Talk:Toronto Sun

Point of View

"Editorially, the paper to side with the average/ordinary person in government and taxation topics, making appeals to common sense."

Yeah POV (point of view) really annoys me, if the Sun's rightwing populism were in line with the views of the average and ordinary people of Ontario, or even just the City of Toronto than the voters would primarily elect governments of the Right (which they don't). Not too mention that ideas regularly expressed through the Sun's editorial line like flat taxe rates, privatization, integration with the U.S. and social conservatism in many cases would be supported by the majority of people. Take your pick, the "ordinary" and "average" people of Toronto, Ontario and Canada usually have not expressed support for these views, quite the contrary! Meaning that statement was based on point of view and not fact. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. (Canadianpunk77 20:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC))

Toronto Sun Slogans

The Little Paper That Grew ... Wouldn't Life Be Dull Without The Sun ... Slogan to Come ... Our Readers Are More Fun ... Tough Little Paper To Put Down ... We'll Be There ... We Cut Through. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.223.163 (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit war

I was reverting the anon (and Lobsterjesus who was apparently the same person) because they started off as a simple vandal and I saw no reason to believe they were editing in good faith. But perhaps the article could stand to be corrected after all. So what are we supposed to say? Adam Bishop (talk) 01:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Neo-conservatism

The statement, "Editorially, the paper frequently follows the positions of neo-conservatism in the United States on economic issues" needs to be revised or clarified, since neo-conservatism is a political philosophy strictly dealing with foreign policy issues, and not economic ones (other than that the economy can be used as a tool to achieve a foreign policy objective). Therefore, it would be prudent to point out whether the political positions of the paper follow the domestic economic positions of conservatism in the United States, or those of neo-conservative foreign policy. Snrrub (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Image

I've got a copy of the 2001 Terrorist Attack front page with the title "BASTARDS". I think this would make an appropriate image for the infobox since it shows the lack of bounds and liberal nature of the Sun. Would anybody be opposed to this? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Will it pass WP:RAT? 117Avenue (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It would ideally just replace the rather blah cover we currently have, File:Toronto Sun 10-05-03.jpg, which has a fair use rationale. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought the consensus here was to not use an offensive image. If you want to reopen a discussion you'll have to do it at the Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board. 117Avenue (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

From what I see at that discussion the consensus was to use an image representative of the newspaper, but not insulting or distasteful. I think the 9/12 cover is representative of their style without being offensive. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I like this new cover, the headline shows the editorial style, and it shows a major event in Toronto. Coincidentally, the Edmonton Sun used the same picture and headline today, I actually changed it yesterday because I wanted an Oilers related cover for hockeytown. 117Avenue (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This one works much better than the bus one, by and far. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't really a coincidence, by the way; I think all the English Sun Media tabloids used that front page (and they all used the "rebels without a clue" one today). Probably something like 25% of the pages in those papers are shared, and most of them are produced in Toronto. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Needs updating?

Under Editorial Stance there are two aspects of the Sun chain in general (but I post here since Toronto is the flagship) that have emerged in the last few years. Its ongoing campaign to have the CBC either closed or privatized is one, and by no coincidence it heated up after Sun launched a competing news channel. Editorial policy at the Sun papers appears to be that the CBC has to be referred to as the "State Broadcaster" rather than by name in columns. Similarly, and this is relatively new (and again post-dates the launch of Sun News), is the Sun's attempt to coin the phrase "Media Party" referring to, basically, any media outlet in Canada that doesn't share the Sun's conservative viewpoint (and usually in the context of rehashing the age old "liberal media" conspiracy theory). Both I think are worth mentioning. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

editorial position

Really, no need to get rabid on this. The Toronto Sun is considered a right-wing conservative paper that does slant its reporting. I was trying to make one section that was not sourced into a sourced one. I'm not sure why an example of this opinion is out-of-bounds. Alaney2k (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

See WP:RSN#Media Bias/Fact Check at Toronto Sun. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Media Bias / Fact Check is not a reliable source. But the Sun being right-wing is WP:BLUESKY so I'm curious who is contesting saying so. Simonm223 (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

It's obviously conservative – here is one source for the obvious. We could also label it a "populist tabloid". But MB/FC is not a reliable source, and its labels should not be in the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Folks, see what Collect said in 2013 about tabloids vs. tabloid format: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 156#tabloids. See what other folks have said about it when looking at a search of the archives about tabloid format.. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 07:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Current/former staff

I would recommend a new page called "List of Toronto Sun people" be created for the former and current staff listed on the page as it's kinda clunky looking. FreedomAlfonso (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I would recommend a major edit on the people list, limiting it to notable persons. The current list is almost completely without attribution. I was thinking of adding myself to the list as Special Features Editor. Rhadow (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Ammended with "Into the sun Day Oners". Jul 2021. WurmWoode^T 11:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Political position in infobox

JenniferHeartsU on 13 March 2008 added "Conservative" in the infobox. MiddleAgedBanana on 11 February 2023 added a "better source needed" tag. The source's about page says "Worldpress.org relies heavily on unpaid contributors whose ranks include aspiring writers, citizen journalists, and student activists. Our self-published, unpaid contributors platform has sustained Worldpress.org and allowed us to continue our important work of giving a voice to the oftentimes voiceless." And for some other Canadian newspapers (see talk pages of Globe and Mail or National Post) the position has been removed based on Template:Infobox newspaper ("For use only when a newspaper has formally aligned its news coverage with a political party or movement. Do not use the infobox for allegations of bias or descriptions of the opinion page."). I believe the same applies for Toronto Sun so its political position should be removed from the infobox. which has the effect of reverting JenniferHeartsU's edit. Are there other opinions? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I was initially going to remove it myself, due to the reasons you mention here, but was worried it might come across as political or biased. So, I added the "better source needed" tag instead to avoid upsetting anyone. MiddleAgedBanana (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. I apologize to JenniferHeartsU who was merely changing the infobox. It was actually added on 26 February 2006 by Habsfannova who is no longer active. I partially reverted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

IP trying to remove lead image

I restored the lead image which had been deleted without explanation. The IP put the following on my talk page, which seems to be relevant here rather than there:

"Removal of partisan graphic immage"

"There is a adequate explanation. It was added as a partisan personal attack and goes against WP:UNDUE as this is the intention of placing the image from the talk page “I've got a copy of the 2001 Terrorist Attack front page with the title "BASTARDS". I think this would make an appropriate image for the infobox since it shows the lack of bounds and liberal nature of the Sun. Would anybody be opposed to this?” The image also contains graphic language and was placed with the knowledge that the only visible text is the word “bastards” "

2001:1970:4AE5:A300:D426:EBD1:AC63:C805 (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The page is currently protected. Editors with knowledge of the Toronto Sun are invited to decide if the current image is appropriate or not, and to take action accordingly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

this is clear evidence of editing bias even if it’s the consensus of 3 people... I’ve quoted the rules regarding it as this it not a appropriate representation. The Toronto star has a headline that reads “I honestly don't care

if they die from Covid, not even a little” while talking about unvaccinated people. this Would not be a fair representation nor is a image with the only visible words being “bastards” with no historical context to the event. Wikipedia is not a tabloid for partisan attacks.

This is even recommended in the review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Toronto_Sun/archive1

2001:1970:4AE5:A300:D426:EBD1:AC63:C805 (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Inappropriate image as photo

• 'What I think should be changed: main picture
• Why it should be changed: it uses inappropriate language and without reference to the current period of time it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): this is the original argument for adding the picture “I've got a copy of the 2001 Terrorist Attack front page with the title "BASTARDS". I think this would make an appropriate image for the infobox since it shows the lack of bounds and liberal nature of the Sun. Would anybody be opposed to this?”

It is also already recommended in another review that goes unheard due potential to bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Toronto_Sun/archive1

2001:1970:4AE5:A300:5447:C8DA:5C49:E5A8 (talk) 08:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

References

 Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used.

I'm not really following your point with the archived discussion link, this is from well before the current image was added in 2010. Jamedeus (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Criticism of views of opinion writers

Wellington Bay on 19 July added the paragraph starting with "The Toronto Sun has frequently been criticized for the views expressed by some of its opinion writers. ..." citing a piece in torontoist by Jamie Bradburn (BA English+History U of Guelph). I reverted with edit summary "... I expect that any major newspaper has been "frequently been criticized for the views expressed by some of its opinion writers" -- I only have to look at the letters to the editor every week, rather than going back decades as the torontoist complainer does." Wellington Bay re-inserted with edit summary "... No other major newspaper in Toronto, and possibly in Canada, defended apartheid South Africa or published some of the other extreme views the Sun published. The Sun was an outlier." I believe that WP:ONUS means Wellington Bay should have sought consensus before re-inserting, but, since that didn't happen, I'm checking whether there is consensus. Does anyone else support or oppose Wellington Bay's insertion? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Wellington Bay is, of course, correct as the Toronto Sun is the most notoriously unreliable traditional tabloid newspaper in Canada and its opinion column, in particular, has a history of extremism. The sourcing should be improved but they are making a clear attempt at improvement. Simonm223 (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I have an additional source and have written it up:

In 1985, the Urban Alliance on Race Relations conducted a content analysis of 200 Sun editorials and columns published between 1978 and 1985. Researchers Frances Henry and Carol Tator later wrote that the study identified repeated denigrating stereotypes of Black, Muslim, South Asian, Southeast Asian and Indigenous communities, as well as language reflecting beliefs in biological racism.

There is also information in the MacKenzie Porter article that can be used:

In July 1985, [Mckenzie] Porter published a column on political violence in South Africa in which he opposed extending voting rights to the country's Black majority and compared Black South Africans with Black Americans in terms of intelligence, emotional stability and cultural interests. He also criticized anti-apartheid leader Desmond Tutu. Historian Jamie Bradburn characterized the column as part of Porter's recurring defence of apartheid-era white rule.

The column, together with a related Toronto Sun editorial, prompted complaints from the Anti-Apartheid Coalition of Toronto and became part of a wider dispute between the newspaper, Toronto's mayor's committee on community and race relations and community organizations concerning racism, freedom of expression and a proposal that the City of Toronto withdraw its advertising from the newspaper.

Sun publisher Paul Godfrey maintained that the newspaper opposed apartheid but defended Porter's right to express opinions with which the publisher did not necessarily agree. Porter responded to the dispute in a subsequent column by comparing the committee's actions to the Spanish Inquisition and criticizing multiculturalism and some of the committee's supporters.

In March 1986, the Ontario Press Council dismissed a complaint alleging that the editorial and Porter's column promoted racism or wilfully spread hatred against Black people. The council upheld the newspaper's right to publish opinion while emphasizing that publication did not necessarily imply endorsement by the newspaper itself.

Wellington Bay (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Here is a source on the Toronto Sun's position in the 1980s on LGBTQ. Andrew Brett’s 2010 article, “Gays vs the Toronto Sun,” in Xtra specifically examines the newspaper’s coverage of gay and lesbian issues. It identifies:

• Claire Hoy’s 1977 column “The Limp Wrist Lobby,” opposing the inclusion of sexual orientation in Ontario’s human-rights legislation
• the Sun’s denunciation of The Body Politic in 1978
• Hoy’s defence of a police officer who associated homosexuality with criminality in 1979
• the paper’s attacks on Mayor John Sewell’s support for gay rights during the 1980 municipal election and
• the publication of names and addresses following the 1981 bathhouse raids, along with Peter Worthington’s threat to identify people arrested in future raids. Wellington Bay (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for this excellent work. Simonm223 (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

You've only shored up the claim that some columnists wrote things that people criticized 40+ years ago, which doesn't seem to be addressing why I criticized your addition. However, I acknowledge that you've got some support now. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

That is why it's in the section on the 20th century which ended 26 years ago - and the critics included Toronto City Council. Wellington Bay (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2026 (UTC)