Talk:The Globe and Mail

Appropriate Image

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)

This is what I was thinking. Plus, it's the old Globe and Mail. Why are we showing an American event for a heavily Canadian paper? -LilWayneFTW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.205.228.245 (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Secondary issue with Image

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)

--NoahMoth, December 8th 2010

We're having some pretty persistent vandalism here. I've reverted the photo to the last legitimate version. -Dhodges (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

political position

Regarding the on-going edit war as to the Globe's editorial position:

Defining a political stance for the paper is problematic, as they themselves disavow having one (unlike the other Toronto papers). The one thing they are emphatically not is neo-conservative. That territory is held by the Post and the Sun. -Dhodges 22:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

In agreement with above, I've removed the one-word "politics" descriptor from the sidebar. As the "politics" section of the main article shows, it is impossible to summarize the Globe and Mail's politics in one word (for the same reason, authors of the New York Times entry removed its one-word political summary). It isn't a paper with an "official" political stance, so summarizing it in a word is a matter of perspective: Many Western Canadians view it as left-of-centre, while the consensus view in many Toronto and Montreal communities is that the paper is a right-wing corporate voice. Nobody seems happy with "Centrist," so why don't we stick with the article itself and avoid a pointless semantic exercise? igby 12:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to address this--see infobox.

So what's happening here because I see in the article that it says "In the 2006 federal election, the paper turned away from the Liberals to Stephen Harper's Conservative Party of Canada." I believe this is evident throughout the current election but if the original quote is still in the article, doesn't that go against what you were saying? Canking (talk) 03:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Update

Theonlyedge 23:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC) I think its time for a new cover-photo, and a supplement on Report on Business

I agree, especially because in a few days a modernized arrangement is expected

New cover photo added to reflect paper's redesign; ROB page needs updating, but haven't gotten to it.--@r 05:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Circulation

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)

You asked, and you received. ;-) Habsfan|t 01:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Erm

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)

yehaaaaw!

howdy partner--Tex^talk 16:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Toronto Elite Fiscally Conservative?

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I've expanded the political spectrum in the infobox. Myciconia 06:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

SimonP Article

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)

Merge articles

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)

Precious little content in any of them. Use them to review make sure the order of succession is right and merge -Dhodges 20:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

Different entities. Perhaps we should merge the Molson and Coors pages into one! Nfitz 00:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

I should try to be less catty. Skeezix1000 16:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Drugs position

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)

Newspaper of Record

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 [1]. 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)

Agree. Also, the Toronto Star is most certainly not a national newspaper of record. Outside of Ontario it is in fact fairly rare and not widely read. -Not Dhodges —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.108.170.128 (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think "newspaper of record" should be removed. Throughout the entire Canadian election, most of the articles posted to the Globe's website outright favoured the conservatives and user comments also seem to have been moderated in favour of the conservatives. On October 9th, 2008, a front page article on the Globe's website said "Globe endorses Harper & Tories: On balance the Tory leader remains the best man for the job in the tough times now upon us". I was under the impression that a "newspaper of record" is not meant to show such outright partisanship. Am I wrong? Canking (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Mideast Conflict

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

Position on pedophilia

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. [2] ADM (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Orange Order

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)

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)

Abortion in Canada

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. [3] ADM (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

History of the paper

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)

Royal Bank is removing G&M content from Wikipedia?

On 22 April 2013‎ an IP registered to the Royal Bank of Canada removed content referenced to a Globe article in the section Temporary foreign workers and Canadian layoffs. Is there anything that can be done to prevent this in the future? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's see if it becomes a full scale edit war before we start worrying. Incidentally, the ref. that was removed and re-instated pointed to the comments section of the article and didn't give the correct author. I've corrected it.

Updating info

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)

Political position

The best solution would be to remove the "political alignment" line in the short description. It is clear from the above rationale that G&M commits itself to neither left or right wing political alignment. However, with its current attack oriented themes against conservative party members, it is untrue to portray this newspaper as anything on the right side of the political spectrum, especially in the short description. Mangbroson (talk) 12:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I've moved this from a reply to a much-older section to make it clearer that it's an ongoing discussion. Thank you for starting a discussion on talk, Mangbroson, but you shouldn't have reverted again with the matter unresolved, so please don't revert again. @Luxphos and Mindmatrix: Do you have any thoughts on what Mangbroson's said? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 12:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I won't revert if I get a response that is worthy.

Did you read the section "political stance" in the wiki page? Clearly the newspaper has flip flopped over the decades. I conceded that describing them as centre left may be unfair, yet just as unfair as describing them as centre right. Please provide me with sufficient evidence that proves they are right leaning, good luck. When you can't, we can agree that political positions should be gone or "central". You can't describe a newspaper as right of centre just because it has been viewed as right of centre in the past. And I thought I was fair - obviously G&M isn't the toronto star just as it is not the national post. It sits in the middle, but describing it as "right leaning" further alienates a right of centre person into thinking he/she is "extreme" right because you're moving the goalposts of what it means to be conservative. Mangbroson (talk) 12:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@Mangbroson: I won't revert if I get a response that is worthy. That's not how it works. Additions here are based on consensus. If you continue to edit-war I will have to block you from editing the article. If you and other editors are unable to reach a consensus, then you should follow the steps at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I am happy to debate and support my edits according the Wikipedia standards for such discussions. However, I find the responses by Mangbroson and Peter Gulutzan a bit hostile. I would like to add that Mangbroson appears to be arguing in bad faith. He stated that he had made the edit stating the G&M is Centre-left knowing this was not correct. He also told you, “ Tamzin, I didn't change anything, it was just a threat so no need to do any blocking.” I find this threat troubling. Is this how to affect change on Wikipedia pages? Luxphos (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I believe Mangbroson initially acted correctly, knowing that a relevant policy is WP:ONUS ("The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."), and a relevant template description is 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."). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Tamzin, I didn't change anything, it was just a threat so no need to do any blocking. I have not edited since understanding this "talk" situation. When can we settle this dispute? I am waiting to hear a worthy reason as to why G&M should be considered on the right of the political spectrum. How long do we wait for these other editors to give their response? Mangbroson (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

So can I take out that section yet? Mangbroson (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Mangbroson, although I have supported a specific removal per Wikipedia rules, the remarks from Tamzin worry me. Suppose I make an RfC asking Shall the infobox contain "Political alignment: centre-right"? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: If there's a working consensus here, even a working consensus of two, then y'all can go right ahead and remove. I was just intervening to stop the continuation of an edit war. (Not to say don't start an RfC. Just, don't worry about me.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 14:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I removed. I acknowledge that if multiple editors object then an RfC would be okay and I have suggested the wording. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Great, I am unfamiliar with a lot of this jargon but glad we came to a fair conclusion. All the best to you Tamzin and Peter. Mangbroson (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Alas, the end is not in sight yet. Somebody with an ipv6 address has reverted my edit, and Luxphos has left a message on my talk page. At this point I could ask an administrator to consider WP:SEMI semi-protection or I could do the tedious WP:RFC Request for Comment that I mentioned earlier, but let's first see whether there are other developments. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Peter Gulutzman,

One last point regarding the National Post change I made. Please note, that the page original had political stance as conservative. This was added, reverted, deleted, undone over the years. Similar to what is happening with the G&M page. Luxphos (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Mangbroson, Tamzin: No developments. Luxphos has made a similar change for National Post, but has never posted on an article talk page. I also ping the participants of the earlier "political position" thread: Dhodges igby Canking. See the following thread which is an RfC with the wording that I proposed earlier. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

To begin with, on the wiki page for The National Post, the first sentence states it is a conservative newspaper (not from my edits). I noted that, since it’s inception, the NP has always endorsed the centre right party in every federal election. When it was created by Conrad Black, the stated purpose was to unite the right. Also sites such as the Association for Media Literacy, which rate news outlets bias have shown the NP and G&M to be conservative. Albeit, in varying degrees. Hence the rating of right wing for the NP and centre-right for the G&M. If these sites and the endorsement history are not sufficient evidence of bias, then what is? Our own opinions? Do you dispute having endorsement history as gauge for support of a party? Do you disagree with the sources? What evidence do you provide to counter what I have provided to support my position? If you believe we have no way of accurately assessing a media outlets political position, then I would support a request to remove political position form all newspapers. That would include the Toronto Star. Luxphos (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I would be fine with removing political stance from all newspapers, however some are more clear than others and some papers switch sides over time. Read the G&M political position section and you'll see how they've changed over time. You'll also see how they have "lost a lot of its conservative readership" (not perfectly quoted). This is proof in itself that a) the newspaper is leaning more leftward than in the past and b) political stance changes over time. For this reason, you really can't judge a newspaper by its origins. This flip-flop is enough to solidify the argument that the newspaper is not centre right or centre left.

In addition, as noted earlier by Peter, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

Tamzin, your subjective view on "hostility" are ludicrous - we are adults discussing the political stance of newspapers and I am abrasive in the way I write sometimes, no need to get your knickers in a knot. My ability to realize G&M cannot fairly be described as centre left just as it cannot be fairly described as centre right does not indicate "bad faith", it proves I am not rigid enough in my thinking to consider my views perfect.It seems to me you're trying to distract from the point. If you'd like an apology for using the phrase "threat" - I apologize. Hope this relieves some of your troubles.

Luxphos, I'm not sure when national post got involved but I would consider national past a right wing newspaper in the same way as the Toronto Star being left wing. As I mentioned, some media companies wear their heart on their sleeve. I wouldn't consider this to be the case of globe and mail. Mangbroson (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mangbroson,

First, I understand it can be difficult to convey our thoughts the way we want. And at times, they may come across as aggressive even if it is not intended. I am quite certain your “threat” was not a physical one. But you did say that one of your statements was a threat. Presumably made to push your position forward quickly. You also noted that you declared the G&M was centre left knowing this was not the case. You may not have intended it to be this way but, these 2 examples can be viewed as hostile and made in bad faith.

Second, you have not yet provided any sources to support your position of a left, centre, or any other political position other than your own personal observations. Again I and others have provided sites that rank media bias (Association for Media Literacy). Also please explain why a news outlet that has endorsed conservative leaning parties for 50 years with only 2 exceptions (2 decades ago) is invalid information. It doesn’t follow your definition of flip flopping.

Finally, I would prefer to keep the political position as Centre-left. I hope the others who agree will chime in. I am open to the option of removing references to political position rather than argue this endlessly. Luxphos (talk) 23:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

The removal of political position would be as you noted, to all newspapers. Without exception Luxphos (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

You just said the same thing as Tamlin - you're making an assumption by saying I "knew" g&m wasn't centre left, when in reality I was enlightened and had my mind changed. Let's focus on facts instead of your incorrect assumptions since you obviously didn't read my previous response on the matter. "Presumably", accusations of "bad faith" are a distraction from the actual debate.

As for your "evidence" to support a right wing bias - did you read anything from association for media literacy or just skim the titles? Please review this work from AML - which, might I add, isn't credible to say the least considering we are analyzing people's Reddit pages, but I digress. Your evidence actually shows how g&m has been interpreted as left leaning and right leaning by various Reddit accounts. Thus, I challenge your evidence because it actually proves my point that they are neither left nor right leaning and therefore the quick description should be removed.

https://aml.ca/the-bias-in-media-bias-charts/

And I stand by my point that a history of being left or right leaning newspaper is inadmissible because it operates under the assumption that people, politics, finances and leadership are static.

The onus is on you to find evidence that supports the inclusion of your disputed content and what you have provided is not acceptable by any standards.

I am fine with removing political position from all media companies if we take that route as well, seems like that may be the best option.

Mangbroson (talk) 14:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Globe and Mail infobox

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is to remove the disputed wording.—S Marshall T/C 15:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Shall the infobox contain "Political alignment: Centre-right"? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

• No. Template:Infobox newspaper says "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." Show us the evidence of present-day formal alignment, eh? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

• No - lacks cites supporting that, and I do not think it’s appropriate unless there is explicitly or formally aligned to a specific role or ideology like such as the Daily Worker. Their own declarations (here) instead mention editors have historically endorsed various candidates, separate from independent opinion columnists and from the reporters who focus on conveying fact. See also third party worldpress.org labels affiliation as “n/a” for it here. There just seems factually not anything suiting the definition of alignment. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Does this mean we can remove the section again? Mangbroson (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

• No per Peter Gulutzan's comment above. Some1 (talk) 00:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
• No per Peter Gulutzan above.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

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)

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)

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Decibel staff

• Specific text to be added or removed:

The Decibel Podcast Menaka Raman Wilms, Host Angela Pacienza, Executive Editor Adrian Cheung, Senior Producer Sherrill Sutherland, Producer Rachel Levy-McLaughlin, Producer Madeline White, Producer David Crosbie, Audio Editor

Tamara Khandaker, former host Kasia Mychajlowycz, former Senior Podcast Producer

• Reason for the change: New staff on the podcast

• References supporting change: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/authors/menaka-raman-wilms/

https://twitter.com/adrianwkcheung/status/1624069616057065472 https://www.theglobeandmail.com/podcasts/the-decibel/article-the-dark-side-of-collagen/ (credits at end of podcast) 199.198.134.134 (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

 Question: I think it's reasonable to change the existing staff (Host, Producers, Audio Editor), not all eight in this group. As for sourcing, are you citing the podcast audio, or the website? The latter does not list staff. Twitter and the first site are not valid. PK650 (talk) 23:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Changing the existing staff is fine.

I was referencing the podcast audio for sourcing - timestamp 20:45. 199.198.134.134 (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Podcast staff don't strike me as "key" people. Removing the subsection altogether. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 17:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe removing all references to The Decibel for The Globe and Mail does readers/listeners a disservice. A request to add a reference to the podcast back into the description of the offerings of the papers, as is done on The New York Times page for The Daily: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times 199.198.134.134 (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)