This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the National Post article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The news is notable as produced huge amount of reactions. After just one day you can find numerous links in google [1]. There is also no controversy as such law never passed or even discussed in Iran. It was simply a lie made by Amir Taheri and distributed by National Post. This is a very unprofessional act in the history of this canadian media. --Mitso Bel18:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, and personally I think that The National Post will have to answer for the damage they have done. However, misspelled, non-neutral claims do not belong in Wikipedia. I guarantee that someone will edit this straight out again. I would rather not get in an edit war about this; can we leave it as a link to the main article about the 2006 sumptuary law?
-- Neil K
Agreed, but words like "fake" and "unprofessional" are NPOV. Best to describe situation in as simple and non-inflammatory language as possible and to link to main article for details.JFD 18:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
It's also not really in tune with the rest of the article. Up until that point, things make sense. If there was at least a header or something like "Notable Events", it might fit. As it stands, it's just been dropped in. Obviously, it has it's own article and a link should suffice. TrooperScoop 22:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be beneficial for wikipedia readers to know that "Asper was above anything else an unabashed Zionist and a proud Jew" (according to CBC http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_zolf/20031007.html)? This information might help to better understand the probable origin of this error. Is such reference to a government owned Canadian media corporation acceptable at Wikipedia? Jhnppv 22:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I have a conflict of interest that makes it impossible for me to edit the main article, and that should be borne in mind by readers of my comments. But I would like to suggest that the "Controversies" section as it stands is extremely anomalous. Just for starters, whatever your private opinion of the Post, you'd have to be as thick as a plank to imagine that the sumptuary-law controversy was the only major one in the history of the newspaper. Furthermore, the entries for other Canadian newspapers of similar importance lack lists of their own controversies and embarrassments--though, rest assured, they have taken place. At the very most the issue should be handled with a short sentence directing the reader to the obsessively detailed separate entry on the Taheri problem. My personal view is that even this would be rather hard on the Post when like entries on the Globe and the Star are compared--and doubly so given the attention paid elsewhere in the entry to those who view the paper as a "mouthpiece for Israel", which itself borders on an NPOV issue. I suppose it would be asking too much to expect some concrete evidence that "Much of the newspaper's small advertising revenue appears to be contributed by synagogues and Jewish family announcements." On the whole, as it stands, this entry does very little credit to Wikipedia. --Cosh 07:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty to remove most of the weasel NPOV that appeared since the last revert (i.e. late August 2006). Kelvinc 10:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm a bit uncomfortable with this passage: "which pointed out errors of fact, evidence of entrenched left-wing bias, and in particular bias against Israel at the public broadcaster." Sounds POVish. I'd like to replace it with "which pointed out errors of fact and perceived evidence of entrenched left-wing and anti-Israeli bias at the public broadcaster." Thoughts? Blotto adrift 20:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
It's been a few years since I lived in Canada, so I may have missed the "salacious article" re the Governor General by the unnamed NP gossip columnist. Can anyone enlighten me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isoruku (talk • contribs) 21:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
Someone removed my contribution to the National Post article which is both factual and supported by news articles. I have reintroduced it under the heading National Post today. Andy--74.100.143.100 19:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikiscanner has identified user 204.187.154.49 as coming from a CanWest computer. This is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Wanzhen 18:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Hundreds of Wikiepdia edits orgiginate from CanWest computers. See... http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=204.187.154.0-255&ip2=204.187.150.0-255&ip3=204.187.153.0-255 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanzhen (talk • contribs) 18:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I Googled "National Post" because it was cited in a Saturn ad, and I wanted to see if it was a real newspaper since I hadn't heard of it (and frankly, to a non-Canadian, "National Post" sounded made up). The blurb under the heading for this article in the list of search results starts "The National Post is a pro-Israeli Canadian English-language national newspaper based in..." (bold style added for emphasis), which seems to be a relic of some previous vandalism. The article seems to have been fixed, but apparently Google is using an old (vandalized?) version as a reference, so everyone who Googles it sees the "pro-Israeli" nonsense. Anyone know how to fix that? 67.211.128.98 (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
This story is on 680 News. I am not sure where/if it should be in this article: The current link is: http://www.680news.com/news/headlines/more.jsp?content=20091029_134542_8432
TORONTO - Bloomberg reports that the National Post will likely be forced to close as early as Friday if it isn't transferred to a different holding company, according to a Canwest court filing. The closure would affect more than 200 employees. The court filing said the paper has never generated a profit and continues to suffer significant losses, more than $60-million in fact over the last four years. Canwest is currently in bankruptcy protection and wants to shift the paper to a unit called Canwest Limited Partnership. There will be a crucial court hearing on the matter, Friday. BashBrannigan (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
For the record, the Post only suspended the Monday edition for a couple months in the summer of 09. I don't believe this is notable enough to include, I'm only mentioning it because an editor had mistakenly edited that the Post no longer published on Monday. BashBrannigan (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-scientist-sues-national-post and [2] William M. Connolley (talk) 08:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the paragraph below because (a) the Aspers no longer have anything to do with the company, and the closure rumours have ceased at least until an IPO of Postmedia; and (b) the amount of money the paper is losing is less now -- $9.3M vs. $15M. I've noted that in the text.
The Post continues to lose money – financial analysts estimate annual losses at about $15 million – and rumours persist that the Aspers will close down the Post due to its lack of profitability. Others believe, however, that the Aspers will keep the newspaper going in order to have a political voice in Canada, notably on issues such as Israel. The Post today operates under the editorial direction of David Asper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.119.159.90 (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Why does the article say this: "Today the Post has to some extent abandoned this ideology that gave the Post a distinct voice and loyal readership.[citation needed] Many of its rival papers, meanwhile, have copied its unique design and layout features." No evidence of either of these claims, nor of the 'distinct voice and loyal readership' bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.85.173 (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Is this page being updated? The Editor in chief listed hasn't been - for months. Someone should write about whats happening here, its implications & fallout. The columnists page is not accurate. Elizabeth Nickson is a colorful example left out in it's entirety. That's for starters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.109.106 (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
No mention in the article of Postmedia's acquisition of the Sun newspapers (including the Toronto Sun). Given the emphasis of Postmedia's business and the National Post's genesis (the purchase of Sun media's Financial Post), this omission is glaring. --Hurdingkatz (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on National Post. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on National Post. 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:
((dead link))
tag to http://money.canoe.ca/News/Sectors/Media/2009/10/29/11568121-reuters.html((dead link))
tag to http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/05/05/jonathan-kay-on-the-hate-speech-experts-at-the-canadian-islamic-congress.aspx((dead link))
tag to http://video.canada.com/Global_VideoContentHTML.aspx?30849&vc=1&popup=1When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I have a screenshot of them having disabled a comment I made reusing the word someone in my previous post--"demonic," but that the previous comment was left alone. The bias here is about as flagrant as it comes. The previous poster was pro-Israel, while I was criticizing Israel.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello all,
I am starting on a project to bring improved rigor and evidence to Wikipedia's representations of the bias of major media outlets in Canada. I am currently working on the CBC, National Post, The Globe and Mail, CTV News, and Global News based on available sources. I would like to add some objective perspective and sourcing to the discussions of bias/political stance on the Post's page here.
It has been challenging finding solid acceptable sources to allow for evidence-based discussion. I agree some media bias rating sites have very questionable methodology. Media Bias/Fact Check is judged an unacceptable source. AllSides seems more substantial and is not judged unacceptable but does not have a National Post entry.
There are a few surveys undertaken by well regarded external survey groups (such as Ipsos Reid and Abacus) looking into the biases and balance of Canadian media outlets. I would like to make brief summmary reference to them on the National Post page.
I propose an edit to create a "Political Stance" section (in line with the structure of the Globe's page), with a summary statement along the lines of the below:
A 2017 survey of Canadians found that the National Post was perceived to be middle-of-the-pack for bias among national news outlets (perceived biased by 48% of Canadians overall). Respondents perceived a bias for coverage to favour the Conservative Party. [1][2] A 2010 survey similarly found the Post was more likely to be perceived as right of centre by the public than other Canadian news organizations. [3]
The statement is deliberately crafted not to say the Post definitively has a particular bias, but that these sources at least indicate there is a public perception of a conservative/right-of-centre bias. Some of the existing unsourced discussion on political stance could be removed.
I welcome any constructive feedback on the potential sources and edit. My intention is to have greater evidence-based discussion to be able to hold all media outlets to public account.
My thanks to @Peter Gulutzan: for providing additional sourcing and directing me to open this discussion with you.Balancingakt (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Given the lack of any criticism beyond the one user refusing to read the source there's really no reason to not include this. 108.174.175.69 (talk) 03:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
References
In RfC: Globe and Mail infobox there was consensus that "political position" should be 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 National Post so its political position should be removed from the infobox. which has the effect of reverting an 11 August 2022 edit by Luxphos. Are there other opinions? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I have added citations to sources which track political bias in Canadian media. At least 1 citation was the same as that used for political alignment cited for the Toronto Sun. Lucis-Phos (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)