage" comes from a quote by H.L. Mencken: “Democracy is the art of running the circus from the monkey cage.” Assume good faith, and don't make assumptions about sources (or editors). --WMSR (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Cillizza's ratings of candidates performances in debates.

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

What does that have to do with media bias? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, if Cillizza is always giving Sanders a bad rating & he works for CNN whom among their sponsors are pharmaceutical companies (which oppose Medicare for All), it's likely that CNN (and Cillizza) would be seen as biased against Sanders. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

CNN has a lot of pundits. These people have opinions (usually very unremarkable opinions). That a CNN pundit doesn't like Sanders or his debate performances is not media bias. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

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

This article exists because of ample sources of mainstream news media bias against Sanders. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

This is way too far a reach. We cannot say that someone that offers an opinion at a news outlet defines bias in the corporation. For one thing, maybe he's right. But even if that isn't true, it still isn't an indication of bias. It's one opinion. It looks like we are trying (like some alt-right sites) too find a path to show bias. WP:OR O3000 (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

This in conjunction with the recent articles about CNN bias would work within a section of actions by CNN that wouldn't synth, OR, undue, or NPOV. There is certainly a source somewhere out there discussing Cillizza's views.--WillC 07:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Know WP:SELF

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

I do not understand what you're trying to say. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

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

FWIW: wikimedia foundation labs (wmflabs.org) data on en.wp coverage / cf. wp:primary
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Prior to Sanders' announcement of his intention to run for the Democratic nomination on April 30, 2015, his Wikipedia entry was 54K in length, whereas Clinton's page was 208K. By July 12, 2016 Sanders' entry was 160% larger, having grown to 140K. By contrast, Clinton's page had grown to 242K, an increase of 16%. From 1 May 2015 to 30 June 2016, Sanders' entry was modified 3279 times, 92% more often than Clinton's entry, which was was modified 1702 times. During the two years 2015 & 2016, Clinton's entry was protected 15 times, Sanders' 10. 1, 2 The data does not indicate what level of protection was applied (pending changes, extended confirmed, full protection, etc.) In terms of reader interest, the WMF does not provide data on the period from May 01, 2015 to June 30, 2015, but for the period from July 01, 2015 to 12 June 2016, Sanders' page was viewed 15.7 million times (45.2K views per day) and Clinton's page was viewed 7.9 million times (22.6K views per day) source 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 15:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Compare to search data below.