This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Toronto Sun received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
"Editorially, the paper to side with the average/ordinary person in government and taxation topics, making appeals to common sense."
Yeah POV (point of view) really annoys me, if the Sun's rightwing populism were in line with the views of the average and ordinary people of Ontario, or even just the City of Toronto than the voters would primarily elect governments of the Right (which they don't). Not too mention that ideas regularly expressed through the Sun's editorial line like flat taxe rates, privatization, integration with the U.S. and social conservatism in many cases would be supported by the majority of people. Take your pick, the "ordinary" and "average" people of Toronto, Ontario and Canada usually have not expressed support for these views, quite the contrary! Meaning that statement was based on point of view and not fact. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. ( Canadianpunk77 20:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC))
The Little Paper That Grew ... Wouldn't Life Be Dull Without The Sun ... Slogan to Come ... Our Readers Are More Fun ... Tough Little Paper To Put Down ... We'll Be There ... We Cut Through. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.223.163 ( talk) 00:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I was reverting the anon (and Lobsterjesus who was apparently the same person) because they started off as a simple vandal and I saw no reason to believe they were editing in good faith. But perhaps the article could stand to be corrected after all. So what are we supposed to say? Adam Bishop ( talk) 01:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
The statement, "Editorially, the paper frequently follows the positions of neo-conservatism in the United States on economic issues" needs to be revised or clarified, since neo-conservatism is a political philosophy strictly dealing with foreign policy issues, and not economic ones (other than that the economy can be used as a tool to achieve a foreign policy objective). Therefore, it would be prudent to point out whether the political positions of the paper follow the domestic economic positions of conservatism in the United States, or those of neo-conservative foreign policy. Snrrub ( talk) 17:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I've got a copy of the 2001 Terrorist Attack front page with the title "BASTARDS". I think this would make an appropriate image for the infobox since it shows the lack of bounds and liberal nature of the Sun. Would anybody be opposed to this? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I like this new cover, the headline shows the editorial style, and it shows a major event in Toronto. Coincidentally, the Edmonton Sun used the same picture and headline today, I actually changed it yesterday because I wanted an Oilers related cover for hockeytown. 117Avenue ( talk) 05:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Under Editorial Stance there are two aspects of the Sun chain in general (but I post here since Toronto is the flagship) that have emerged in the last few years. Its ongoing campaign to have the CBC either closed or privatized is one, and by no coincidence it heated up after Sun launched a competing news channel. Editorial policy at the Sun papers appears to be that the CBC has to be referred to as the "State Broadcaster" rather than by name in columns. Similarly, and this is relatively new (and again post-dates the launch of Sun News), is the Sun's attempt to coin the phrase "Media Party" referring to, basically, any media outlet in Canada that doesn't share the Sun's conservative viewpoint (and usually in the context of rehashing the age old "liberal media" conspiracy theory). Both I think are worth mentioning. 70.72.211.35 ( talk) 19:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Really, no need to get rabid on this. The Toronto Sun is considered a right-wing conservative paper that does slant its reporting. I was trying to make one section that was not sourced into a sourced one. I'm not sure why an example of this opinion is out-of-bounds. Alaney2k ( talk) 16:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I would recommend a new page called "List of Toronto Sun people" be created for the former and current staff listed on the page as it's kinda clunky looking. FreedomAlfonso ( talk) 19:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I would recommend a major edit on the people list, limiting it to notable persons. The current list is almost completely without attribution. I was thinking of adding myself to the list as Special Features Editor. Rhadow ( talk) 18:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
JenniferHeartsU on 13 March 2008 added "Conservative" in the infobox. MiddleAgedBanana on 11 February 2023 added a "better source needed" tag. The source's about page says "Worldpress.org relies heavily on unpaid contributors whose ranks include aspiring writers, citizen journalists, and student activists. Our self-published, unpaid contributors platform has sustained Worldpress.org and allowed us to continue our important work of giving a voice to the oftentimes voiceless." And for some other Canadian newspapers (see talk pages of Globe and Mail or National Post) the position has been removed based on Template:Infobox newspaper ("For use only when a newspaper has formally aligned its news coverage with a political party or movement. Do not use the infobox for allegations of bias or descriptions of the opinion page."). I believe the same applies for Toronto Sun so its political position should be removed from the infobox. which has the effect of reverting JenniferHeartsU's edit. Are there other opinions? Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 15:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
I restored the lead image which had been deleted without explanation. The IP put the following on my talk page, which seems to be relevant here rather than there:
2001:1970:4AE5:A300:D426:EBD1:AC63:C805 ( talk) 18:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
This is even recommended in the review /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Toronto_Sun/archive1
2001:1970:4AE5:A300:D426:EBD1:AC63:C805 ( talk) 20:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It is also already recommended in another review that goes unheard due potential to bias /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Toronto_Sun/archive1
2001:1970:4AE5:A300:5447:C8DA:5C49:E5A8 ( talk) 08:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
References
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Toronto Sun received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
"Editorially, the paper to side with the average/ordinary person in government and taxation topics, making appeals to common sense."
Yeah POV (point of view) really annoys me, if the Sun's rightwing populism were in line with the views of the average and ordinary people of Ontario, or even just the City of Toronto than the voters would primarily elect governments of the Right (which they don't). Not too mention that ideas regularly expressed through the Sun's editorial line like flat taxe rates, privatization, integration with the U.S. and social conservatism in many cases would be supported by the majority of people. Take your pick, the "ordinary" and "average" people of Toronto, Ontario and Canada usually have not expressed support for these views, quite the contrary! Meaning that statement was based on point of view and not fact. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. ( Canadianpunk77 20:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC))
The Little Paper That Grew ... Wouldn't Life Be Dull Without The Sun ... Slogan to Come ... Our Readers Are More Fun ... Tough Little Paper To Put Down ... We'll Be There ... We Cut Through. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.223.163 ( talk) 00:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I was reverting the anon (and Lobsterjesus who was apparently the same person) because they started off as a simple vandal and I saw no reason to believe they were editing in good faith. But perhaps the article could stand to be corrected after all. So what are we supposed to say? Adam Bishop ( talk) 01:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
The statement, "Editorially, the paper frequently follows the positions of neo-conservatism in the United States on economic issues" needs to be revised or clarified, since neo-conservatism is a political philosophy strictly dealing with foreign policy issues, and not economic ones (other than that the economy can be used as a tool to achieve a foreign policy objective). Therefore, it would be prudent to point out whether the political positions of the paper follow the domestic economic positions of conservatism in the United States, or those of neo-conservative foreign policy. Snrrub ( talk) 17:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I've got a copy of the 2001 Terrorist Attack front page with the title "BASTARDS". I think this would make an appropriate image for the infobox since it shows the lack of bounds and liberal nature of the Sun. Would anybody be opposed to this? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I like this new cover, the headline shows the editorial style, and it shows a major event in Toronto. Coincidentally, the Edmonton Sun used the same picture and headline today, I actually changed it yesterday because I wanted an Oilers related cover for hockeytown. 117Avenue ( talk) 05:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Under Editorial Stance there are two aspects of the Sun chain in general (but I post here since Toronto is the flagship) that have emerged in the last few years. Its ongoing campaign to have the CBC either closed or privatized is one, and by no coincidence it heated up after Sun launched a competing news channel. Editorial policy at the Sun papers appears to be that the CBC has to be referred to as the "State Broadcaster" rather than by name in columns. Similarly, and this is relatively new (and again post-dates the launch of Sun News), is the Sun's attempt to coin the phrase "Media Party" referring to, basically, any media outlet in Canada that doesn't share the Sun's conservative viewpoint (and usually in the context of rehashing the age old "liberal media" conspiracy theory). Both I think are worth mentioning. 70.72.211.35 ( talk) 19:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Really, no need to get rabid on this. The Toronto Sun is considered a right-wing conservative paper that does slant its reporting. I was trying to make one section that was not sourced into a sourced one. I'm not sure why an example of this opinion is out-of-bounds. Alaney2k ( talk) 16:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I would recommend a new page called "List of Toronto Sun people" be created for the former and current staff listed on the page as it's kinda clunky looking. FreedomAlfonso ( talk) 19:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I would recommend a major edit on the people list, limiting it to notable persons. The current list is almost completely without attribution. I was thinking of adding myself to the list as Special Features Editor. Rhadow ( talk) 18:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
JenniferHeartsU on 13 March 2008 added "Conservative" in the infobox. MiddleAgedBanana on 11 February 2023 added a "better source needed" tag. The source's about page says "Worldpress.org relies heavily on unpaid contributors whose ranks include aspiring writers, citizen journalists, and student activists. Our self-published, unpaid contributors platform has sustained Worldpress.org and allowed us to continue our important work of giving a voice to the oftentimes voiceless." And for some other Canadian newspapers (see talk pages of Globe and Mail or National Post) the position has been removed based on Template:Infobox newspaper ("For use only when a newspaper has formally aligned its news coverage with a political party or movement. Do not use the infobox for allegations of bias or descriptions of the opinion page."). I believe the same applies for Toronto Sun so its political position should be removed from the infobox. which has the effect of reverting JenniferHeartsU's edit. Are there other opinions? Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 15:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
I restored the lead image which had been deleted without explanation. The IP put the following on my talk page, which seems to be relevant here rather than there:
2001:1970:4AE5:A300:D426:EBD1:AC63:C805 ( talk) 18:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
This is even recommended in the review /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Toronto_Sun/archive1
2001:1970:4AE5:A300:D426:EBD1:AC63:C805 ( talk) 20:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It is also already recommended in another review that goes unheard due potential to bias /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Toronto_Sun/archive1
2001:1970:4AE5:A300:5447:C8DA:5C49:E5A8 ( talk) 08:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
References