Talk:Endorsements in the 2017 United Kingdom general election

Twitter
Much of this article has just become about trawling celebrities' Twitter accounts. Statements on Twitter are problematic under WP:PRIMARY and do not demonstrate that the act of endorsement is notable. Is this really an encyclopaedic enterprise? And yet, that said, I understand the interest. Is there any guidance here from other recent elections? Should we require secondary source reporting before including any endorsements? Or is that too restrictive? Bondegezou (talk) 11:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I was having the same questions running through my mind. basically two things, 1. how notable is it that, say, Ronnie O'Sullivan supports Labour in the election? and 2. how reliable are the sources.
 * If it can be supported by WP:RS then I think that it's worth keeping otherwise it's not. => Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 11:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Diesel - Glenny's Dog — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:1926:4900:D967:802C:AEE5:6EC4 (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Ronnie O'Sullivan's endorsement was also listed in the 2015 UK General Election's endorsements page. However, Twitter was not used as a source in that election, only secondary sources. Twitter was used extensively as a source in the 2016 US Presidential election, with well over a thousand endorsements sourced to Twitter on the endorsements pages for Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. The claim is that somebody notable has publicly indicated support for a political party or a candidate for office, and so I think Twitter is a reliable primary source under WP:RS guidelines. Ralbegen (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Practice may have been wrong in the case of 2016 Presidential election. While tweets scrape through under WP:RS, I think the more important question is whether they are notable? The idea that someone's own notability means their endorsement is notable was developed before the widespread use of Twitter in this manner. I would favour restricting ourselves to endorsements that secondary sources consider notable enough to report on. Bondegezou (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The guidelines state the requirements for inclusion in a list of people are notability of the person and a reliable source establishing their membership of the list's group, rather than the person's membership of the group itself being notable. This means that practice during the 2016 Presidential election was in line with guidelines; however, more stringent requirements are always an editorial option. Given the size of the endorsement pages for the 2016 Presidential election I feel that stronger inclusion criteria should have been adopted there. However, even with the inclusion criteria currently being used on this page, it is unlikely to reach membership of thousands. I feel restricting ourselves to notable endorsements rather than notable endorsers isn't necessary, and that to refrain from doing so is in line with practice in similar recent lists. Ralbegen (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If notability is sufficient then this list will quickly get out of hand as 643 Members of Parliament and 568 of the members of the House of Lords who take a party whip will be citable. That can't be right though - the US presidential system is different to a UK general election - they weren't endorsing the Republican or Democrat parties - they were endorsing an individual's presidential bid. Footielad (talk) 08:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Then we shouldn't include any current or former politicians as endorsing the party they represent or used to represent, unless they have since publicly changed parties and not changed back, like Douglas Carswell. You're right that my suggestion for notability doesn't say this, but I think we can add that criterion without requiring that all endorsements are notable rather than that all endorsers are notable.Ralbegen (talk) 08:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What we did eventually on the Scottish independence referendum article was remove "obvious" endorsements: that is, SNP politicians endorsing independence and Lab or Con politicians endorsing a no vote. I suggest the same here: politician of party X endorsing party X (or candidate of party X) should not be included. Politicians endorsing someone of a different party (as with Carswell) can be left in. Bondegezou (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

What is an endorsement?
Are there any guidelines about what qualifies as an endorsement of a particular party in the general election? In some cases it appears that any vague political comment on twitter is being construed as an endorsement. Footielad (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think there needs to be a much harsher line on what is considered and endorsement, especially from individuals. if it's not a reliable secondary source then how can it be considered notable? => ; Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 20:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, and some of those added appear to be o the basis of posts or tweets made for satirical or comedic purposes. Footielad (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also agreed: a lot of these Twitter endorsements involve the person saying something nice about a party. That's not a clear endorsement. One can say something nice about, say, Corbyn, but be intending to vote Green, or say something positive about Farage but wanting people to vote Conservative usually. I have been cutting examples that don't seem clear to me. Bondegezou (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

New section needed
I think we might need a section for what political parties do. We have endorsements for Labour from the Communists and Left Unity, but if UKIP stand aside for multiple Conservative candidates, maybe we should group together parties that endorse another party and parties that have widespread effective endorsements. JamKaftan (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Some of that is discussed in the electoral alliances section of the main article, although, yes, some here too may be appropriate. Bondegezou (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If we have another group endorsing a variety of candidates, I think we should really move to a format where we say: "Open Britain endorsed the following candidates: John Smith (Labour) (West Nowhere), Jane Johnes (Conservative) (East Nowhere)...." rather than what we have now. Imagine if some third-party group endorsed a candidate in all 650 seats! JamKaftan (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. I think the current format is OK for now, but if Open Britain or another group publish a longer list, we should look at different ways of showing that. Bondegezou (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Another organisation
Should we add these? Bondegezou (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Leave.EU
thanks for highlighting the issues with citations with the Leave.EU endorsements. I added the first batch initially with precise citations. Another editor reduced them to the automatic form, perhaps misguidedly, and I've been following this precedent since (definitely misguidedly). Nevertheless, there are very clear and unambiguous endorsements for each of them, so could you stop deleting them? I'm happy to go through and add the clearer endorsements, but this is just harder if they've been removed from the page entirely—perhaps it'd be easier to mark them with a tag? Ralbegen (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I think I deleted them all before seeing your message. You can revert those deletions and stick cn tags.
 * Actually, what I suggest is easiest is save this URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Endorsements_in_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_2017&oldid=781001328 That's before I removed any of the incorrect citations. And this URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Endorsements_in_the_United_Kingdom_general_election%2C_2017&type=revision&diff=781002610&oldid=781001328 That shows all the changes. You can then cut'n'paste from those back into the article when you've tracked down the right tweets. Or append here and I'll help put them back: Bondegezou (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * John Mann
 * Charlotte Leslie
 * Caroline Ansell
 * Tom Elliott
 * Maria Caulfield
 * Karl McCartney
 * Stewart Jackson
 * Roger Helmer
 * Royston Smith
 * James Davies
 * Allan Shipham
 * Alex Williams
 * I've put them back now with proper citations. Thank you for being so helpful, I really appreciate it! Ralbegen (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Newspaper Headlines
I think it vital that we not list small and minuscule papers in the UK such as the Daily Worker. This paper (which circulates under 1,000 papers a week) has been inserted purely for the purpose of bolstering the support of the Labour Party, and holds no educational use whatsoever. This paper's very name reflects its obvious far-left leaning. Likewise, if one inserted a rare and uncommon paper called The Conservative or The Anglo-Patriot, one can discern these papers exist for the purpose of merely promoting a certain cause or even party, rather than the news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.82.20 (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Given those publications appear to be published by political parties I am not sure that they are what an ordinary person would describe as a newspaper in the same respect that the Times, Guardian etc are. We wouldn't have an endorsement from 'Focus' for the Lib Dems, for example.  I agree it would be better not to list them, and maybe they need to be removed from the Endorsements in the United Kingdom general election, 2015 as this has been previously cited as precedent to list them here, given that they were not included on Newspaper endorsements in the United Kingdom general election, 2010  Footielad (talk) 05:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. CorrectiveMeasures (talk) 09:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 75.166.82.20, I think you should remember to assume good faith and not claim that edits have been made for particular reasons.
 * These endorsements appear notable to me, even if they're not as significant as The Times would be. The general principle is that an endorsement is notable if the endorser has their own article, and these do. Maybe we move them, however, under Organisations where we have similar far left groups? Bondegezou (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I largely agree with Bondegezou, but perhaps another solution might be to include a column in the table listing circulations, so the scale of each endorsement is clear to readers. It doesn't seem right to me to mark things which are by definition newspapers as organisations instead of newspapers. Ralbegen (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * While I understand it is an endorsement, how do we prevent it from becoming crowded with publications, some of which may have little readership but none the less, have to be included? What Ralbegen said makes sense, perhaps a section or changing the format of the article which would suit the inclusion of these publications. If not, perhaps some sort of criteria established? CorrectiveMeasures (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * How about this as a model:


 * {| class="wikitable"

! Newspaper ! colspan=2| Endorsement ! Circulation ! Notes ! Link
 * Daily Mirror
 * style="background-color: " |
 * Labour Party
 * 724,888
 * i
 * style="background-color:black" |
 * None
 * 266,768
 * Mail on Sunday
 * style="background-color: " |
 * Conservative Party
 * 1,257,984
 * Morning Star
 * style="background-color: " |
 * Labour Party
 * ~10,000
 * New European
 * TBD
 * ~20,000
 * Endorses voting against the Conservatives and UKIP and for candidates that support a second EU referendum
 * New Worker
 * style="background-color: " |
 * Labour Party
 * <1,000
 * The Sun
 * style="background-color: " |
 * Conservative Party
 * 1,666,715
 * Weekly Worker
 * style="background-color: " |
 * Labour Party
 * 500
 * }
 * I think it might be an improvement even without the dispute over the inclusion of smaller publications. Possibly making it sortable as well, so readers can order them by circulation if they choose. Ralbegen (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * New Worker
 * style="background-color: " |
 * Labour Party
 * <1,000
 * The Sun
 * style="background-color: " |
 * Conservative Party
 * 1,666,715
 * Weekly Worker
 * style="background-color: " |
 * Labour Party
 * 500
 * }
 * I think it might be an improvement even without the dispute over the inclusion of smaller publications. Possibly making it sortable as well, so readers can order them by circulation if they choose. Ralbegen (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Weekly Worker
 * style="background-color: " |
 * Labour Party
 * 500
 * }
 * I think it might be an improvement even without the dispute over the inclusion of smaller publications. Possibly making it sortable as well, so readers can order them by circulation if they choose. Ralbegen (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * }
 * I think it might be an improvement even without the dispute over the inclusion of smaller publications. Possibly making it sortable as well, so readers can order them by circulation if they choose. Ralbegen (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * }
 * I think it might be an improvement even without the dispute over the inclusion of smaller publications. Possibly making it sortable as well, so readers can order them by circulation if they choose. Ralbegen (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * the idea behind treating these as organisations rather than as newspapers is because they're newspapers that are intimately linked to small parties. An endorsement by Weekly Worker is kind of the same thing as an endorsement by the CPGB-PCC. But it's just an idea. I'm not bothered either way.

I'm not convinced a circulation figure is required. I think people reading the table will, by and large, know that The Times is different to Weekly Worker. They can always click on the wikilinks if they don't! Another thing to do would be simply to split out the daily newspapers from the weekly newspapers as it's the weekly newspapers which have the small circulations. That's what we did eventually with the 2015 endorsements (Endorsements_in_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015) and I think it worked fine. Bondegezou (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Good points. I'd be happy to go with either of your proposals now, though I'd favour the latter. Splitting daily from weekly publications would also mean that we can split magazines and Sunday papers out as well, as in 2015. There are enough endorsements now that it wouldn't look ridiculous. Ralbegen (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest we split daily and weekly periodicals, as per the 2015 article. Bondegezou (talk) 10:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * To avoid an edit war with 75.166.82.20: is there consensus that the About pages of ConservativeHome and Liberal Democrat Voice do not constitute endorsements, as they don't mention this election or recommend a vote? Further, is there general agreement that notable blogs and digital media outlets are not the same as daily newspapers and should be listed differently on this page? And finally, is there consensus that, as with politicians, endorsements from explicitly partisan publications should only be included if they are for a party other than the party publishing them? Ralbegen (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes and yes. The solution to 75.166.82.20's obsession is semi-protection, I suspect! Bondegezou (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree; there is also a substantial and growing amount of unambiguous vandalism on this page. Semi-protection would be very welcome. Ralbegen (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Jack Monroe/more complex endorsements
Some people/bodies have endorsed more than one party or made more complicated endorsements. With people, e.g. John Cleese, I have appended a note saying they're endorsing two parties. That was easy in Cleese's case because his tweet is explicit about that.

But what do we do about someone like Jack Monroe? They are listed as endorsing Labour based on a tweet that seems entirely clear. However, they were intending to stand as a candidate in this election for the National Health Action Party, standing against Labour as far as I can see. Their withdrawal as a candidate was announced on 11 May, after the 7 May tweet given as their supporting Labour. Last year, they endorsed the Women's Equality Party, who are also standing against Labour. Monroe presumably supports NHAP in some places, WEP in others, but Labour in most, but I don't want to get WP:SYNTHy here. Should we make some note of all this? Bondegezou (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * My instinct is to include any clear statement of support of a party as an endorsement for that party. Following that, where someone (like Cleese) endorses two parties, or as Jack Monroe may do at some point endorses individual candidates of a party other than the one they endorse nationally, both endorsements should be included with a footnote clarifying their position linked from both endorsements. That way we can include as much information as necessary without cluttering the main list. Perhaps footnotes could also be used for notable people who endorse a particular party but recommend voting tactically against another party to clarify their positions? Ralbegen (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2017
Add Endorsements from Alan Davies, comedian, writer and actor to Labour Party via twitter Davidtme (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done! Ralbegen (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Promoted slates
Should we find a better way to present endorsements for individual candidates? At the moment, the overwhelming majority of endorsements for individual candidates are from the three pro-EU groups, Leave.EU, local Green and UK Independence parties, and the NHA. If those were moved from the current format, then by my count there would only be 29 constituencies with endorsements for individual candidates—a lot more readable than the current 126.

Perhaps we could create a new section for endorsements of slates of candidates with tables, as for media organisations, with summaries of the organisations' positions with external links to detailed lists? Ralbegen (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There's only a few NHAP endorsements, so I think those can stay as is. The individual Green and UKIP local party endorsements are, in a sense, all separate, each decision taken by a local party separately, so again I feel they should stay as is. However, I accept there's more of an issue with the pro- and anti-EU groups' endorsements.
 * But, thinking about it, I like the present format overall. It is less compact, but think about how readers will be using the article. I'm in a specific constituency: I want to know what endorsements there have been in my specific constituency. At present, I can scan down the list and there's my seat (or not) and I can see everything. If you split things off, I'd have to look for my seat, then separately go to another section and check 4 different external links. Bondegezou (talk) 09:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point; the current layout should stand. Ralbegen (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Robert Webb
Robert Webb has been listed as having endorsed Labour, although this tweet would suggest that, while no fan of Corbyn, he will vote for his local Labour MP. Does it count as an endorsement of the party if he's just voting for/supporting his local Labour MP? I know RW's been a Labour member on-and-off but recently left over Corbyn's leadership. What do people think of this? Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 04:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would take this only as an endorsement for his local MP. If we know who that is, it can be listed in the constituency section. Bondegezou (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Newspaper endorsements
Both the Sun on Sunday and Sunday Telegraph have endorsed the Conservatives. Someone please add this to the article (I don't have clearance). Links: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3719249/it-is-in-the-interests-of-britain-to-vote-conservative-and-keep-jeremy-corbyn-out-of-government/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2017/06/03/vote-conservative-independent-prosperous-britain/

Both were published June 4th 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.106.137 (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've added the Sun on Sunday, and has added the Sunday Telegraph. Ralbegen (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit Request: Add the times as right wing endorsement please, refs listed
Why is this not listed anywhere? Right wing and a national paper? But the Morning star is listed which has a circulation of less than 5000 a day. Is this so we can have a nice 3 votes each on the Nationals?

This link shows the Times endorsement, plus the new statesman hasnt endorsed labour so that needs removing

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/03/which-parties-are-the-uk-press-backing-in-the-general-election — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.28.207 (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * From the Guardian piece you linked regarding the Times: "The newspaper has not yet published its final pre-election endorsement.". The same piece points out that the New Statesman endorsed Labour, which is also the impression that the magazine's senior staff   are under. Take care to assume good faith and not claim that edits are made for particular reasons.


 * The Times' final endorsement will be published some point this week, and we'll add it then. Based on previous elections, we should be looking out for endorsements from the Mail, the Express, City AM, the Evening Standard, the Liverpool Echo, the Yorkshire Post and the Daily Record as well! Ralbegen (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Affiliated organisations
Just a few thoughts intended to assist the editors in compiling a full list.

I would have thought that organisations affiliated to parties would have made endorsements. That could include For Labour - trade unions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)_affiliated_trade_union

Plus the Fabian Society, The Cooperative Party and the Socialist Educational Association.

For the Conservatives (associates not affiliates) - the Association of Conservative Clubs, the Cornerstone Group, Conservative Way Forward, Conservative Home, No Turning Back and the Monday Club. Whilst these groups are associates with the Conservatives (the party distanced itself from the Monday Club), it is reasonable to take a look to confirm whether they are formally endorsing the party.

Also, if a trade union is endorsing a party, is it necessary to add the general secretary's name to the list of individuals? MattBadger (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems to me somewhat pointless to worry about whether the likes of Conservative Way Forward or the Co-operative Party are endorsing Con and Lab respectively given these organisations are so closely associated with those parties.
 * Trades unions are a different matter, given that they can endorse anyone and do switch endorsements sometimes. We currently include several union endorsements: more welcome if citations found. A union general secretary can have a personal opinion that is different from the choice made by the union, so listing general secretaries as well has some justification, I would think. To be included in the list of individuals, however, citations need to be clear when a general secretary is acting as an individual. If they are speaking for their union, the endorsement should only be listed as from the union. Bondegezou (talk) 13:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2017
Please add Michael Robinson, football player from Liverpool and Spain-based sports commentator. The source is here: http://www.publico.es/deportes/michael-robinson-futbol-capitalismo-brexit.html 185.13.202.161 (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌ It is unclear from the article if Robinson is actually endorsing Labour or if he just thinks Labour has a chance to win. It is more of a wide-ranging interview about many topics, capitalism, Thatcherism, and the General Election among them.  There should to be a clear statement of endorsement for inclusion.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2017
The Independent has endorsed 'none', but has encouraged tactical voting against the conservatives. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/your-vote-your-values-where-the-independent-stands-in-this-most-complex-of-elections-a7773816.html Moosetorpedo (talk) 08:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * After reading the article, I think it's quite a stretch to say that the Independent is encouraging tactical voting against anyone.  Programming Geek talk to me 13:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2017
Add comedian and actor Johnny Vegas to list of Labour Party endorsements https://twitter.com/JohnnyVegasReal/status/872636349949587456 Klesmez (talk) 02:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Added per request, official Twitter, clear endorsement and has their own article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

National magazines
Don't the "national weekly newspapers" and "national news magazines" sections give a misleading impression? It's years since I last saw "Tribune" on the news stand and I've never seen "The Socialist Standard" there. Are "Weekly Worker" and "New Worker" available at all except from street sellers, and those barely seen outside of a minuscule number of locations? "The Econoist", "Spectator" and "New Statesman" are genuine national publications. The rest, not so much. 86.174.248.89 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Circulation figures
There's some discussion of including circulation figures above (under ), and we decided against then. I don't think it's useful to include them. I think there could feasibly be some value in adding context to newspapers (within limit of synthesis violations), but I'm not convinced that print circulation is particularly useful context. It's not a great proxy for reach. The National Readership Survey shows us that print circulation isn't closely related to readership (see the table here). By analogy, I don't think anybody would approve of going through endorsements from individuals and cataloguing the number of Twitter followers each endorser has.

Pinging. Ralbegen (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, interesting, . Thanks. I didn't realise there was another way of measuring readership. I'd say including circulation would be good/important if there wasn't a better way of articulating reach; but, as there is, we should definitley swap out circulation for a better measure of readership. Where can we get data relevant to the 2017 election period? --Woofboy (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, my preference would be to avoid including any readership figures and leave the article pared down to who is making an endorsement and whom they're endorsing, as was broadly agreed in the discussion above. Other editors may wish to comment on the matter of whether to incline or excluding readership figures outright.
 * But to answer your question, there's some raw data here, with some of the new PAMCO figures for a period that includes the 2017 election here. I also like these figures because they're presented rounded to the nearest thousand. Ralbegen (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll check those out! I think something like readership/circulation's important because it makes clearer the potential weight of each endorsement. I, for one, had no idea what the circulation (and, I presumed, the readership) of the Guardian was, for example. I would've thought it was significant, and worth knowing, that the two weekly papers that endorsed Labour in the 2017 election had a circulation of 881,644 and that the those endorsing the Conservatives >4.5 million. --Woofboy (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm mainly wary of original research (or specifically synthesis: do secondary sources link endorsements to readership? Curious readers can always find circulation by following each wikilink. Ralbegen (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think they do, but I might not be getting the nuance of your question. In 'Newspapers' editorial opinions: stuck between a rock and a hard place' (in UK Election Analysis 2017: Media, Voters and the Campaign), J. Firmstone has a table of editorial party endorsements from a number of newspapers and, in the main body of her article, she talks about the effects editorial endorsements had on the vote: the Labour editorial endorsements had little effect, while the Conservative ones had a larger effect, she suggests, because of the 'limited influence of left-wing papers due to low readership in comparison to the right-wing press' (I believe these sources — 2017 UK election:, ; US contexts:, , , — also link endorsements to circulation). --Woofboy (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, that's entirely fair enough! How about this: we could leave circulation out of this article, as it's a list and analysis is less appropriate. The table in the endorsements section of 2017 United Kingdom general election could keep them, with a summary of the analysis you mention and link to here in the accompanying prose. That way, this list article remains pure as a list of endorsers and their endorsements, there's context for readers looking at the table in the election article, and the tables in each article aren't direct duplications of one another. It also means that the work you've done listing circulation figures is more appropriate than changing to the metrics I prefer but the literature doesn't seem to, saving work there and avoiding original research. Does that sound like a good way of doing things? Ralbegen (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep, that sounds OK. I´ll remove the figures from this page. Also, happy new year to you. :) --Woofboy (talk) 11:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)