Talk:Canada's National Observer

Reference cleanup and sourcing

I’ve fixed the citation errors that were causing red banner messages (e.g., "Nieman_201801" and ":0"). All references are now defined inline at first use and reused consistently.

I also ensured the lead is properly sourced per WP:LEAD, with reliable third-party coverage (Nieman Lab, Columbia Journalism Review, Harvard University, Le Devoir, etc.). This should improve stability of the article, since it now has strong references and no citation formatting issues.

If further changes are suggested, please discuss here so we can maintain accuracy and compliance with WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Lorcafantas (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Lorcafantas has made so many edits (see the article history) that I am unable to follow them all. I can see though that "improvements" might not be all that's happened. For example the references to the Tides foundation disappeared somewhere in the edits, and awards got more mentions. If other neutral parties share my concern, I suggest reversion to before the many edits and then discussion on this talk page. What do others think? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

TarnishedPath's objections to reintroduction of sources already existing in the article

Please explain your objections in detail. Abumoh00 (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Your edits:

1. WP:COATRACKed, introducing material which isn't about the subject (paragraph on Observer Media Group).
2. Grouped material under a 'Legal and Funding' section, when there was only one paragraph on anything legal and that legal thing was not in regards to the subject.
3. Expanded material about funding, when the current paragraph was already appropriate size/weight.
4. Removed sourced content about awards.

So contrary to what you wrote in your edit summary you edits weren't well balanced. TarnishedPath^talk 08:00, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

1. Observer Media Group is the legal entity, the suit directly is about CNO's content & funding, it would be impossible to have a suit against CNO because the legal entity is Observer Media Group.
2. We can split the two sections; I just did that for readabillity, relatedness of the two subjects, efficiency, etc.
3. The info inserted was long in the article before, and only recently removed by the author who added the promo material & extensive edits that intimately tracked the publication's investigations, awards, etc. Leaving out reliably sourced & NPOV written info because something is "already appropriate size/weight"; the previous version has 0 sources that are not promoting the publication; what balance are you referring to?
4. Awards that are sourced from relatively niche award sites I thought were promo; but if you think not, please do make a case; I have no strong feelings one way or the other.

Abumoh00 (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

From what TarnishedPath has signalled here (Talk:Grokipedia#For the interested), I'll need someone else to chime in on their thoughts on the edits, before I reinstate them (while removing/editing anything per Tarnished's feedback that I agreed with). Abumoh00 (talk) 10:15, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

You still don't have consensus for inclusion. Do not edit to reinclude until such time that you do. TarnishedPath^talk 23:23, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I can do that; although you do realize that none of the points you raised stand, with all due respect, right? Although possibly the awards one (point 4) does; you didn't answer my response about that.

Only disagreeing without raising valid points (and worse; raising easily disproven invliad ones) can't stall compliant edits. Abumoh00 (talk) 01:54, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

@Abumoh00 it's merely your opinion that none of my points stand. TarnishedPath^talk 02:02, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

please engage with the points raised, so we can get beyond 'that's your opinion' rhetoric. Abumoh00 (talk) 02:08, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I've already laid out my position above. I'm not intending to repeat myself. TarnishedPath^talk 03:57, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

you didn't respond to:

1. the legal entity is Observer Media Group.

2. "was already appropriate size/weight." -explain(?); there was 0 sources that weren't promo

3. niche awards sites I didn't think were notable but I'm fine to discuss if they are (I really don't know).

I'll wait for others as you've made it clear you will not accept any compromise or edits to what you see as correct, and won't elaborate beyond the points you made which I addressed politely, clearly showing them misplaced. Abumoh00 (talk) 04:29, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

1. If I was editing The Sydney Morning Herald, it would be irrelevant WP:COATRACK for me to include lawsuits against its owner Nine Entertainment.
2. The current section on funding is supported by Columbia Journalism Review, a "professional journalists that has been published by the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism since 1961", and is two sentence stating that less than 20% of its funding comes form public funds and that it has a focus on climate change. You expanded that into three paragraphs. That's too much. The current wording seems about appropriate weighting given the significance.
3. I really don't care about the awards that much.

TarnishedPath^talk 04:48, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

1. If you looked at the lawsuit you would see this is the legal entity, not a parent company. The lawsuit is about CNO's reports.

2. That's a fine source yes, that's why I inlcuded it in my edit. In additoin, Harvard's report dsicusses funding as well; as that's the purview of the Harvard report, and it does so in much more detail, so that's why I included that. There can be more than one source in a section right? Abumoh00 (talk) 05:01, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to continue on with an infinite back and forth. I have a dislike of repeating myself. TarnishedPath^talk 05:04, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

if you feel you cannot add anything that's okay; I can wait for others who are hopefully more open to working together.

I would only note that making claims like "it's like this parent company situation" when that's not the case isn't a valid objection. It's an objection, but it doesn't stand as CNO is Observer Media Group, and the lawsuit *is about* CNO's reporting. Abumoh00 (talk) 05:09, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

same goes for arguing for only one source when there are many (including the Harvard one that is clearly more applicable and already cited in the article). This is what makes the onus on you to point out otherwise. Abumoh00 (talk) 05:10, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

RESPONSE TO THIRD OPINION REQUEST:

Everything prior to the disputed "Legal and funding" section should remain. I would suggest the disputed section be re-named "Funding", be re-inserted, and go something like:

"CNO has received funding from the progressive U.S. advocacy group Tides Foundation. Harvard University's "Canadian Media Ownership Index" report states they requested information on "CNO's largest funders and other shareholders but were told it is a private company and they are not required to disclose."

CNO has also received funding from Canadian federal government grants and the Facebook Journalism Project.

A 2023 piece by Lauren Watson in the Columbia Journalism Review said that less than 20 percent of the publication's revenue comes from public funds, with the remainder derived from subscriptions and philanthropic support."

It likely doesn't matter where it would be placed; Probably as the last section of the article. Either that, or make it a sub-section of the "Reception" section... or re-name the latter to "Reception and funding," considering there are currently some mentions of funding, there.

I'm being very careful with the wording, as the Financial Post source is an op-ed and it would seem FP and CNO are feuding. Otherwise, I fail to see the relevancy of a mention of an eight-year old lawsuit against CNO's parent company. I am very hesitant to make mentions of lawsuits in WIKIVOICE if they are not a driver of the subject's notability and they are not resolved/no sources have reported on the outcome. I am also hesitant to include the mention of the artist raising funds for the CNO. Seems like a not terribly notable event that we are giving undue weight to in wanting to include.

Lastly, @Abumoh00, as an outside observer, I have to say, your conduct is not appropriate. You very strongly implied another editor had a COI and was making bad-faith edits. You are not the arbiter of what is "clearly false" or not. Your opinion on @TarnishedPath's arguments does not alone invalidate their contention; They also do not owe you continued responses. They raised their objections and did not retract them. They are not required to perpetually answer questions in order to validate their original opinions. Lastly, if you are using AI to edit, I would strongly advise against this; I say this as one of the citations in your preferred diff reads is appended with: "utm_source=chatgpt.com" MWFwiki (talk) 07:42, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

@MWFwiki and @Abumoh00, see Special:Diff/1327428329. I've condensed it into one paragraph as one and two sentence paragraphs do not make for good reading. I've also removed the Financial Post per WP:RSEDITORIAL which states that editorial opinion is rarely reliable for statements of fact. TarnishedPath^talk 08:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Looks great MWFwiki (talk) 09:10, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the much more constructive edits MWF; this is great, I've been longing for some willingness to engage.

1, To clarify, if you look at the edits that editor made to CNO, the appearance of closeness makes sense. That doesn't mean bad faith necessarily I would add. Nonetheless, people close to an org can edit, it's not a problem.

2, I wrote "clearly false" because it was; the lawsuit is literally about CNO's articles. But instead of mass reverting, you've helpfully pointed out a reasonable reason why editors might still not want to include it; and I agree. Logical arguments like this are graciously accepted; I have no agenda other than to get as close to NPOV as possible. When I see others who don't clearly share the same conception of NPOV (e.g., explicitly politically fringe editors) I believe it's fair to use that explicit evidence to help try to understand why those editors might not want to engage in logical deduction, find a common ground, etc.

3, That's because of the ChatGPT browser I use. Note: I don't take offense to this; as again, it makes sense you might think that; same as it makes sense the conclusions I've drawn previously.

I appreciate the well thought out third opinion, thanks! Abumoh00 (talk) 10:44, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Clarifying one factual point about the Harvard “Canadian Media Ownership Index” source:

The Harvard page states that Canada’s National Observer has collaborated with foundations and member-owned institutions on specific journalism projects, and lists those projects, partners, and years (e.g., 2015–2016). It does not describe these as generalized or ongoing funding relationships.

For accuracy and due weight, any reference to that source should reflect this time-limited context. Lorcafantas (talk) 14:36, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

yes I see that the Harvard site actually changed CNO's entry and removed certain info that was previous included, such as the lawsuit and funding from Tides Canada, as well as the relationship between CNO's founder and their brother who led Tides Canada. Abumoh00 (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

References