Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RfC: AOC comment about Politico[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is no consensus to add AOC's criticism of the Politico article. Numerically, it's a tie, and even from a "strength of arguments" standpoint it's pretty well-balanced. Examples follow; those for say because she is involved with the Sanders campaign that makes it newsworthy, those against say because she is involved it shouldn't be included; "AOC is widely known and quoted" is used by both sides as well. Given the relative stalemate, and the fact that the article has been criticized by other orgs, the motion fails, and so the content will not be added. Primefac (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should we mention that Ocasio-Cortez described the report from the Politico magazine as anti-semitic?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - The above objection is nonsensical. For one, you don't need to be an expert on anti-semitism to identify it: walks like a duck? talks like a duck? It's probably a duck. Two: editor is suspiciously quick to disregard her comment due to a perception of AOC being a devoted "Bernie fan", which means we should also basically just delete Mike Pompeo's article, because he's equally as much of a 'Trump fan' as AOC is a "Bernie fan": that objection is just plain illogical. And three, "encyclopedic" importance is not something us editors have the liberty of selectively applying. Encyclopaedic importance in this case is met because the title of the article is 'Media coverage of Bernie Sanders', this is noteworthy media coverage of Bernie Sanders, and even more-so given how egregious the Politico article was. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - Activist politicians have views every day, rarely do they rise to the level of being encyclopedic. Also, she is a surrogate of the candidate and does not provide an independent viewpoint Slywriter (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree - As editors we do not have the liberty of selectively applying encyclopaedic importance. The fact the comment came from an "activist" politician does not make it less encyclopaedic, and anyway, she's a congresswoman; activists are persons outside the halls of power. Indulgence in pejorative like that speaks more to editorial bias, than to rational argument against this RfC. The editor's accusation of AOC being without an independent viewpoint is also not substantiated and is closer to ad hominem than any kind of objection based on policy. Party members 'sing from the same song sheet' whether Republican or Democrat; and that is a rather weak reason to try and discount her comment. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - She is a freshman congressperson whose every word is published in both right and left sources. That doesn't make her comments notable except in relation to herself. They may very well belong in her article -- but not in every article about every person with whom she has expressed an opinion. O3000 (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - She isn't an authority on the subject matter, and it is hardly surprising that a Sanders supporter supports Sanders. Her being a surrogate of the Sanders campaign makes this wholly undue. --WMSR (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes You know what? This is a reasonable proposal, and I agree with it. If we have an article about Media coverage of Bernie Sanders, then this certainly falls within that category. The sources provided (Politico, JPost, Haaretz) are reliable enough to meet WP:DUE, and AOC is a widely known politician and associate of Sanders. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AOC isn't "the media", nor is she an expert on the media. Just because a notable person makes a comment about something doesn't mean that their comment is automatically encyclopedic. --WMSR (talk) 02:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that any of us can agree on a single definition of "encyclopedic." It seems relevant and appears to meet sourcing policy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No The Politico article covers this, it seems sort of appropriate there, if a bit overdone. I don't think it's that important here unless there are notables in addition to AOC commenting on the article in the same vein.Selfstudier (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Selfstudier, it was condemned by the Anti-Defamation League[2].--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they would, wouldn't they? I just don't think that this particular event is that important in terms of the press coverage overall. Note that I am not saying that a section dealing specifically with coverage in general about his being Jewish would be bad, I think that might be good, actually.Selfstudier (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - One context we should consider, is that she is a prominent surrogate for Sanders. In fact, it doesn't get much more prominent, as far as surrogates go, than a member of congress. - Critical Chris 17:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - AOC is the story not the source.  We should consider including that RS are reporting on her comments.  We should definitely include that the Anti-Defamation League commented on this. [3]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kolya Butternut: Is there supposed to be more than seven paragraphs to that story? That's all I can see and none of it mentions AOC. - MrX 🖋 21:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It does not mention AOC by name.  That source was just to support including text about the Anti-Defamation League.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*No - She's biased. If it got more play to broader refs then maybe, but it didn't. ImUglyButPrettyUgly (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes - Narratives regarding anti-semitism get added to far-less important articles, and contrary to the claim above of AOC being biased, bias could also be introduced via omission of highly relevant snippets like this regardless of how widely publicised. A lack of wide publication is potentially evidence of bias, and only makes collating this information more important. Maintaining NPOV would be my only concern; anti-semitism can be a hot topic. It is interesting to note some objections appear to come from positions of personal or political opposition, rather than actual opposition to the substance of the matter in this RfC. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unarchived to request closure at WP:ANRFC. Cunard (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - Relevant statement by AOC, a prominent member of the Sanders campaign, relates to subject of this article. Articles may present notable opinions as opinions -- see WP:YESPOV. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible deletion of article[edit]

I have been watching this page and noticed that most of the biased editors have left by now. The main issue is that most media coverage of Bernie Sanders was not unusual, as it is consistent with his poll numbers. Even most of the sources say this. 107.194.194.207 (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 August 2020[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. For different reasons, consensus is not to move the page. Also, the article is at AfD for 4th time. —usernamekiran (talk) 06:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Media coverage of Bernie Sanders → Media coverage of Bernie Sanders' campaigns – Most of the disputed coverage is about his campaigns, and not about his life and views in general. Atdevel (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • What does POSS have to do with it? Is it avoiding a possessive title? Read the page, but think I missed something. Just curious for future reference. Slywriter (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be "Sanders's", not "Sanders'". --WMSR (talk) 02:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. However, now that the Democratic primary is no longer a hot button topic, I think it might be appropriate to again call for a deletion of this page. The last AfD, which ended in no consensus, was 27 January 2020. Several of the prominent 'keep' votes in that AfD are banned and/or no longer active on Wikipedia. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking, and that does seem like a good idea. I think it can be deleted. Atdevel (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Snooganssnoogans: I just nominated it, I think it's better than renaming tbh Atdevel (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Editor with no edits since 2013 springs to life re Bernie Sanders, hmmm.Selfstudier (talk) 12:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Partial Support but to Media coverage of Bernie Sanders's campaigns, per WMSR's MOS:POSS concern, with this appropriate usage matching that in Bernie Sanders. The content of the article is solely on his campaigns, not Sanders in general. Reywas92Talk 00:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Media_coverage_of_Bernie_Sanders&oldid=1208044334"