Talk:The Globe and Mail

message: This may be a nitpick, but wouldn't it be more appropriate for the main image in the article to show a headline of Canadian rather than American relevance?
Frank duff (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Appropriate Image

message: Is this photoshopped, or the actual image? I don't want to change it without knowing, but the image reads "the globe and fail" rather than "the globe and mail". I don't know if that was actually the headline though...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoahMoth (talk • contribs) 14:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Secondary issue with Image

message: Theonlyedge 23:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: Someone should post the circulation of this paper. It's a good yardstick by which to measure a newspaper. --71.141.123.141 01:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circulation 

message: If somebody gets the chance, I wouldn't mind seeing the main image replaced with a better example than bird flu, paedophiles, war measures, AIDs and calamities all on one sheet ;) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 16:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Erm

message: howdy partner--Textalk 16:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  yehaaaaw! 

message: "Since the 1960s, the Toronto elite's politics have generally been socially liberal and fiscally conservative"
By Eastern Canadian standards and by Urban Ontario Standards the above might be true, but by suburban and rural Ontario, and Western Canadian standards, and definitely North American standards, we can say that the "Toronto Elite Consensus" is decidedly left of centre.  Remember this is the newspaper that editorialized against a GST cut, and only endorsed Harper because the couldn't bring themselves to endorse the Liberals who they said "needed a timeout."
So if we are going to refer the the Globe and Mail as fiscally conservative, lets at least point out to the global community that the reference is only relative to the Greater Toronto Area or the "Toronto/Montreal/Ottawa" power triangle, and not by the rubric of the ROC (Rest of Canada). rasblue 23:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Andrew Coyne editorialized against a GST cut, does that make him less of a fiscal conservative?  The Globe is traditionally fiscally conservative and pro-business.Habsfan|t 02:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Editorially I believe that the Globe was against the GST cut.  I do not have a subscription to the Globe and Mail Archives to look it up, but I'm sure someone in the blogosphere has the reference. But to reiterate the point made, yes I do think that the Globe and Mail is pro-business, but when you look at it from a Canadian Elite context that means that they usually support such protectionist measures as Canadian Content Laws and Canadian Ownership Laws.  Things such as keeping the ban on foreign owned mobile phone service providers. Richard Branson has to practically license the Virgin Mobile name to Bell Mobility because of the ownership caps.  (Remember the paper is still owned by BCE, the parent of Bell Mobility) They support the bank mergers even though the banks would like to keep the Canadian Ownership laws in place for banks and brokerages.So yes they are pro-business, but not always "open and free" market if it harms the protected interests of the "Toronto Elite" rasblue 03:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Globe & Mail was against a GST cut on the grounds that tax cuts to income or corporate taxes were more economically productive - hardly left of centre - it merely isn't a populist view.  And no one can accuse the Globe & Mail of being populist with a straight face.  The Toronto Elite Concensus is definitely fiscally right wing - sure, they endorsed the Liberals under Martin (as Finance or Prime Minister), but with his record of balanced budgets and tax cuts, that can hardly be viewed as left of centre.  WilyD 17:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: But still, in the Canadian prespective, the paper has always supported fiscally conservative routes, such as Martin's quest against the budget defecit and free trade.Habsfan|t 04:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I've expanded the political spectrum in the infobox. Myciconia  06:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toronto Elite Fiscally Conservative? 

message: Everyone who has ever edited an article even remotely related to Canadian and Ontario politics has met up with SimonP.  You might have differences with him once in awhile but you can't deny that he has done more for building the Wikipedia Movement than most ever will. Here's an article in the August 4 2006 edition of the Globe and Mail on him. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060804.wxwiki04/BNStory/Technology/home
Not really pertaining to the Wiki itself but interesting when one of our own gets great press.
rasblue 16:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SimonP Article 

message: I think we should merge the following articles into this one:
*The Mail and Empire
*The Toronto Mail
*Toronto Empire
*The Globe (Toronto newspaper) 
Any thoughts? Mindmatrix 15:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think such a merge should take place; an article should only be merged into a successor article if it's basically the same thing after a name change. When a new entity takes shape through the merger of other entities, but can't be said to be fundamentally the same thing, then separate articles are the correct way to go. For example, there are a considerable number of Canadian historical articles which link to The Mail and Empire which have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with The Globe, and vice versa. And the Empire was not the Mail, and on and so forth. Each of these was, at one time, a separate publication with a distinct cultural and political identity, and a distinct history; they can't be conflated, and The Globe and Mail is not in any easily-quantified way "the same thing" as any of them. This would be no more a good idea than merging Financial Post into National Post would be, or Maclean-Hunter into Rogers Communications, or Telemedia into Standard Broadcasting. Granted, the precursor papers are all kind of stubby at the moment, but they're all expandable with a bit of research. The creator should have worked harder, I admit, but I don't think he was actually wrong on this one; he just didn't put enough work into them (as is admittedly his wont at times). Bearcat 09:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Different entities.  Perhaps we should merge the Molson and Coors pages into one! Nfitz 00:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say, when I saw the stubs, and saw who had created them, my intent was to come here to say "merge".  But then I read Bearcat's thoughtful analysis, and was convinced.  I say keep them all, with the hopes that they will each be expanded.  Skeezix1000 15:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I should try to be less catty.  Skeezix1000 16:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I've withdrawn my merge request, primarily for the following reason cited by Bearcat: "Each of these was, at one time, a separate publication with a distinct cultural and political identity, and a distinct history." Since I've also created a few stubs that I've yet to expand, I should have been more lenient to the creator of these stubs. Mindmatrix 15:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge articles

message: I notice there's been an edit war over whether the paper in the '80s and '90s (i.e. the William Thosell era) endorsed legalizing marijuana, or "marijuana and cocaine." I've examined the editorial history and restored it to the latter view. 
I found a number of editorials which make this case starting in the '80s; the most explicit was this one:
Isn't it time to demystify cocaine?   
Wednesday, April 12, 1995, p. 24
(it's worth looking up; a very explicit argument in favour of decriminalizing cocaine).
I note that with the change of editors-in-chief in the late '90s, this tone shifted; the last time the G&M's editorial board addressed this topic, in 2005, it called for the legalization of marijuana and said that while "in an ideal world" cocaine and heroin would also be legal, this is not feasible at the moment.--Igby 19:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drugs position 

message: I notice that User:Wafulz has removed the reference to The Globe being a newspaper of record. While I acknowledge that this is uncited, a quick check of Google for "Globe and Mail" and "newpaper of record" brings up some 877 hits. For example this Ryerson Review of Journalism article . Given the number of people who refer to the Globe as a newspaper of record, if only mockingly, can we not say something here. -Dhodges 00:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newspaper of Record 

message: Information on the Globe and Mail's views on the Mideast conflict would be rather useful. ADM (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Mideast Conflict

message: I found this unusual editorial by the Globe and Mail arguing that prison sentences for pedophiles ought to be softened. In the context of the onging debate on NAMBLA, it would be valuable to try and clarify the Globe's views on the topic.  ADM (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Position on pedophilia

message: In the 19th century, some Globe and Mail journalists had reported links with the Orange Order and its lodges, according to a few notable sources. ADM (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In the 19th century a heckuva lot of people in Toronto had connections with the Orange Order. -Dhodges (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Orange Order

message: The article should maybe mention the role of the Globe and Mail in the campaign for the decriminalization of abortion. There is an interesting essay here by Father Alphonse de Valk on the debate that led to the 1968 Trudeau law, much of which was orchestrated by the Toronto newspaper.  ADM (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Abortion in Canada

message: It seems a little overly slanted to the history of the Glove considering that the Globe and Mail was formed by a merger between two different papers should there not be more on those papers before the merger?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawjam (talk • contribs) 03:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: History of the paper

message: From this part of the article.
With a weekly readership of approximately 1 million,[3] it is Canada's largest-circulation national newspaper and second-largest daily newspaper after the Toronto Star.
I think there is a good need of updating. Komitsuki (talk) 09:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating info 

message: Shall the infobox contain "Political alignment: Centre-right"? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a "Discussion" subheading to separate questions like this from the survey part. Duration varies. WP:RFC has a long explanation. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

text: I have requested a close. As is clear from the thread above this one, the point is contentious. And an administrator gave a warning about edit warring to one editor who was trying to remove. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Globe and Mail infobox 

message: Peter asked if the infobox should contain the disputed content and markbassett seems to think it shouldn't, as do I. How long do we wait until we remove it and how many people need to be in agreement?  Mangbroson (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a "Discussion" subheading to separate questions like this from the survey part. Duration varies. WP:RFC has a long explanation. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

text: I have requested a close. As is clear from the thread above this one, the point is contentious. And an administrator gave a warning about edit warring to one editor who was trying to remove. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion