Talk:Newspaper endorsements in the 2016 United States presidential primaries

Endorsements carried over from the primaries?

In doing some checking, I found that the 4 papers that endorsed Trump during the primaries continue to endorse him. I think primary endorsements that carry over ought to be represented here, somehow?

(Though I'm reluctant to consider The Enquirer a newspaper)

There ought also to be some caveat about New York Observer being published by his son-in-law. Bob Kerns (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Circulation?

It would be helpful, in judging the reach of these endorsements, to have circulation numbers for the papers included? Bob Kerns (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

The Guardian

I removed The Guardian from the list of Bernie Sanders' endorsements. While the item is unequivocally pro-Sanders, it's not an official endorsement by the newspaper. It represents the views of its five named writers, four of whom apparently are not even on the Guardian staff. When the Guardian publishes an editorial, it's unsigned and specifically labeled as an editorial; see [1] and [2] for examples. And here's the Guardian's endorsement for the 2015 UK general election. Again, it's unsigned and labeled as "Editorial". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Magazines, too?

Marquis de Faux recently removed Cruz's endorsement by the National Review with an edit summary "as it is not a newspaper, it is a magazine". Interestingly, the immediate previous edit (by an IP) was the addition of Clinton's endorsement by Rolling Stone, with an edit summary "Rolling Stone (not the first magazine on this page ...". I presume this refers to Sanders' endorsement from The Nation, which was added back in January by HimiGrey. I prefer consistency, and don't presume to revert something that has been present apparently without protest for over two months of active editing by multiple editors. Consequently, I am restoring the Cruz/NR item until a WP:BRD discussion concludes otherwise.

It seems that we have three choices:

(1) Remove Remove the 3 magazine endorsements

(2) Keep/NoMove Keep the 3 magazine endorsements (the current status quo)

(3) Keep+Move Keep the 3 magazine endorsements, move article to News media endorsements in the United States presidential primaries, 2016

To be consistent, I believe we should go towards either (1) or (3), but I believe (2) is the best state for the article until a consensus is reached.

Among the points to be considered:

• (+1) The title and lede clearly say "newspaper"
• (+3) The list already includes weekly newspapers, which brush closely to the blurry line of demarcation between newspapers and magazines
• (+1) Endorsements by newspapers is a long-standing tradition in the US, much less so for magazines and other non-newspaper media
• (+3) Consequently there wouldn't be that many more items in the list so as to make it cumbersome (especially if the title is "News media endorsements ...")
• (?) What has the practice been in previous years? (I haven't checked yet.)

  see below YBG (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I hereby open the balloting with my recommendation to Keep+Move. YBG (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC) see below for revised vote. YBG (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• I would say Keep+Move as well.

  Marquis de Faux (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• We should keep the endorsements from National Review, The Nation, and Rolling Stone. If other people want to move the article to a title that begins with "News media endorsements ...", then I can live with that, although I'm not specifically requesting that. In other words, my first choice is Keep/No Move, but Keep+Move would be a fully acceptable second choice to me. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• (Note) I have modified the lede to indicate that the list also includes other news media. This change works for Keep/NoMove as well as Keep+Move, but it can be easily reverted should the final consensus be Remove. I do not intend this change to influence the discussion, just to improve the current state of the article. YBG (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep/NoMove. I've changed my vote based on the note below. YBG (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• (Note) I have finally got around to looking at previous years.

  • Newspaper endorsements in the United States presidential election, 2012 - separate lists for daily/weekly/college newspapers & for magazines
  • Newspaper endorsements in the United States presidential primaries, 2012 - does not seem to include any magazine endorsements.
  • Newspaper endorsements in the United States presidential election, 2008, for John McCain - separate lists for daily/weekly/college newspapers & for magazines
  • Newspaper endorsements in the United States presidential election, 2008, for Barack Obama - separate lists for daily/weekly/college newspapers & for magazines
  • Newspaper endorsements in the United States presidential primaries, 2008 - combined list with endorsements from The Nation Magazine and National Review
  • Newspaper endorsements in the United States presidential election, 2004 - combined list with endorsements from The Nation, The New Republic, The New Yorker
  • According to {{Newspaper endorsements in United States presidential elections}} and the corresponding article, earlier lists do not exist.

  So it seems to me that there is a well-established precedent including magazines in the lists whose titles would seem to imply that there should only be newspapers. This aligns with Metropolitan90's idea above. @Marquis de Faux: What do you think? YBG (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• That's fair enough. Keep/NoMove then and create separate categories. Marquis de Faux (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, then I hereby proclaim a consensus. YBG (talk) 03:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

By the way, the primary lists only include a handful of magazines, co-mingled in the same lists with the newspapers. Only in general election articles are separate lists maintained. I've just had a dekko at the article and it seems that nothing more needs to be done for this consensus. YBG (talk) 04:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The New York Sun

Should The New York Sun be included? It's not a print newspaper anymore; it's only online. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

General election endorsements

A general election endorsement was added to this article, but I reverted it since this article is about primary election endorsements. The same editor then re-added the material, apparently misunderstanding the reason why it was reverted. I took the matter up on the user's talk page, but have not had any response as yet. I believe the addition should be removed again, but I think it would be better if another editor did it. YBG (talk) 05:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Newspaper endorsements in the United States presidential primaries, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.addisonindependent.com/201505editorial-were-siding-bernie
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160307011025/http://www.arabamericannews.com/news/news/id_11885/cid_10/We-endorse-Bernie-Sanders.html to http://www.arabamericannews.com/news/news/id_11885/cid_10/We-endorse-Bernie-Sanders.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)