Talk:Sun News Network

Bashing of CBC in the months before launch
Although we must assume the Sun newspapers were only reporting in good faith with their lengthy series of articles published over the last year or so bashing the CBC for various reasons (they even created a logo to go along with the stories), it cannot be ignored that these articles intensified after Sun News was approved and as the chain began to ramp up towards its launch. When I started to see the articles, the message/news within them was overshadowed by the feeling that I was seeing major conflict of interest in action. My question is - has this point been raised by any critics, watchdogs, etc? Obviously adding it to the article without such sources would be considered NPOV violation, although I don't think it would be out of place to point out the existence of these articles and their timing, since this can easily be verified. I'm just putting this here for discussion and I'll let consensus run its course. 68.146.71.145 (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the above was posted, the intense attacks on the CBC by Sun News and its newspapers and Quebecor has, if anything, intensified. If the Sun didn't own a competing network there would be no grounds for suggesting conflict of interest, of course... 70.72.223.215 (talk) 23:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Sun news network.png Nominated for Deletion

 * The CBC and CTV have their logos on their WP pages. This is no different. MohammedMohammedمحمد 07:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Heather Mallick relevance issue
Vale of Glamorgan has now twice reinstated a sentence despite two different editors disagreeing with him, so I'm taking this here in hope of resolving this content issue. I fail to see the relevance of adding a commentary by Heather Mallick on the Sun News citizenship ceremony controversy. In my opinion the Mallick commentary adds nothing of encyclopedic value to the article as it consists only of rhetorical jabs. What if someone adds commentary by a local community newspaper and reverts removal on the basis that it's sourced or that the editor wanting to remove it "doesn't like it"? IMHO we can find far more relevant and valuable critical commentary by high-profile columnists on the issue, and could do without the over-the-top criticism and disapproval of the usual critics : something may be sourced but it may not be relevant. CharlieEchoTango ( contact ) 03:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Having one sentence is not a violation of WP:UNDUE which was your stated reason for removing it - and there's no reason not to have it in given that it's representative of much of the criticism that was made of Sun in that . It's punchy and colourful and it appears the only reason a few people don't want it here is because they don't like it or don't like Mallick, who is not a writer for a "local community newspaper" but a columnist for Canada's highest circulation newspaper. See I just don't like it. Achieve balance by putting in views from the other side, not by removing the more effective criticisms. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 03:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * And just to underscore the point that your invocation of WP:UNDUE was unwarranted, this is what the policy actually says:
 * Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give "undue weight" to the Flat Earth belief.
 * Mallick's view was not a "minority view", in fact it was representative of the overwhelming majority of published response to the citizenship oath episode, Mallick's view was not a minority view and certainly not that of a "tiny minority". If anything, defence of the ceremony was a "minority view". Secondly, being published in Canada's highest circulation newspaper it was certainly a prominent vewpoint. I can't see how removal of the quote is at all justifiable under WP:UNDUE. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 03:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * (re prior to edit conflict) As I've made clear above, it's not an "I don't like it issue", it's an issue of relevance. It might be punchy and colourful, but it's still empty rhetoric. We're an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and I'm arguing that her opinion does not adequately summarize the criticism in the media community, especially because she is from the fringe on the political debates. We could do much better to summarize the media criticism by citing less-controversial columnists who actually said something of substance, e.g. thoughtful analysis as opposed to rhetorical spite. Balance is not achieved by citing extremists, or "effective criticisms" as you put it. CharlieEchoTango  ( contact ) 03:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (re on edit conflict) You don't have to cite WP:UNDUE for me; as argued above it is undue because Mallick's viewpoint is not a significant viewpoint (being part of the critical majority does not make one's extreme view significant or representative), and there are far better ways to represent the criticism without resorting on controversial columnists known for their over-the-top rhetoric. The editorial decision to remove Mallick's commentary on the basis of it not being of encyclopedic value is sound. CharlieEchoTango  ( contact ) 03:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We have two critical comments and two comments defending the Sun - that's balanced - how are her views on this issue "fringe" when I dare say that most published commentary you'll find regarding the fake citizenship ceremony was critical. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 04:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you honestly saying that the view that the fake citizenship ceremony is a "charade" that "mocked our democracy [and] journalism," is an extreme minority viewpoint? Show me some evidence of that. In fact, the view was not only widespread, I dare say it was preponderant. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you prefer Globe and Mail columnist Lawrence Martin's column? He too called it a "charade" and went further to describe it as a "Potemkin-village-style citizenship reaffirmation ceremony". Or perhaps you'd prefer the Winnipeg Free Press which called it a "charade", "phoney", "humiliating"?. It seems that Mallick's view is consistent with that of much of the Canadian press so I hardly see how you can call it "extreme" or "over the top". If so, please explain why Mallick calling it a "charade" is extreme and over the top where Martin or the Winnipeg Free Press calling it a "charade" is not. As for the fake ceremony being a "mockery of democracy and journalism", I don't see that as at all inconsistent with the general commentary about the incident but if you can find reliable sources that say the incident was an affirmation of democracy and reflected journalistic integrity please produce them now. If it's a matter of just not liking Mallick, that's fine, but it's also not relevant to whether or not she should be quoted. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough in that I didn't realize the extent of the hyperbole used by columnists in this case, re Lawrence Martin and the WFP, which somehow legitimizes this specific use of words by Mallick. While I entirely expected Mallick to come up with this kind of rhetoric, I would have thought the 'majority opinion' to be more reasonable... I'm still not convinced it is good practice to quote Heather Mallick in any circumstance, but then this indeed amounts to IDONTLIKEIT. Sorry for wasting your time. CharlieEchoTango  ( contact ) 08:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Very civil of you to concede the point; a lot of Wikipedians would have either dug in their heels or gone quiet. I hope when I find myself confronted with a convincing rebuttal I'll be mature enough to yield. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 11:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Link problem
Somehow the first link (bottom of the page) is involved with a reference HTML error and I can't find it. Lots42 (talk) 10:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Sun News Network. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029191316/http://www.cbsc.ca/english/decisions/2012/120613.php to http://www.cbsc.ca/english/decisions/2012/120613.php
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130130051224/http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/09/25/bernie-m-farber-et-al-hating-the-jew-hating-the-gypsy/ to http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/09/25/bernie-m-farber-et-al-hating-the-jew-hating-the-gypsy/
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130130051224/http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/09/25/bernie-m-farber-et-al-hating-the-jew-hating-the-gypsy/ to http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/09/25/bernie-m-farber-et-al-hating-the-jew-hating-the-gypsy/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130910042652/http://www.cbsc.ca/english/decisions/2013/130909.php to http://www.cbsc.ca/english/decisions/2013/130909.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150213070026/http://www.cbsc.ca/english/documents/prs/2013/131023.php to http://www.cbsc.ca/english/documents/prs/2013/131023.php

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Personnel
Added Faith Goldy. Served as reporter as seen here, noted here and on various YouTube Sun News videos. Skingski (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)