![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
The sourcing for the "largest reported circulation" is not particularly good. While the underlying source is the Alliance for Audited Media (which would be a good source, if we had access to their full data), it's being cited to data from 2014 -- before the last presidential election, including a citation to a blog titled " Terrance This Is Stupid Stuff." If we can't find reliable sources for newspaper circulation that are reasonably current anymore, we should omit this column. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't recommend including in the "notes" column background about a newspaper's historic endorsement record, such as "The [Los Angeles] Times endorsed Republican candidates until 1972, then discontinued endorsements until backing Obama in 2008 and 2012" or "This was only the third time the traditionally Republican-leaning [Chicago] Tribune endorsed a Democrat for president (after their 2008 and 2012 endorsements for Illinois native Barack Obama). Their 2016 endorsement of Johnson was their first ever for a Libertarian presidential candidate." The implication of these notes seems to be that it's a major departure for the LA Times or the Chicago Tribune to endorse Biden, but not only is that undue emphasis which appears to be editorializing, but it's debatable whether it's a departure for them at all given that they both did endorse Barack Obama twice, representing two of the last three presidential elections. (The Scientific American endorsement is a somewhat different story, given that the magazine never endorsed any presidential candidate before.) -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
The endorsement is not from the editorial board but rather from a letter to the editor. Also, as the paper does not have its own WP entry, I do not think it warrants inclusion. Will delete for now Not Sure ( talk) 12:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Let's not whack around the bush here. 'Not Donald Trump' isn't really an endorsement. It should be changed to: "Defacto Joe Biden" in the affirmative, rather than trying to be OVERLY political correct. There is only one other viable candidate on Oct 11, that's Joe Biden. We can insert a note saying Joe Biden wasn't EXPLICITLY mentioned, but defacto 'Not Trump' is Biden... What y'all think? Rwat128 ( talk) 22:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
The magazine's editorial board did not come to the conclusion that there was no candidate they could endorse in this election. In fact, as the article makes clear, Reason always refrains from endorsements because they "are published by a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and therefore don't endorse particular candidates." Instead, the magazine chooses to publish individual staffers' opinions on how they will vote; however, as the article goes on to explain, "nothing in what follows should be construed as an official endorsement of any candidate or cause." That is why the entry on endorsements needs to be removed. Cheers, Not Sure ( talk) 20:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
The note, in reference to the New Hampshire Union Leader's 2020 endorsement of Joe Biden, says "This was the first time this publication endorsed a non-Republican presidential candidate in a general election in 100 years." But according to the table, the newspaper endorsed Gary Johnson (a Libertarian since 2011) in 2016. Perhaps the note should read, "... first time this publication endorsed a Democratic presidential candidate in the general..."? Yeltommo ( talk) 02:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
WSJ endorses Biden in 2020 https://www.wsj.com/articles/notable-quotable-a-footnote-to-a-biden-endorsement-11603749417 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.161.94 ( talk) 22:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Portland Mercury for Biden (weekly) -- Enos733 ( talk) 18:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
I removed a mention of a National Review op-ed -- the mention falsely implied that it was an NR editorial when it actually was the opinion of an individual contributor. Earlier (see above), editoris have believed that a WSJ quotation of another newspaper was the WSJ's editorial board's own endorsement. We need to be careful about this and week out other mistaken mentions that might also have been added. -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 05:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
The Gleaner (a Jamaican newspaper) has an editorial that's clearly against Trump, but I'm unsure if it should be mentioned as any sort of endorsement or non-endorsement. Compare to their 2016 editorial that is listed in Newspaper endorsements in the 2016 United States presidential election#Endorsements by foreign periodicals. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 09:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
I question whether it is meaningful to include an "endorsement" from The Korea Times which was published three days after the election. That's praise for the winning candidate, but it's not the kind of endorsement this candidate is supposed to be about. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
The sourcing for the "largest reported circulation" is not particularly good. While the underlying source is the Alliance for Audited Media (which would be a good source, if we had access to their full data), it's being cited to data from 2014 -- before the last presidential election, including a citation to a blog titled " Terrance This Is Stupid Stuff." If we can't find reliable sources for newspaper circulation that are reasonably current anymore, we should omit this column. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't recommend including in the "notes" column background about a newspaper's historic endorsement record, such as "The [Los Angeles] Times endorsed Republican candidates until 1972, then discontinued endorsements until backing Obama in 2008 and 2012" or "This was only the third time the traditionally Republican-leaning [Chicago] Tribune endorsed a Democrat for president (after their 2008 and 2012 endorsements for Illinois native Barack Obama). Their 2016 endorsement of Johnson was their first ever for a Libertarian presidential candidate." The implication of these notes seems to be that it's a major departure for the LA Times or the Chicago Tribune to endorse Biden, but not only is that undue emphasis which appears to be editorializing, but it's debatable whether it's a departure for them at all given that they both did endorse Barack Obama twice, representing two of the last three presidential elections. (The Scientific American endorsement is a somewhat different story, given that the magazine never endorsed any presidential candidate before.) -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
The endorsement is not from the editorial board but rather from a letter to the editor. Also, as the paper does not have its own WP entry, I do not think it warrants inclusion. Will delete for now Not Sure ( talk) 12:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Let's not whack around the bush here. 'Not Donald Trump' isn't really an endorsement. It should be changed to: "Defacto Joe Biden" in the affirmative, rather than trying to be OVERLY political correct. There is only one other viable candidate on Oct 11, that's Joe Biden. We can insert a note saying Joe Biden wasn't EXPLICITLY mentioned, but defacto 'Not Trump' is Biden... What y'all think? Rwat128 ( talk) 22:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
The magazine's editorial board did not come to the conclusion that there was no candidate they could endorse in this election. In fact, as the article makes clear, Reason always refrains from endorsements because they "are published by a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and therefore don't endorse particular candidates." Instead, the magazine chooses to publish individual staffers' opinions on how they will vote; however, as the article goes on to explain, "nothing in what follows should be construed as an official endorsement of any candidate or cause." That is why the entry on endorsements needs to be removed. Cheers, Not Sure ( talk) 20:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
The note, in reference to the New Hampshire Union Leader's 2020 endorsement of Joe Biden, says "This was the first time this publication endorsed a non-Republican presidential candidate in a general election in 100 years." But according to the table, the newspaper endorsed Gary Johnson (a Libertarian since 2011) in 2016. Perhaps the note should read, "... first time this publication endorsed a Democratic presidential candidate in the general..."? Yeltommo ( talk) 02:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
WSJ endorses Biden in 2020 https://www.wsj.com/articles/notable-quotable-a-footnote-to-a-biden-endorsement-11603749417 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.161.94 ( talk) 22:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Portland Mercury for Biden (weekly) -- Enos733 ( talk) 18:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
I removed a mention of a National Review op-ed -- the mention falsely implied that it was an NR editorial when it actually was the opinion of an individual contributor. Earlier (see above), editoris have believed that a WSJ quotation of another newspaper was the WSJ's editorial board's own endorsement. We need to be careful about this and week out other mistaken mentions that might also have been added. -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 05:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
The Gleaner (a Jamaican newspaper) has an editorial that's clearly against Trump, but I'm unsure if it should be mentioned as any sort of endorsement or non-endorsement. Compare to their 2016 editorial that is listed in Newspaper endorsements in the 2016 United States presidential election#Endorsements by foreign periodicals. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 09:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
I question whether it is meaningful to include an "endorsement" from The Korea Times which was published three days after the election. That's praise for the winning candidate, but it's not the kind of endorsement this candidate is supposed to be about. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)