Talk:Maclean's
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)
Contents |
[edit] 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
- Along the same lines, I find it mildly amusing that the opening emphasizes the magazine's coverage on Canadian current events, while the displayed magazine cover relates to the recent American election. I realize the magazine covers international affairs as well, but I'd endorse a different sample cover if possible. - Aagtbdfoua 00:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 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
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
