Talk:Newspaper endorsements in the 2016 United States presidential election/Archive 1

Circulation figures
Tagging Neutrality

I agree that reliable circulation figures are difficult to come by, especially now that the Audit Bureau Circulation changed their reporting. However, it is an essential piece of information, because not all endorsements carry the same weight. I pulled these figures from each newspaper's own WP page, where they still have them, even though they are often out of date, and not completely accurate. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Do we have a cite for the Audit Bureau Circulation? Neutralitytalk 19:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Sadly, no. All the figures are from the last available report. |The links to the old site are no longer accessible, and aren't archived. I'm surprised no one has looked for a new source. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Where are we getting these numbers from, ultimately? We gotta have some cite. Neutralitytalk 16:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Ultimately, the numbers are from the last ABC figures before that site went behind a paywall. I've asked the people over at Wikiproject Journalism if they have a better idea. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow

Newspaper frequency?
Is there a compelling reason why there can't be another column to distinguish weekly/daily newspapers, instead of a separate section? I feel like it is burdensome to readers and editors to have them separated. Kitty4777 (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It reflects a real-world distinction between the two kinds of newspapers and their respective niches in journalism. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Newspaper endorsements vs Periodical Endorsements
Magazines are a periodical - not a type of newspaper. Changing the title to reflect this (or putting magazines on their own page - which would be inefficient) would clear this up! Kitty4777 (talk) 15:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Previous years' articles use the term "newspaper". Leave it for now and discuss changing them all after the election. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest "media endorsements", since the distinction between a newspaper and a TV/radio program and a web site is becoming very muddy. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Mention of Trump's score in lede
I took out that line "Most of the newspapers endorsed Hillary Clinton. Not one endorsed Donald Trump." Regardless of your leanings, that reeks of rubbing it in. Anyway, it is obvious to anyone who sees the list that this is the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:7776:5130:2D1C:A18F:D17B:3010 (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I put that back. If anyone seeing this list will come to that conclusion whats the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emily Goldstein (talk • contribs) 17:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Particularly in the middle of the election cycle, it smacks of favoritism. More importantly, it constitutes original research, as there is no citation. I'm taking it back out. Erniecohen (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Trump Endorsements
National Enquirer http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/08/national-enquirer-endorses-trump-calls-rubio-nerdy.html http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/donald-trump-lands-endorsement-the-national-enquirer and Santa Barbara News-Press endorsements look like both for primaries and election http://www.newspress.com/Top/Article/article.jsp?Section=EDITORIALS&ID=567560425525346324 --194.213.207.136 (talk) 07:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The Santa Barbara News-Press endorsement looks like it is for the primaries, given the date (June 2, 2016) and California's primary date (June 7, 2016). I personally don't feel as though The National Enquirer is a reliable enough or notable enough publication to include their endorsement. Personally, I feel like The National Enquirer endorsement is almost as equivalent to an Onion endorsement. Elisfkc (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Santa Barbara News-Press wrote President — Donald J. Trump. Not just Republican nominee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.24.84.125 (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but on the ballots, that is the section he would have been under on the primary. Everyone in the primary is running for to be their parties nominee. The difference on the ballots is what they are running for. Elisfkc (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * A simple, unbiased answer to this question is, "Did the endorsement or non-endorsement come after the nomination of Clinton at the DNC?" Clinton was officially nominated July 27. Under that circumstance, the Washington Post's anti-Trump editorial would not count (July 22) but the New York Daily News's Clinton endorsement would (July 28). The National Enquirer (March 8) and Santa Barbara News-Press (June 2) endorsements of Trump would be considered out of the timeframe, and should be because Trump was not yet nominated by those dates. My opinion, anyway.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I feel like a better date is when she captured the necessary delegates or when the last primary ended. Elisfkc (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It isn't our place to decide which endorsements are "reliable" or not: let the reader draw their own conclusions. There are several papers listed whose opinions I consider worthless, but that's POV. Leave that question out of this.
 * During the primaries, a newspaper isn't necessarily going to use the formulation "for the nomination". They assume their readers understand the context: "there's a vote coming up, and we endorse ___, who is running for president". We should categorize them according to that common-sense understanding. I'd agree that the end of the conventions would be the appropriate cut-off, but the WaPo anti-endorsement came after Trump's nomination, and thus was explicitly intended to address the election to follow (not identifying an alternative because two of of the top-four parties had not yet formally named their candidates). To be honest, I'm not sure how to assess the National Enquirer's article, which talks about Trump in opposition to Rubio and Cruz, but also cites him as the "ONLY choice". But its timing so early in the contest – early in the primaries – argues against it as a general-election endorsement. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * New to editing here. I would support the idea that the formulation "for president" as opposed to "for the nomination" (or some such) implies a general election endorsement unless explicitly stated otherwise. That's what we've been going with at List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016, FWIW. If you endorse in only one primary and have your heading as "For President," that seems pretty unambiguous.PotvinSux (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not unambiguous. Perhaps they couldn't decide whom to endorse for the other party's nomination, and chose not to state a position. We can't go digging thru all of the primary endorsements and check to see whether they endorsed a candidate in the other party's primary too, to try to infer what scope they intended. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * For something published during primaries, "for president" is not clear enough. It would have to specifically state that it is for the general election or for "November." Consider the NY Observer that in the same week endorsed "Clinton for President" and "Trump for President." Clearly this is not for the general election. Once the primaries are over, it starts to lean more toward defaulting to the general but could still be a plea to convention delegates. Once a particular candidate has been officially nominated, it is clear that an endorsement or "undorsement" for that candidate applies to the general.RichardMathews (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Any endorsements made before the party conventions were made in a world where there was more than one candidate from each party theoretically in the running, and should not count towards the general election. WP has followed this rule for previous elections, and IMO is a reasonable and objective way to distinguish between primary and general election endorsements. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Summary table problem
The little table summarizing the endorsement counts does not reflect NPOV. It currently lists three of the four A-league and B-league candidates, including Trump who has no endorsements. I tried adding the fourth B-league candidate, who has the same number of endorsements as Trump, but it was removed on the grounds that she has no endorsements. So I tried removing the Republican based on that standard, but he was added back, twice. This is not appropriate. Either we include all four candidates, regardless of how many endorsements they have, or we include only those candidates with endorsements. The current set-up, where we feature the two A-league candidates regardless of endorsements or not, but make an exception for only one of the B-league candidates because he has endorsements, is not neutral. Understand, I don't care which approach we take: all four players, or just those with points. But we need to be consistent. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would support including only those candidates or positions that have at least one endorsement from a daily newspaper in order not to make subjective calls that may violate NPOV (in the other scenario, there is the danger of creating false balance by including minor candidates with zero endorsements).PotvinSux (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Resources
This page can be helpful in identifying papers that have endorsed, and confirming their 2012 choices. It has pages for 2012 and 2008 also. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC) This might be useful for circulation figures, if someone wishes to sign up to access it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The Northwest Arkansas Times
The Northwest Arkansas Times has two separate undorsements; one for Clinton and one for Trump. Should they be listed in separate rows or combined? They are separate as of now. Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Combined. The newspaper should be presented here as having a unified stance. Anywikiuser (talk) 14:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The not-Trump essay ended with their position: "Call today's dual editorials a non-endorsement." -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Identical endorsements in separately-branded papers
We have a couple instances of identically-worded endorsements being published in multiple papers, presumably written by editorial boards that own multiple outlets. Rather than counting and listing each publication separately, I believe they should be treated as a single entity (with their combined circulations noted in the chart). By citing each one individually we are effectively giving those editors multiple "votes". -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Could we have a conversation about this please? There are now multiple instances of this. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please give examples. Also, whatever editorial board wrote the endorsement is who it should belong to, i.e. the USA Today endorsement of Not Trump belongs to the USA Today, even though the Florida Today republished it, since it is not the Florida Today editorial board's view. Elisfkc (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The examples are noted in the table. (And Florida Today did not republish USA Today's, which is also explained in the article.) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Examples include The Birmingham News, Mobile Press-Register, and Hunstville Times. The opinion section for all three newspapers is the same, al.com/opinion.  There is also the Asbury Park Press, Courier News, and Daily Record.  Were there any examples in 2012?  That might be the best place to start.  Patken4 (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That article doesn't note such things. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I meant the USA Today and Pensacola News Journal earlier. Elisfkc (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * If an identical endorsement appears in another paper, I can see benefit of combining. E.g., Greensburg Daily News and Kokomo Tribune.  But this could be messy, so I am not sure of value.   E.g., News and Tribune reprinted the Kokomo endorsement, plus their own.  All three papers are owned by Community Newspaper Holdings but I don't assume all must or will endorse Clinton (or anyone) now.  I considered whether endorsements from lower circulation papers should be in a separate table, but it is easier to simply sort by circulation than arbitrarily split.  And since we can sort, that's a reason not to combine entries.--Milowent • hasspoken  15:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If an affiliated paper also prints a statement of their own, that should count as an additional, separate endorsement.
 * The "value" comes in making the counts in the top table meaningful. If those counts include every paper that simply reprints another's statement, it undermines the point of those counts. Circulation figures help the reader judge the "importance" and likely influence of a given endorsement, but they don't address the problem of double- or triple-counting a single editorial statement printed under more than one brand. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think the top table count is meaningful at all. It is a nice statistic but it doesn't tell us anything about the weight or readership of the endorsements.  It will not get more meaningful by trying to parse these cut-and-paste endorsements.--Milowent • hasspoken  16:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Though it kills the ability to keep the page contemporaneous, I suspect that the proper solution to this will be to reorganize once the election is over. Identical endorsements could then be grouped together in some manner. Jsknoll (talk) 14:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

1900 endorsements

 * Seeing the many-redlinked-table for past elections I've started Newspaper endorsements in the United States presidential election, 1900. If you run across any tables of past endorsements of a paper that goes way back to 1900 (or find any listing of endorsements for the 1900 election), please consider expanding this article.--Milowent • hasspoken  15:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

World endorses "Not Trump"
I'm not sure which section it should go in, but the editorial board of World has released a "not Trump" endorsement. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Added. Patken4 (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Las Vegas Tribune
Is that even a real newspaper?

And if so, there's no mention of an endorsement in the Editorial section.

http://lasvegastribune.net/category/editorials/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.161.174.247 (talk) 10:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Their endorsement is here: http://lasvegastribune.net/give-donald-trump-opportunity-prove-country/, however I'm unsure if they are a legitimate newspaper or a glorified classifieds paper (and does that distinction matter?). If they are considered real, shouldn't they have a wiki page of their own and be listed under some larger category of newspapers? Jsknoll (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, it's a web-only newspaper; it has no print circulation. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In that case, the circulation numbers are not accurate. The source for the circulation numbers is a site that provides information about advertising with them, and mentions $15 for an inch or two of black-on-white text. Jsknoll (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * According to their website and Google Maps, it seems to be run out of someone's home. Given the poor graphics in their "newspaper" (which looks more like a newsletter), the lack of credit given to those who took the images in most of their stories, and the lack of stories written by others that is republished (such as AP articles), I would personally not consider this a newspaper. After a quick look at their website, it seems to be more of a small group of friends/people writing a newsletter than a newspaper. Elisfkc (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I see the entry has been deleted and I would agree with that decision given the evidence from Elisfkc. It didn't seem to be a real newspaper. Now some of the other entries may need the same scrutiny as well to make sure they pass the test.  And maybe we may need to come up with some ground rules on what would be needed to make the list.  Patken4 (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would argue that the "paper" portion of "newspaper" is just as important as the "news" portion. As such, I would lobby for no online-only publications.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Online vs. Print Publications
Are we including online-only publications? I see one online publication – Loveland Magazine – explicitly called out as a magazine, and then there is the Las Vegas Tribune, which has what must be invalid circulation numbers, since it is now online-only.

If we are including online-only publications, should they be distinguished from print ones? Perhaps a separate section? Jsknoll (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Idaho Statesman
New daily newspaper endorsement:

http://www.idahostatesman.com/opinion/editorials/article108108882.html

101.161.174.247 (talk) 01:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Elisfkc (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Chareston Gazette Mail
There are two entries for it. One endorses Not Trump and another endorses Clinton. Should the two be combined? Patken4 (talk) 11:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The original one is not an official endorsement (or official non-endorsement). It should definitely be removed. Someone should go through all of these to check that they are *actual* editorial staff endorsements. Jsknoll (talk) 13:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The Observer
This paper is listed as from United Kingdom. First, should foreign newspapers be included here? Second, it is somewhat confusing in that it links to the "Observer" section of the Guardian website – the UK edition (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/18/the-observer-view-on-hillary-clintons-fitness-to-lead-america). I'm not exactly sure about the relationship between the Guardian & Observer, other than they are under one umbrella and sister papers. I'm also unsure about the relationship between the UK & US editions. I'm also unsure about the frequency of this publication, but I believe it is daily. Jsknoll (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As to whether it should be listed, I think yes, as the Observer is a notable paper. I don't see any examples of endorsements from foreign papers in the 2004-2012 endorsements articles which we currently have.  Would like to hear other input, but I would be in favor of removing from the table and adding at the bottom as a text note or separate table (if other foreign endorsements of note occur).  As for the ownership issue, the Observer is a Sunday-only paper; the Guardian is the other six days of the week.  The idea of having a totally separate paper on Sundays (though this is mostly a fiction) is very old and hanging on in Britain more so than in the United States.  E.g., see the woefully unreferenced Sunday editions.  Also, the News of the World was the Sunday sister to The Sun until it folded due to the phone hacking debacle, and was simply replaced by a Sunday edition of the Sun.--Milowent • hasspoken  14:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Separate pages for lists?
I'm new to some of this, but at what point do we decide to move the lists to a new page (or pages) and just display the counts? Jsknoll (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we should keep it all on this page, that would be best for reader use. Indeed, I also think it would be better to re-merge the separate lists for McCain and Obama in 2008 under Newspaper endorsements in the United States presidential election, 2008.  The articles for 1900, 1904, 2004, 2008, and 2012, are all one page.--Milowent • hasspoken  14:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

1996 page
I've started Newspaper endorsements in the United States presidential election, 1996 and got it well under way. Anyone with a mind to move entries (there is a long list not yet in the table) into the table format, or expand, please have at it! (Also looking for a valid list of 1996 circulation numbers). One fascinating aside is how some papers seemed to move to Dole because of Clinton "scandals" that are long forgotten, and it all seems quaint compared to the sleaze factor of the 2016 election.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

More Student Newspapers
http://pittnews.com/article/112369/top-stories/pitt-news-endorses-hillary-clinton-president/

http://www.iowastatedaily.com/opinion/editorials/article_9238a836-9551-11e6-84c0-a7c8ef22ec76.html

MrVenaCava (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Elisfkc (talk) 05:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Scientific American
Would this editorial from Scientific American be considered a "Not Trump" endorsement? Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

10/22 Endorsements
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20161022/discuss/161029666/ http://richmondfreepress.com/news/2016/oct/22/we-endorse-hillary-clinton-president/ http://www.lowellsun.com/breakingnews/ci_30496810/editorial-why-we-cant-endorse-donald-trump-or

-- MrVenaCava (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ MrVenaCava (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

International publications
Should international publications, being to a somewhat different audience than most US newspapers that are speaking to an audience of US voters, be separated out like the university papers are? Alarson83 (talk) 03:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, probably. Neutralitytalk 02:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

✅ – Minh Nguyễn &#x1f4ac; 03:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

New York Daily News
It should also be noted that the Daily News published an additional editorial, "Bury Trump in a Landslide." http://interactive.nydailynews.com/2016/10/daily-news-editorial-bury-trump-in-landslide/ Krakatoa (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Top 100 newspapers?
The lead section currently states, "As of October 22, 62 of the nation's 100 largest newspapers by paid circulation have made endorsements. Of these, 52 have endorsed Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, three endorsed Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, five gave no endorsement, and two weighed in specifically against Republican candidate Donald Trump." Where do we find the list of the 100 largest newspapers?

In any event, while I can't find a current list of the 100 largest newspapers, all the lists that I have seen (the most recent from 2013) show the Las Vegas Review-Journal clearly among the top 100, and the LVRJ has now endorsed Trump, so that should be mentioned in that sentence as well. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * list comes from the link at the bottom. And you are correct about the LVRJ, I will add it now. Elisfkc (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Removal of notes column.
In the last few days the Notes column was removed and the notes were put in new rows in the tables. Is there consensus on this change? I, for one, am not in favor of it. I think it makes the tables messier and harder to read. ColinClark (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I unilaterally [ implemented] that change as an experiment (in the spirit of being bold) because the tables had become unwieldy with a normal Notes column. On all but the widest of screens, the Notes column resulted in cells a dozen lines long but only a couple words wide – difficult to read, in my opinion – and also forced the page to scroll horizontally.

Wecarlisle restored the Notes column in one section, citing issues with a "count function". I'm not sure what that is – a locally installed bookmarklet, perhaps? In any case, I'd welcome other approaches that work with the table sorting feature, but a standard column isn't very practical for this particular article, considering the number and length of these notes. Perhaps we could move all the notes to grouped footnotes below each table? We could consolidate many redundant notes that way.

– Minh Nguyễn &#x1f4ac; 04:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't like this new way either. I am for either a standard column or a footnotes setup. Elisfkc (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't hate the new setup, but a footnotes section would probably be better. I agree with Mxn that a normal column really doesn't work here, and we definitely shouldn't go back to that. - Iago Qnsi (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be bold and do as we talked about here, with the Notes being in a column similar to how references are on List of 2016–17 NBA season transactions. Elisfkc (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Made it to the San Francisco Examiner. Have to go to class right now, but I'll work on it there. Elisfkc (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Finished the whole thing. Someone else can go in and mess with italics if they want. Elisfkc (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, this works really well! – Minh Nguyễn &#x1f4ac; 16:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

MLive Media Group Endorsement
The MLive Media Group published an endorsement editorial: http://www.mlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/10/hillary_clinton_is_best_for_mi.html - this media group includes several newspapers, including the Ann Arbor News, Bay City Times, Flint Journal, Grand Rapids Press, Jackson Citizen Patriot, Kalamazoo Gazette, Muskegon Chronicle and Saginaw News. What would be the best way to include it in the current format? One entry under MLive, then a list of all the papers in the footnotes? Individual entries for each paper? (This also brings into question how to handle similar other entries, like the multiple papers under Forum Communications Company). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.131.91 (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would say that you should do it like Forum Communications, where each paper is listed, but a note is provided say that they all are owned by one company who wrote the editorial. If a decision is made later to combine the entries into one, then we'll take care of it then. Elisfkc (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Dates for Circulation Figures
Can we please stop adding dates to the circulation figures? If the references are filled out correctly, they should say when the circulation figures are from. Elisfkc (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Yale Record
The Yale Record is listed twice - once under Magazines, once under student papers. Which would be considered the most appropriate to keep? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.131.148 (talk) 06:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I only see it under student newspapers, though I'm using the app to look, so you may be right. It should be under student newspapers. Elisfkc (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It is currently under Magazines as a Clinton endorsement and under College newspapers as a "No endorsement," so it also needs to be decided how to count it. It is very obviously a Clinton endorsement, but someone could try to make a lawyer argument that, strictly, it's not. Anyone object to counting it as a Clinton endorsement? ColinClark (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The Fort Wayne News-Sentinel
I changed the endorsement from "Donald Trump" to "Not Hillary Clinton", because the focus of the endorsement was that Clinton should be kept out of office. The editorial did not say one word about Trump's merits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.119.101.19 (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter that the focus is more against Clinton. Many of the pro-Clinton ones have been more anti-Trump than pro-Clinton. However, they either start or end by stating who they think is the right choice. The News-Sentinel ends with "makes the conservative Trump-Pence ticket the obvious choice for voters". That is an endorsement for Trump. Elisfkc (talk) 02:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Point taken. Of course, this one is a bit problematic, in that it seems to be more a Vice-Presidential endorsement for Pence than anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.119.101.19 (talk) 03:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

When I put in the entry initially, I waffled between "Not Clinton" and "Trump" as well, because the endorsement is definitely not a pro-Trump editorial. However, as Elisfkc pointed out, the wording at the end of the editorial is pretty unequivocal, so that's why I chose "Trump" in the first place. I'm with Elisfkc with this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.138.43 (talk) 08:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Newspapers without 2012 endorsements
Currently, there are a number of newspapers without 2012 endorsements listed. I am going to email all of them, asking for a link or a statement about their 2012 endorsement. If they provide a link, I will add it. If they provide a statement, I will add the candidate and forward the email to the OTRS team. Elisfkc (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Queens Chronicle wrote back, stating they endorsed Obama and provided a copy of the scan of the endorsement in the paper. I have forwarded that email to the Info-EN OTRS team. The Setonian's Editor-in-Chief said he would look for their endorsement over the next couple of days and stated that "On the behalf of the entire paper, I think you for including our editorial on Wikipedia's list" Elisfkc (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The Providence American made no endorsement in 2012. Sending email onto OTRS now. Elisfkc (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Great idea; that'll help us expand Newspaper endorsements in the United States presidential election, 2012 too. For what it's worth, for most of the student newspapers that I listed as not having endorsed in 2012, I exhaustively searched print replica archives or the Wayback Machine to verify that no endorsement had been published. (Off the top of my head, I recall doing this for The New Mexico Daily Lobo and The Miami Student.) However, I only went back to June or July in those cases, so it's possible that I missed one. – Minh Nguyễn  &#x1f4ac; 01:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Slight problem, the whole OTRS idea didn't work out. I thought it would work closer to Commons OTRS, but it does not. Elisfkc (talk) 01:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The Oberlin Review lists no endorsement from 2012 in its editorial section. – Minh Nguyễn  &#x1f4ac; 21:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Color Coding
It seems as though it might be helpful to differentiate by color between those newspapers who are officially making no endorsement and those who are making an anti-endorsement (that is "No Endorsement" in gray fill, "Not Donald Trump" in some other fill); those are clearly different editorial stances, and changing the table to reflect that (without increasing confusion) seems like it would make the table easier to scan. Murphyr (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Better color would be the American (Know Nothing) (K-N) instead of pro-Jackson, since it's a color no one uses (pro-Jackson is light blue, a little too close to Democrat). Changing now. Elisfkc (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Elisfkc (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am undoing your bold move to switch the "Not Donald Trump" from Know Nothing to Democratic-Republican, because that color (Gree0n) corresponds to a large active political party (the Green Party). Purple, the Know Nothing Party's color, is not currently in use by any large political party. If you would like to change it from the Know Nothing's purple to something else, I'd be happy to discuss it right here. Elisfkc (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * that works. Elisfkc (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Trump endorsements at top of article
When there was just one or two endorsements for Trump, it made sense to name the papers in the introduction at the top of the page, because it was so notable. Now that there are seven papers (and presumably a few more will probably emerge in the upcoming week), should we keep individually listing the names of the papers? And if so, then shouldn't we also do that for other candidates as well, like Johnson? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.131.148 (talk) 05:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I would concur on this, seems like a comment about the extremely few endorsements Trump has is still a valid comment (although we might want something to back that up, ie, show the previous record for least # of major newspaper endorsements), but, listing 10-12 newspapers seems redundant. One can sort the endorsements by the endorsed column to see all the Trump ones together. Dletter (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The only significant paper to endorse Trump is the Las Vegas Review-Journal owned by his major supporter Sheldon Adelson; that is probably worth noting, and otherwise noting that he received an extraordinarily low number of endorsements for a major party candidate.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Archiving
This talk page is getting a little long. As such, I am making a bold move and implementing ClueBot III's sequentially numbered archives for this page, with the age set to 30 days. Elisfkc (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Since ClueBot III doesn't seem to want to work, I'm switching it to Lowercase sigmabot III, with age once again set to 30 days. Elisfkc (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks to John of Reading, I have finally figured out the issues. I'm dropping the time down to two weeks and the minimum archive threads to one, as well as going back to ClueBot III. I will push the time back up once the election is over. Elisfkc (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Color Coding: The Sequel
Since "Not Hillary Clinton" is different from "Not Donald Trump", I am making the color coding for Not Clinton be the Anti-Masonic party. Elisfkc (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Silver Party is a little too close to Democrat blue. Changing it to the Whig active party. Elisfkc (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Formatting Notes
When you are putting a note on an endorsement/lack there of, there are a couple things I'd prefer that you do (otherwise, I will have to go in and fix it): 1. Please use complete sentences. 2. Please include the paper's name in the note instead of just using "its", "the newspaper", etc. 3. If a note in the same section says the exact same thing, please just reuse the note instead of making another one (like how the Forum Communications papers do.) Thanks, Elisfkc (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

FYI- I don't edit, but here is a new non-endorsement from the largest newspaper in New Mexico: https://www.abqjournal.com/878277/editorial-no-good-choice-for-president-2.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.121.239 (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ by someone else. Elisfkc (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Major Edit
Sorry, I hope that I didn't step on someone's toes... I just noticed the "This article is actively undergoing a major edit" message Quebec99 (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That was me. Looks like you were doing the same thing as me, fixing references and such. Looks like it didn't get caught as a edit conflict, so it's all good. Elisfkc (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The Crusader
Should we be including The Crusader among Trump's endorsements? This isn't really a community weekly paper like the others, especially since it represents the KKK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.119.101.19 (talk) 07:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Would you be including a "KKK newspaper" with an unknown (or possibly very minimal) circulation if it had endorsed Hillary Clinton? 2602:30A:C072:84E0:95BA:80AA:5546:FBE9 (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

My answer to that one is "no". And I don't think the endorsement of Trump should be included, either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:7776:5130:A128:C89:E304:6D2F (talk) 02:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The daily and weekly sections are largely made up of metro and community newspapers. If additional notable, organization-specific newspapers (think unions) end up publishing endorsements, it may make sense to split out an "Organizational newspapers" section since they occupy a different segment of the periodical market, similar to how we've split out the student newspaper section, even though most are daily or weekly. Then again, the student newspapers are mostly independent papers. I guess what's noteworthy about newspaper endorsements is that they're generally endorsements by editors or editorial boards, rather than the organizations that own them. – Minh Nguyễn &#x1f4ac; 23:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts for the future: Include some non-print media operations?
The media landscape has been slowly changing as more people move online instead of print. So far, I have refrained from including digital-only newspapers (with the exception of one, which I relented because they were officially part of the state's newspaper organization). Currently only a handful of operations have gone digital-only (most still have some print component), but as time goes forward, perhaps by 2020 we may have a non-trivial number of media operations that were formerly print, but have moved to digital-only. The most recent example that I ran across today was an endorsement for Clinton from the long-running Jet Magazine, which went digital-only in 2014. Looking to the future, should we consider including/adding/modifying the page to include digital operations (and if so, under what criteria?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.131.91 (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * There's a small running list of online magazines and news media sites/blogs on Clinton's main endorsement page: LINK --MrVenaCava (talk) 06:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I included The Independent in the "Foreign newspapers and magazines" before noticing this discussion. The fact that it used to be available in print (until earlier this year) would probably mean the endorsement has the same significance as an actual print endorsement. But "formerly in print" could become an artificial distinction in four years. – Minh Nguyễn &#x1f4ac; 18:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)