Jump to content

Talk:Maclean's/Archives/2012

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Too Asian?- Where is the talk page?

I'm thinking of trying to rework the Too Asian article that has spun of this one. The header tells me to look at the talk page, but it seems to have been deleted or otherwise hidden. It would be a great help if I were able to see it. Also, I don't know how to go about renaming things, but I think that's definitely a priority for the sub-article, as its title is extremely vague. TropicalFishes (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


University Rankings

MacLean’s University Rankings should be merged into this article. Anyone disagree? --YUL89YYZ 10:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to (disagree). The university rankings are most relevant in a completely different context than the magazine itself: Canadian academe versus Canadian news media. The university rankings have elicited considerable controversy over methodology, which should be expanded upon; needless to say, editors are eventually going to want to put some sort of lists glossing the results of past and present rankings as well. I'd probably start such an effort at Maclean's University Guide, to discuss both the mag/book and the famous rankings therein. Of course, the intercap has got to go. :) Samaritan 11:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's leave it as a separate article. --YUL89YYZ 15:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Questionable Opener

As much of a Maclean's fan as I am, I think that the opening line of the article: "Maclean's is Canada's leading weekly news magazine." either needs to go or be justified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowlance (talk • contribs) 14:07, 17 July 2006

Maclean's point

Personally, I think Maclean's point is sort of anti-Islamic-ideology, anti-communists and supporting Conservative government. No ideological freedom, right? Anthony X Li Dec 30, 2006

Original research and maintaining a neutral point of view

A few areas within the criticism section do not seem to reflect Wikipedia's policy of repudiating original research and/or biased statements.

Two examples of such areas include: "Whyte fired several senior editors and recruited a large number of editorial staff from the National Post. These changes influenced the tone and focus of the Maclean's, which since the 1960s had been a left-liberal newsmagazine with a penchant for Anglo-Canadian nationalism and implicit anti-Americanism", and "The magazine also had been suffering from steadily eroding circulation and readership levels, largely due to a format and tone long considered tired and out-of-touch with consumer tastes. Whyte has won praise for reinvigorating the magazine, though critics have observed that he has transformed Maclean's into an editorial product with the same kind of conservative voice as the National Post."

I've tagged the section, what do you think? Alexis 19:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible Improvements

Hello. Should we add a new coverpage in the infobox? Maclean's has recently changed their format. Secondly, if Barbara Amiel, wife of Conrad Black, is an editor for Maclean's magazine, would that affect Maclean's coverage on Conrad Black's trial --Mayfare 18:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

How is the name of this magazine pronounced? Does it rhyme with "clean" or with "cane"? Grover cleveland (talk) 06:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I've always heard it pronounced "mick-LANES", so rhyming with "cane" CoderGnome (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Far right orientation

Under current, it states; In recent years, the magazine has acquired a far right orientation. This is quite different from its editorial policy in the past. While more right wing journalist work there then in the past, I would certainly not call it far right. In fact that statement is laughable. By american standards it would even be considered left leaning. Admittedly, Mark Steyn and Barbara Amiel are fairly right wing journalists, however, the magazine has more then 2 articles. 216.197.255.36 (talk) 06:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Mideast conflict

The article should perhaps provide relevant information on Maclean's reporting on the Mideast conflict, a conflict which has turned into a kind of litmus test for newspapers and journalists from just about everywhere. The fact that Maclean's has been accused of being anti-Islam doesn't necessarily mean that it is pro-Israel, but it could still be a sign that it does exhibit a bit of sympathy towards the Jewish state. ADM (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Why quibble? Just call MacLean's journalism lousy, as manifested by hacks like Steyn and Amiel. Because that's all "right" means these days; poor quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.243.105 (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Publications Assistance Program funding

Not sure if this PAP info should be included in article article in Globe and Mail says that Maclean's received $2.54-million of government's Publications Assistance Program for 2007-2008 (a 12-month period since PAP website has another list for 2006-2007). Article says there is a proporsed cap on "amount available to any one magazine at a maximum of $1.5-million a year" so that would cut that assistance by 40.9%. Checked Publications Assistance Program 2007-2008 Funding and publications receiving the most assistance for that time period are:

End of involvement of founder John B. Maclean?

Until what time was the founder still involved with the magazine? Please add if you know! -- 77.7.149.125 (talk) 09:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Misspelled name in first footnote.

The name Maclean's is misspelled in the first footnote trying to establish its circulation, but there is no way to edit the mistake. 24.244.216.250 (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Maclean's today and Ken Whyte

The section on "Maclean's today" seems to overplay Anthony Wilson-Smith's significance and it doesn't mention Ken Whyte at all. Whyte changed the magazine an aweful lot, making it 'voicier' and much fatter. He also brought on board a lot of the columnists the section attributes to Wilson Smith. For some reason I can't make the edit myself, as no "edit" button appears at the top of the page. I suspect this is a feature of articles subject to vandalism... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brokesocscene (talk • contribs) 06:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It may be that your account is not yet autoconfirmed. To be autoconfirmed, your account has to be older than four days, and have made at least 10 edits in article namespace (i.e, wikiarticles). The Maclean’s article is semi-protected. To edit semi-protected wikiarticles, one’s account must be autoconfirmed. So far, while you’ve made 11 edits (one more than 10!), only four of them have been to wikiarticles. When you’ve made 10 edits in article namespace, your account should become autoconfirmed, and you will then be allowed to edit semi-protected pages like Maclean’s.

If you can provide verifiable reference(s)/citation(s) for the Ken Whyte material, then it would be a great addition to the article! Also, there is currently a wikiarticle on Ken Whyte that you may be able to borrow from. However, note that while there may be some useful material in it, it is currently completely lacking in verifiable reference(s)/citation(s). Consequently, it is liable to be deleted at any moment per Wikipedia’s biography of living persons policy (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (shortcut → WP:BLP)). So, you might want to have a look at it before it disappears to see (a) if any of it may be useful for this article, and (b) if you can locate verifiable reference(s)/citation(s) for any material you bring over from it.

Remember: Anything you add to the article about Ken Whyte is subject to WP:BLP, WP:BLPCITE, and Wikipedia:Libel (shortcut → WP:LIBEL). If you have any questions, just ask, either here on you can contact me on my talkpage. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 07:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Publication frequency

I noticed that the History section said "In 1919, the magazine moved from monthly to fortnightly publication..." and then "... the magazine switched from being a monthly general interest publication to a bi-weekly news magazine in 1975, and to a weekly newsmagazine three years later."

Either there's a mistake in there or the article is missing when the magazine switched from fortnightly to monthly. A spot check finds one shift in 1967 but I'd want to confirm that via a Canadian library archive and ideally find a contemporaneous source that comments on the change to see if there had been others.

  • Vol. 65, No. 24 - December 15, 1952
  • Vol. 74, No. 15 - July 29, 1961
  • Vol. 78, No. 14 - July 24, 1965
  • Vol. 78, No. 15 - August 7, 1965
  • Vol. 78, No. 16 - August 21, 1965
  • Vol. 78, No. 17 - September 4, 1965
  • Vol. 78, No. 21 - November 1, 1965
  • Vol. 79, No. 8 - April 16, 1966
  • Vol. 79, No. 17 - September 3, 1966
  • Vol. 80, No. 11 - November 1967
  • Vol. 81, No. 8 - August 1968
  • Vol. 82, No. 7 - July 1969

--Marc Kupper|talk 04:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

New image?

The image is no longer representative of the magazines appearance. I would change it myself, but I am not very good with that type of thing Simyou (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Controversy

I've tried to edit the recent contributions of User:Kidman Wheeler to bring them inline with Wikipedia policies, particularly WP:UNDUE, WP:COATRACK, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. This revision reflects the changes I've attempted to integrate, although User:Kidman Wheeler has reverted those changes each time. (I don't believe that's their intent, I just think they don't entirely understand how the Wikipedia editing process works.) Hopefully they'll find this message and discuss here before reverting further. jæs (talk) 11:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Things seem to have calmed down a bit since this morning, so I wanted to bring the outstanding issues up here and see what the next steps should be. This diff shows the changes since the last revision, where I tried to balance User:Kidman Wheeler's changes with our policies (particularly WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:UNDUE). For comparison, these are the earlier and later raw changes from Kidman.
A few things that remain unaddressed:
  • the "See also" links to sensationalism and stereotype (with Islamophobia and xenophobia having already been removed);
  • the excessive inline tagging added throughout the article that strikes me as retaliatory, at best; and,
  • the primary sources from straight.com, ccnc.ca, viviennepoy.ca, and toronto.ca, which are redundant to existing reliable sources.
I think there's really no justification for the "See also" and excessive inline tagging issues, although I think the toronto.ca and viviennepoy.ca sources could be helpful and I need to take a closer look at policy to see when primary sources are recommended. If it is agreed there are legitimate sourcing issues, though, a sectional {{refimprove}} seems more appropriate than riddling every other sentence with {{cn}}. jæs (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
As I mentioned below re: Quebec controversy, wikipedia needn't account for what every city council said about a particular article. If an article made a particular splash, perhaps it should be accounted for with brevity and clarity. Who cares what Vivienne Poy says. If it was such a big controversy as to warrant detailed accounts from everyone involved, give the controversy its own page. Controversies of this magnitude should get a mere 'this is what the fuss was about, here are some citations' treatment. Cheers. Brokesocscene (talk) 06:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I do and I don’t agree with you. Vivienne Poy is a Senator. She is not only the first Asian woman to sit in the Senate, but the first Asian period. She has been very involved in Asian-Canadian issues over the years. She was Chancellor of the University of Toronto, a school with a very large Asian student body in a city with a very large Asian community. Her writings/publications have dealt with the Asian experience in Canada, as has much of her work in the Senate.

As for city councils, I guess that depends on the city. If the city is Toronto, wherein is located the very university on which the article was mainly focussed, then what that council has to say may indeed be noteworthy. Similary, the comments of the Vancouver city council, a city with many of the same demographics, may also be noteworthy. — SpikeToronto 08:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. I doubt Wikipedia has strict rules for talking about journalistic kerfuffles, but it seems to me that individual denouncements aren't significant except in very specific situations (presidents, popes and oprah perhaps). It seems to me that the "too asian?" controversy and the "Quebec is corrupt" controversy could be given a treatment like this: An article from (date) entitled (title) was met with (reaction). Maclean's (backed down, stood firm, half backed down, paid a settlement, saw an increase in readership, etc). That seems to be all each controversy needs, as far as wikipedia space. Unless the controversy became a sustained national coversation (like the Bell Curve controversy in the US, which rightly has its own page), footnotes should suffice to account for individual reactions, including from important people. Granted, Poy, as a voice from the UofT (the subject of the article) is significant, but even her reaction could be accounted for with more economy. Something like, "the article was denounced by numerous groups, including University of Toronto Chancellor Poy, who is herself asian." The exact text of her 'denouncement' could still be found by those who follow footnotes. Is that a better solution? Also, it's odd that these three controversies are the only mentioned. I seem to remember Regina being up in arms because of a maclean's story calling its north side 'the worse neighbourhood in canada'. Maybe ALL the controversies could be accounted for with a "Maclean's recent editorial decisions (sometimes coupled with brash headlines) have led to controversies, and, in the case of Steyn's book excerpt, protracted entanglement with Canada's Human Rights Commisions." This would need some more wikipedia-ish language, but it'd put the controversies in a more appropriate perspective considering this is a generations old newsweekly.

Someone has wisely added a 'recentism' tag on this section, which is in line with my criticisms in February. Knowing that doing so will result in KidmanWheeler reversing it and tossing some insults my way, I'd be willing to shrink the whole 'controversy' section so that it accurately reports the nature of each controversy and the resolution/fallout, without going into unnecessary detail. I won't bother if those folks editing the Maclean's page are not interested in changes. Let me know so I don't spend time on it in vain. Brokesocscene (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Controversy - National Post POV

It seems that the Quebec corruption controversy section overly present POV's of National Post news commentators to defend the narrative presented by Macleans. For example: "with their [Quebec's] acute sensitivity to criticism coming from outside the province, many in the province's media and political classes have shifted their attention from the Premier to the mischievous Toronto-based magazine" is a citation of a POV commentator who invokes different subject matters (Quebec "acute" sensitivity and Quebec attention shift) that adds nothing to the Maclean controversy on an encyclopedic level and seems to try to justify Macleans position by repeating published POV comments. [[[Special:Contributions/131.137.245.208|131.137.245.208]] (talk) 14:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)]

Charest’s letter

Kidman, the reason you cannot use the G&M source is that it neither interprets nor discusses Charest’s letter. It merely reprints it. As such, it is a raw document, or what Wikipedia calls a primary source. Wikipedia has a policy against the use of primary sources. You can find it at WP:PRIMARY, as I have pointed out to you in edit summaries.

The only way a a primary source can be used is if it is also accompanied by a secondary source that interprets, analyzes, and/or discusses the material in the primary source. Here is the primary source policy:

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy.

Since the CBC source makes no mention of Charest, you need to find another source — a source that is an article — that mentions him, the letter, etc. Until you can find such a secondary source, all mention of Charest needs to be removed from that section of the article.

If you interpret or analyze the material yourself, you are introducing original research, which violates Wikipedia’s policy against original research (see Wikipedia:No original research (shortcut → WP:NOR)). This includes any synthesis of the material (see Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material that advances a position (shortcut → WP:SYN)).

When other editors point out Wikipedia policies and guidelines to you, they are not trying to silence or censor you. They are trying to help you improve your editing by bringing it in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, to help you be a constructive, collegial editor and not a disruptive editor. Thus, when we point you towards these policies and guideline, you should take an editing break and instead read the things to which we are directing you.

Finally, as a general rule, editors at Wikipedia are not supposed to have single-purpose accounts, nor use agenda accounts to prosecute a particular agenda. Keep this in mind when you are focussing your editing solely on Maclean’s. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 07:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)  Disclaimer: This was brought over from a posting on a talkpage in userspace. — SpikeToronto 20:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

conspiracy to remove criticism of Maclean's

I was told that criticism made by Quebec Premier Jean Charest against Maclean's cannot be included because the only source cited was primary and that I needed a secondary source. I added secondary sources to support Charest's comment, but there are editors still removing it. There is a conspiracy among some editors to keep the Maclean's page free from criticism. Using the same argument against the single use of a primary source, the Brian Segal comment cannot be used. You will need to find secondary sources supporting the primary source. But some editors for some strange reason think it's all right to include something just because they want it there. Please be fair. I cite everything clearly. Those with an agenda to defend Maclean's should follow their own rules. I would like some comments about this very important problem. Please do not disrupt my work.

I propose that this is legitimate and verifiable: Premier Jean Charest wrote a letter to the editor of Maclean’s dated September 26, 2010 condemning the magazine’s “twisted form of journalism and ignorance”, calling it “sensationalist” and saying the editor “discredited” the magazine. Kidman Wheeler (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is the Segal article different than the raw document reprint of Charest’s letter? While WP:PRIMARY clearly applies to the raw reprint of the letter, it does not apply to the Segal article. Possibly WP:SOURCES and/or WP:NOTRELIABLE might apply. There is no outright proscription against media releases, at least that I can find. It all depends on the context and manner in which they are used in a given wikiarticle. In this instance, the press release is being used only as evidence of the publisher apologizing for the brouhaha. — SpikeToronto 18:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
The current state of the article would suggest otherwise. Please see Maclean's#Quebec controversy as at 14:14EST, January 4, 2011. — SpikeToronto 08:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for copyediting and sourcing that. It seems the only conspiracy here is to include neutrally presented, properly referenced content. Imagine that! jæs (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
In all fairness, the Hamilton source and the Séguin source were provided by User:Kidman Wheeler. So, thanks to Kidman for those two secondary sources! I merely used them to provide the secondary source analysis for the raw document that is Charest’s letter. I did, however, add the citations for the Maclean’s article that started the hullabaloo, and for Maclean’s editorial response to Charest’s letter.

As for the conspiracy “to include neutrally presented, properly referenced content,” that’s one conspiracy I will freely admit to being a member of! — SpikeToronto 18:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You can make as many jokes about it as you like. Facts are that jæs (and with the help of Spike) have tried hard to remove anything that doesn't defend criticism against Maclean's. I wrote earlier to Spike thanking him. But his making light of the matter is insulting. People who come to read this discussion are not stupid. You, of course, count on that fact that most people never read the discussion section. jæs is protecting Maclean's. jæs has an agenda. jæs has Spike as an accomplice. And that is to silence those who disagree, to rid criticism of Maclean's, and to make stupid the public. Readers beware! The conspiracy you freely admit to is NOT the one you are accused of. Your "neatrally presented" is to show Maclean's in the most favourable light possible. jæs, you have attempted many times to edit my writing to the point that it no longer makes logical sense. It doesn't require cleverness. Just removing a word here and there will do the trick. My sources are properly cited and properly documented. Better than anything you can present. Shame on you, jæs!! Shame on you!! You are here to disrupt. The Maclean's entry in Wikipedia will never be balanced with you around. You should go back to writing for Maclean's. Kidman Wheeler (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually the more I look at it, the more shameful it looks. Spike writes a bunch of things defending Maclean's assertion that Quebec is a corrupt province. Oh, God!! What's that going to get you? He also pointed several times to my "mistakes" and "errors" that were not. Without unbiased referees, this Maclean's page is hopeless. It's essentially free advertisement for Maclean's, which is exactly how Maclean's intends for it to be. "Just say I've corrected your error or how your source is not good or you misquoted," Spike and friends say to each other. How do I know? This is exactly what they do to me. Maclean's editors are always ready to delete and to come up with excuses. If you confuse the people enough, they won't know truth from fiction. "In all fairness," he writes. And that means you are fair? When Spike breaks Wikipedia rules, it's okay. If others follow the rules to present a different point of view, it's not okay. That's what these people have turned Wikipedia into. His way of enforcement would be equivalent to a police officer saying to a motorist, "Let me point out that the speed limit on this road is 60. You were going at 50. Therefore I will give you a ticket. That's right. You were going at 50. The limit is 60. Therefore you exceeded the limit. Do I need to repeat that? You were driving at over 50. What? Those cars were travelling at 70? Yeah, 70 is not 60, so that's okay." Kidman Wheeler (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
See also: Report filed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents → User:Kidman Wheeler and ongoing disruptive editing

Length of 'controversies section'

Spike, while I understand that you've probably put a lot of time into the controversies section, the trimming I did keeps your evenhandedness while removing a whole lot of superflous detail. Does every Senator's comment on teh controversies have to be accounted for in the text? If the Quebec controversy is so major that it warrants 500 words (and it isn't) then perhaps it should have its own page. My edits keep your tone but make the length and detail more appropriate to the actual significance of the events. it'd be annoying if TIME magazine's page was three quarters about a minor two year old controversy. If you insist that my changes were a bit much, at least go through them line by line rather than just reverting. I removed a lot of un-encyclopic language and replaced it with the proper wikipedia tone. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brokesocscene (talk • contribs) 20:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Your comment was that it was disproportionate to the rest of the article. So add to the rest of the article!

To be honest, as I recall, the reason that it ended up so long was that the only “stuff” that had been plucked from the sources was anything that made the periodical look bad. I then added a corresponding amount of “stuff” from those same sources that balanced the material in accordance with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (shortcut → WP:NPOV).

I do not, in principle, have a problem with it being made shorter, but let’s work through it together, here on the talkpage. The norm at Wikipedia is that, when a stable version of a controversial article (or section thereof) has been established, re-writes are done collegially and collectively. (For an example see Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 18#"Romantic" & article lead and Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 17#Proposed text.) I hope that this is agreeable to you. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 10:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S.  Note that I had only restored the Quebec part of the controversies section. I left your changes to the “Too Asian?” section. — SpikeToronto 10:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded a bit curt. I see what you're saying. I do think that the way I trimmed the Quebec section accounted for both the accusation and the response, and did so with increased economy. Thanks for leaving the Too Asian? changes, although part of me thinks that dust-ups of that scale aren't encyclopedia worthy at all... Cheers Brokesocscene (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maclean%27s/Archives/2012&oldid=1252254869"