Talk:Newspaper endorsements in the 2015 Canadian federal election

Earlier comments

Is the Le Devoir endorsement relevant here when its worth noting that this is not an endorsement from Le Devoir itself, but a text written by a number of academics... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.198.241 (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to make the same comment as above - the Le Devoir endorsement is actually an open letter from a number of academics - it's not the paper's official endorsement and shouldn't be listed as such.66.44.115.165 (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The National Post endorsement is from 2011, not this election. Should be removed. 66.44.115.165 (talk) 22:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Le Devoir

This is not an endorsement from the paper, but an 'open letter' from 20 academics. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moving it to the list of non-newspaper endorsements Endorsements from individuals and organizations in the 2015 Canadian federal election Andwats (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah if it belongs anywhere it is there. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sun media endorsement(s)

Is it fair to mark the endorsements by Sun Media (Toronto Sun and Calgary Sun), as separate endorsements when the articles are exact duplicates of one another?

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/10/09/harper-clear-choice-on-the-economy

http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/10/09/harper-clear-choice-on-the-economy

I recommend that these are joined into a single list item as "Toronto Sun & Calgary Sun", but someone has undone such edit for some reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.64.36.81 (talk)

Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The last edit, which creates a single entry for "Sun newspaper chain", might be overdoing it a bit, because it is not clear that all papers will print the same editorial. If it is a separate board writing an endorsement, it should be separated out. Clearly this wasn't the case for the Toronto and Calgary editorials, but there are a great many papers in that category who haven't printed one yet. Additionally, I don't think anybody would support creating a single entry for "Torstar newspaper chains" which includes a very large number of newspaper assets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:100D:0:2013:EEB3:35F7:2E3C (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think what differentiates this entry and makes it one entry and not two is that both papers printed exactly the same editorial, word-for-word. If different papers in the same chain printed different endorsements than I would be in favour of listing them separately. - Ahunt (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with combining them on a single line for that reason, I just don't know if it is fair to generalize that to all Sun Media newspapers. Possibly we could just wait and see, and revisit what the text should be after more papers have printed endorsements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:100D:0:2013:EEB3:35F7:2E3C (talk) 17:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure that sounds fair to me. I suspect other chain papers will run the editorial as well, but until then I will qualify it. - Ahunt (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can just change the city in the URL and find the same article on the Winnipeg, Edmonton and Ottawa Sun websites. MarkFizz (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's just an artifact from how they build their web front end. A different editorial, still endorsing the Conservatives, now appears linked from the Winnipeg and Ottawa Sun opinion pages (http://www.winnipegsun.com/2015/10/15/our-choice-is-clear----stephen-harper); I'm not certain if what they link corresponds exactly with what they actually print 24.246.25.8 (talk) 03:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the article is "Newspaper Endorsements" not "Media Chain Endorsements" and therefore as per previous election years (2006, 2008, 2011) it would make sense to continue to list each newspaper individually, without any potentially partisan preferences towards Sun Media Chain newspapers, Postmedia chain newspapers, Torstar corporation newspapers, etc. If someone wants to start a media chain endorsement page, they have the freedom to do so. Darren J H (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think it makes sense to lump them together if they are reprintings but to keep them separate if they are from different editorial boards and different in content. This goes for both Torstar and Postmedia. Otherwise Sun media ones should be lumped in to Postmedia as well, because the endorsements are authored by Postmedia.Andwats (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read the title as"Newspaper Endorsements" - irrespective of media chain, editorial boards, or even content. If the Toronto Star were to print the identical endorsement as the National Post, it should still be listed as two separate newspapers as they are indeed two separate newspapers. I believe the same should hold for chain papers in different cities, as per every previous entry in this regard, as they are still separate newspapers in different cities. This is what the title of the article implies and to fudge the rules may be construed as having partisan overtones. Darren J H (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I agree entirely. Republishing is republishing no matter where it happens. I think it is probably clearer that these chain ones, that are identical, do not constitute the Newspaper positions in which they were published but rather reflect the chain which owns those newspapers since they are published with the author "Postmedia" not the newspaper itself, its editorial staff, or anything of the sort. Typically, Newspaper Endorsements means editorial staff endorsements. Indeed, they are conventionally published in the editorial section of a newspaper in question and authored by the editors. I think not lumping together the identical endorsements constitutes bias, although I absolutely agree lumping them together just because they are part of the same chain also constitutes bias.Andwats (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So right now there are 5 duplicate articles (Toronto, Calgary, Winnipeg, Ottawa, and Edmonton Sun) listed as separate endorsements. I vote they be combined together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.155.146 (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it to Ahunt to make the final call. But there appears to be consensus here that identical articles constitute a single endorsement, regardless of what past wikipedia entries did.Andwats (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still say that the same editorial published in multiple papers should be on a single line as it is one endorsement. If the editorials are different in papers across a chain then they can have separate lines, as at least it shows they were written for each paper. - Ahunt (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria?

In a way, the wider the criteria for inclusion in this list, the less complete it will be. Somebody just added a university student newspaper to the list, which might be fair, although you have to consider that it would mean somebody should be hunting through all student papers in Canada to look for endorsements. Otherwise, this is a very flawed Wikipedia entry. A possible criterion might simply be "any paper that has a Wikipedia entry already", or else there could be a minimum circulation cut-off. Looking at similar entries in previous elections, I have significant doubts about the completeness of those lists, which makes them highly questionable from the perspective of quality standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:100D:0:2013:EEB3:35F7:2E3C (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like all the current items have Wikipedia articles associated with them. Minimum circulation is probably not ideal. Some papers have larger readerships than their circulation implies and/or more influence than either readership or circulation. Andwats (talk) 04:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused by the criteria as well. The Gastown Gazette is, to my knowledge, a local website. It's not a paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.143.227.234 (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper is perhaps a confusing term now-a-days. But the Gastown Gazette has a wiki article and thus constitutes a notable endorsement. Because it is not a personal nor an organizational endorsement it follows it should be in this article rather than Endorsements from individuals and organizations in the 2015 Canadian federal election. Probably by the next election even those papers with the widest circulation will be only websites.Andwats (talk) 01:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Gastown Gazette piece says it's written by "The Editors". Am I missing something here? Strongly agree with you on the online thing though. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The unsigned comment I was replying to was suggesting it be removed. I think it should stay, regardless of format, since it is an editorial endorsement from a notable source.Andwats (talk) 02:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I somehow skipped over "not a personal nor" and thought you were suggesting it was just a columnist from the Gazette instead of the editors. I fully agree with your point. Apologies. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NP Andwats (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Postmedia Papers

Why are the Postmedia papers lumped together? I can understand why the Sun chain is lumped together, but the Journal and the Vancouver Sun articles are completely different. They appear to be completely different editorials. MarkFizz (talk) 13:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd tend to agree with MarkFizz. While the Sun papers are running the exact same text (so it's clearly a chain-wide endorsement) the Postmedia endorsements are individuated and represent a single paper. Fsbarnum (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree that this is becoming ridiculous. The title of the article is "Newspaper Endorsements", not "Media Chain Endorsements". I believe that each individual newspaper that has an endorsement should be listed, regardless of the chain or even if the same endorsement appears in a different newspaper by the same chain. This is how previous pages from 2006, 2008, and 2011 were conducted and I see no valid reason why this should suddenly be changed now. Darren J H (talk) 14:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the same time, since it is the owners of the paper that direct endorsements, the chain is quite relevant. We can always err on the side of including more information rather than less by adding a column for media chain.--Trystan (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hi Trystan. There seems to be consensus above that those endorsements which are actually identical in content should be lumped together, but those articles which are part of the same chain though different in content should be separated. Andwats (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I didn't suggest lumping them together, just adding information indicating the chain for each paper. Is there any reason that information would be excluded?--Trystan (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. That information (i.e. chain) should be minimally included. Is there a reason why the identical endorsements shouldn't be lumped together? Just to clarify, there are about five papers which have republished the exact same Postmedia endorsement, while other Postmedia papers have used their own editorial staff. The consensus appears to be in the former case that amounts to one endorsement, but in the later it is clearly multipleAndwats (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and added the information. I agree with lumping together identical endorsements, though the line between one endorsement and multiple endorsements is somewhat blurry. The best thing to do is just present all the information clearly in a way that lets the reader draw their own conclusion.--Trystan (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a good way to present it. It gives the information, but lets readers connect the dots. - Ahunt (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I moved those five onto one line. I think everyone agrees on that and that for the rest indicating the owner/publisher is sufficient. I'll add a section to the intro explaining the publisher note. Andwats (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems fair. The sun editorials are exactly the same, while the others are different. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did anybody notice the following comment in the Winnipeg Free Press editorial? "Postmedia has ordered all its papers across Canada to endorse the Conservatives." That means the long list of newspapers in the Postmedia Network article all go in the Conservative section. I don't know that it is something that should actually needs to be reflected in an article like this, but setting aside any political biases for a moment, it is somewhat saddening that almost no editorial boards in the country have the authority to speak to what they think would be in the best interests of their specific readerships. 2620:0:100D:0:5CA4:B627:E3DC:7480 (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did read that in the article, too. So much for an objective press or for editorial independence. - Ahunt (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit surprised. I knew that had always been the case for the Sun chain (now owned by Postmedia, in any case), but I didn't realize the extent to which several old and respected broadsheet papers had lost that independence. I suspect Postmedia owns more newspapers in Canada than it doesn't own. 2620:0:100D:0:5CA4:B627:E3DC:7480 (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And that really brings us back here to whether these are really one editorial or many. - Ahunt (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canadaland is saying that the National Post has been ordered to endorse the Tories and they've suppressed an Andrew Coyne piece where he would have disagreed with the editorial line and personally endorsed another party.http://canadalandshow.com/article/andrew-coyne-v-national-post Curiouser and curiouser. Fsbarnum (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link, Fsbarnum. Interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.25.8 (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Table

The table has issues. It gives far too much visual importance to the 2011 endorsement. If someone wants to create a table of historical endorsements, that'd be great, but it's not appropriate here.

Also, some of the endorsements are looking a bit hedged (example: The Globe and Mail) and should have room for clarification. Knoper (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree - the table was more confusing than edifying and organizing it in that fashion is contrary to the practice of previous elections. It would be great to have a separate article/table with historical endorsements. I's agree about some of them needed additional context also, for example Maclean's basically said one should either vote Tory or Grit and that the NDP was out of contention. Fsbarnum (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's always a good idea to take a look and see how issues such as this are handled elsewhere. The tabular format can work quite well, as seen at Endorsements in the United Kingdom general election, 2015, and would compress more information in a more compact format.Raellerby (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's rather a nice organization. We could merge this with Endorsements from individuals and organizations in the 2015 Canadian federal election Andwats (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dont' know about merging with the other article, which is far messier than this one. I do however like how the UK page splits the newspapers into categories. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Globe and Mail's caveat

The Globe and Mail endorsement should have no caveat. Unlike 'electing a minority' or 'endorsing a minority Government' there's no pathway for voters to collectively vote for that outcome. If a person votes for the Conservatives on October 19th they're voting for their Conservative candidate to be MP, party, leader and all. 192.0.170.74 (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you say that. I agree that it is strange to endorse a party to form the government with someone other than the leader as Prime Minister, and not something that can directly translate into a voter action, it is nonetheless a significant feature of the endorsement and in line with the informational content that this article is trying to capture. 2620:0:100D:0:5CA4:B627:E3DC:7480 (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I actually reinstated that text, which said that they endorsed the Conservatives "with a desire for Harper's resignation." Sorry if it spoils the aesthetics of the list, but it is a rather important distinction. Normally, if a newspaper endorses a party, it strongly implies that they are supportive of the leader's performance. 90.211.143.170 (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would normally be in agreement with the IP's general point, but the paper's position in the editorial and in its defence of the editorial is that both sides of the equation are equal. On a POV basis to me it doesn't make much sense, but I think the way it is now captures what they intend to put forward. Knoper (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note the hyphen on the headline of the editorial. It means that both elements are necessary. Knoper (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is so unusual that a newspaper would endorse a party to win but call for its leader to resign, that it needs to remain a note on the article page. The endorsement is basically a contradiction too, as Mr Harper has said if he doesn't win he will resign, but there is no expectation that he will resign if he does win. - Ahunt (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Organizing by owner

I don't like the recent change that categorizes endorsements first by owner, and then by paper. I see that wiki articles for previous elections have now been reformatted for the same reason, but I don't think this is a neutral approach. While it is true that Postmedia orders all of its papers to endorse the Conservatives, I believe that is the only owner that does that. In the Q&A on the recent Globe endorsement, the Editor-in-Chief said, "At The Globe and Mail, unlike at other newspapers, the editorial board answers to the editor in chief, not the publisher and not the proprietor." Torstar papers, despite the Toronto Star being a relatively firmly a pro-Liberal publication, have traditionally not been aligned -- most ran Conservative endorsements in the last 2 federal elections. More to the point, while having this information available is fine because it is reasonable that readers might want to know how endorsements align across owners, this article is first and foremost about which papers are endorsing which party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.25.8 (talk) 12:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that it's important to group the Postmedia papers together because they order all their papers to endorse Harper. I don't specifically know whether or not this is true for other owners; if it is true, it'd be important to group them together, too, but if not, not important. That said, I don't think it would be a mistake to group them even if the owners don't dictate endorsements. It's still useful to me as a reader to see the grouping. Anyway, that's just an opinion. --Yamla (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal would be to remove the grouping by owner (I think it's cumbersome), but include sourced/reliable stories at the bottom explaining the Postmedia endorsements, which are starting to become a bit of a story. Knoper (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that they should be grouped by owner, as in this election at least, in some cases, the ownership is imposing editorial endorsements. For chains where this is the case this is significant for the reader and in cases where it isn't the grouping by owner format will show that too. - Ahunt (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with grouping by owner. It's a bit tricky, as the article is about the endorsements themselves, so we are working with primary sources. If we can find some reliable secondary sources about the endorsements (i.e. which are owner-directed and which are editorially independent), we could base the organization on that.--Trystan (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the original 2008 and 2011 articles, as per 24.246.25.8's comment above, it was disappointing to see that this debate is spilling into the 2011 Newspaper Endorsement page, and in fact erroneously used the same (weak I would say) reference which is highlighted in this current 2015 article which is not at all pertinent to 2011. (This edit in 2011 was therefore reverted). I agree with 24.246.25.8 and Knoper that these groupings by owner should not be the focus as they have become. The title of the article is "Newspaper Endorsements" and this is now turning into warfare with an excessive focus on newspaper ownership. I believe that the focus should remain a listing of newspapers as per 2006, 2008, and 2011, and perhaps if so desired, the owner may follow in brackets if people feel that this is important to acknowledge. (Then again, if a reader is intent on researching the chains or owners of said newspapers, they are free to do so themselves). Likewise, if someone wishes to create a new article entitled "Endorsements by Media Chain" (or similar), it would be more in the spirit of how this page currently appears. Darren J H --(talk) 21:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As noted on your talk page, I freely admit that my edit to the 2011 article was entirely a mistake. I literally thought I was editing the 2015 article. Your revert was entirely appropriate, my apologies. --Yamla (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Darren J H: I don't see any warfare; the editing has been quite collaborative. Particularly considering it deals with a current event about an imminent election.

The subject of the article is "Newspaper Endorsements", so we need to look at how secondary sources deal with that topic. Those I can find ([1][2][3]) tend to treat Postmedia's endorsement as a single endorsement appearing in multiple places, given that it isn't a series of independent endorsements. (I'm not suggesting that those sources are reliable enough to include in the article, but they are what I can find after a quick search. If there are not sufficient reliable secondary sources on which to base the article, it fails WP:NOTABILITY and should be deleted.)--Trystan (talk) 23:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there has been no "warfare" here, just respectful back and forth discussion and editing. The sources cited above all note that Postmedia has been imposing one editoral stance and this should all be grouped to show that, one way or another. Incidentally there has been quite a public backlash against the papers for this and this may impact which papers are even around in the next election, plus is may influence future endorsements. - Ahunt (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOW Magazine NDP endorsement

Umm, who removed Now Magazine? They clearly endorsed the NDP.

Chris-Gilmore77 (talk) 05:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was moved under "endorsing multiple parties," with an explanatory note.--Trystan (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]