Talk:Toronto Star/Archive 1

Archive 1

Supreme Court of Ontario

I've deleted a reference to the Supreme Court of Ontario as, insofar as I know, there ain't no sich animal. If someone does know which court was involved, please update the article. Dhodges 23:00, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is actually two courts, the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Ontario Superior Court of Justice according to the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General [1]. That said, I can't find any information that specifically states the "Ontario Supreme Court", however, information at the papers website states " So his trustees were given court permission to buy the paper in 1958, after promising to uphold its longstanding traditions." [2] I'm going to make a minor modification. --Uncle Bungle 02:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if anyone is interested, there was a Supreme Court of Ontario prior to a re-organization. --Dhodges 13:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Dhodges, if you knew that the Supreme Court of Ontario did previously exist (which, as any half-educated Canadian over the age of 40 knows full well, it most certainly did), then why on earth would you delete the Wikipedia reference to it with the stated justification that "there ain't no sich animal" [sic]? Are there any other deletions on this website of things-you-didn't-know-existed-so-you-deleted-them-from-Wikipedia-but-which-actually-later-turned-out-to-have-actually-existed that we should be aware of? Or was that the only one? Mardiste (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The Toronto Red Star

Aside fromBill O'Reilly who referred to The Star as "The Havanna Times", when has the paper ever been called the "Toronto Red Star". It doesn't do well in a Google test. [3] --Uncle Bungle 02:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And I could swear he said that about The Globe and Mail instead - Heather Mallick, non? Samaritan 04:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

After re-watching The fifth estate titled Sticks and Stones, it was The Globe and Mail, but it was during an interview with Rachel Marsden. As such, I retract my acusation towards the man who cited the fictional Paris Business Review (while shouting down Ms Mallick?). --Uncle Bungle 12:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The question remains, The Toronto Red Star, still looking for a source on that. --Uncle Bungle 12:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know I've seen this paper referred to as the Red Star on the net and in fact, on the blogs that is its tounge in cheek name used by both progressives and conservatives. --rasblue 05:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

How 'bout this: Trista Vincent (1999). "Manufacturing Concern". Ryerson Review of Journalism (Spring): –.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)-Dhodges 08:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Political position

There is an on-going edit war regarding the political positions of the major Toronto dailies, particularly the Star and the Globe. I suppose the simplest way to identify their respective positions is to look at their actual endorsements at election time. However, let me suggest that this does not necessarily reflect their over-all positions. The Star, for example, is often identified with the NDP because it is difficult to see how they differ from them when reading the entire paper. The simplest appoach may to put the least controversial assessment in the info box and discuss the precise position of the paper in the main body of the text. -Dhodges 14:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Who cares where the paper falls on the political spectrum relative to the United States? The paper may be said to be considerably to the right of Le Devoir (a Canadian paper), or other English-language papers in the world, such as The Independent. It seems to toe a moderate, small-l liberal line, representing the broad middle-ground of Canadian civic opinion (especially in the metropolitan areas). I really think that the language here needs to be substantially more nuanced. Fishhead64 18:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

As a regular reader of both the Toronto Star and the Independant, I can emphatically say that the Star is the more Left Wing of the two. The Independant is a Labour newspaper, and it is the newspaper of the "Islington" intelligensia, but the Toronto Star goes beyond social democracy and into pure socialism. Examples being its support for the nationalization of the Canadian Oil Industry (among other industries), and its support of banning all private health care, even that which has never been public such as dental, optical, etc. rasblue 07:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The Star has not supported the nationalization of the Canadian petroleum industry, or any other industry, since the 1970s - - unless I have missed an editorial that would likely be a much-discussed surprise. It has endorsed the Liberal Party far more often than the NDP in federal elections throughout the past 40 years. And it does not call for "banning" of private health care -- it simply resists the privatization of some aspects of a public-only system. It has not called for the "banning" of dental and optical care (to my knowledge), though I believe it has editorialized in favour of adding a public component to this. None of this makes it more than a "centre-left" or a "liberal to social-democratic" paper. --igby 14:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Igby, you are right. The Star has only endorsed the "virtual" banning of private health care. Since it was only in 2005, I still remember the Star endorsing Ontario's ban on doctors working in the private sector in OHIP covered services, even if the doctor does not have an OHIP billing number. As for nationalizing the oil industry, that doesn't mean it has to be outright owned by the government. If you remember the structure of the oil industry in Canada during the National Energy Program, it didn't try to bring everything under the Petro Canada umbrella, a la Citgo in Venezuela. rasblue 21:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I stopped reading the toronto star after 9/11 because it was too right wing. Am I alone on this one? Paskari 17:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Comrade Paskari, you are right. (Joke) Unless your daily reading is Pravda and the Socialist Truths, then the Star is left of Canadian center. Note, I said Canadian center. It routinely attacks Conservative politics and endorses urban socialist agendas. In fact, in over 25 years of receiving the paper, it has gone even FURTHER to the left.

InfoSurferMan (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry guy, but the two link given as a reference to the political position say Liberal and not Left-wing politic. According to Rand Dyck; the liberal parties in Canada are not really in left-wing politics but a bit more to the centre-right. This does make sens, otherwise somebody have to explain the presence of the blue grits in Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.30.225.226 (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Toronto Star endorses comprehensive rapid transit expansion, which is definitely characterized as leftist (more as in between the NDP and the Liberals politically). Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ultimately we need a reliable source for what political position it is, not what we think it is. Canterbury Tail talk 11:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Social Democratic

I can't see the justification for calling The Star "liberal, Social Democratic." It has NEVER endorsed the CCF or NDP, Canada's only social democratic parties. In fact, it endorsed the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario in provincial elections for many years. Some of its columnists may believe a little socialism is a good thing. And over the years, reporters, columnists and editorial writers have flirted with NDPish ideas. But it's never taken the leap of an editorial endorsement. The paper is certainly not hostile to capitalism per se; it just seems to believe in a compsssionate, welfare state kinda capitalism. "Bleeding heart liberal" may be closest, but if flunks the NPOV test. And I supopose "Kumbaya liberal" is out of the question. But "liberal, social democratic" smacks of "little bit pregnant." What's wrong with just plain "liberal"?

Because "Liberal" is vauge. The Atkinson principles could be described as "socially democratic", and the paper's stances are often to the left of the (capital L) Liberal party. If you're using "liberal" in an American sense, it would probably be that, but I would conisder the paper's principles towards social democratic, which doesn't necessarily oppose capitalism. You do make some good points, however...perhaps "Left wing" would be better in the place?Habsfannova 19:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be comfortable in the least calling it social democratic, and I don't have a great feeling about left-wing.

I would be comfortable with liberal, centre left, and maybe progressive. The word reform or reformist, preferably lower case (!, but any ideological markings here should be lower case), and piped to reform movement (certainly closer to the mark than reformist), would also be appropriate to the newspaper's history.

In the alternative, I'm tempted to write up Atkinson principles, and just put that... ;) Samaritan 20:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that sounds like a great idea, just putting "Atkinson principles (see left)" or something to that effect. It would be a lot more accurate then a general ideological label. Habsfannova 21:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The newspaper supports the nationalization of the Canadian Oil Industry. The paper also supports a general increase of direct government control of the economy and of people essential needs. Have you ever, ever, read that the Star went against a union dickat no matter how outlandeous, or outrangeous? The paper is to the left of what we in the English Speaking media would consider social democrat. Maybe not by French media or Spanish media standards, but it is one of the most left wing major English newspapers in the world today. Even the Independant cannot comapre. rasblue 07:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not delete the label entirely? The whole issue is now dealt with thoroughly within the text of the article.

To keep it standard with other papers, I'd guess.Habsfannova 03:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Its amazing that people would even suggest the Toronto Star is a left of center paper, it is so pro isrealie , its not even funny.

Deliberate wikipedia vandalism by the Star

In the March 5, 2006 paper, reporter Kenneth Kidd wrote an article on Wikipedia vandalism, in which he revealed that he had deliberately posted false information to the article on True Davidson, just to see if anybody would notice (which nobody did, until the article was published.)

I find this appalling that a reporter for a paper that, you would think, prides itself on accuracy, would intentionally vandalize wikipedia, and have complained to their public editor. Would a note about this incident in the Star's wikipedia entry be appropriate?

No, IMHO. It would be self-referential and may even smack of special pleading. The reporter's action may be questionable. (OTOH, there is a long tradition of reporters of "testing the system": e.g. airport security, racial bias in housing, etc...) But in the grand scheme of things, The Star's Wikipedia article is just not that consequential. To devote even a couple of sentences to the incident would be to accord it unwarranted prominence. The Star has printed many important articles in the last 100 years or so. Do we really want this to be the only Star article discussed in the Wikipedia entry?

Left of Centre Characterization of The Liberal Party

I have deleted the "left of centre" characterization of The Liberal Party. I submit that this falls short of Wikipedia's standards of accuracy and fairness. Consider that: 1) in the most recent recent federal election, 64% of the electorate voted for parties further to the left of the Consservative Party 2) The Liberal Party has governed for about 80 out of the last 110 years. The Liberal Party "left of centre"? Nope. That would be the NDP. In the Canadian context the Liberal Party IS the center. What complicates matters is comparision to the U.S. where the center is much further to the right. Given the fact that the Democratic Party has lost 7 of the last 10 elections, it would be fair to call it "left of center." So the Canadian Liberal Party is certainly to the left of the U.S. Democratic Party. But...so what? That's beyond the scope of the article. If an adjective is to be applied to the Liberal Party, it should be "centrist." But it's far better to omit any adjective. Calling the Liberal Party "left of center" is misleading -- especially to international readers.

---

When we refer to the political spectrum, we generally compare ourselves to all predominately English Speaking Countries. That would be the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, and Canada. Canada is the most "progressive" out of all those countries. Therefore what for Canada is the centre is left wing for all other countries. Even comparing France to Canada there is proof that Canada is more left wing than France. Canada's health care system has greater government control than the French who do not ban two-tier health insurance. In fact they encourage it. Also the nationalized liquor retailing system in Ontario would be blasphemy in France. rasblue 07:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

---

There are numerous objective measures of where a party (or person) in terms of left or right. May I refer you to the article on the Political spectrum. Canadian Liberals are left of center and proud of it -Dhodges 13:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

---

And the Conservative pride themselves on being right of centre. Thats what is so great with democracy. Nothing wrong with it. Just pointing out that the Liberals who pride themselves as being centrists had the centre of the spectrum shift from under them in the last election. rasblue 04:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't notice this discussion before my recent changes. I'd like to point out, however, that the party's leanings are entirely dependent on the reader's perspective - that is, where "centre" is defined. As rasblue pointed out, this has been shifting, but it is nonetheless a generic term that fails to encompass any significant position. That is, it fails to qualify whether this is fiscal, social, etc. Moreover, you'll find variance among party members (as you will in any party), so the representation is diffuse anyway - it should really be presented as a range of positions - the liberals may be slightly left to slight right-leaning, the conservatives are slightly right- to hard right-leaning etc. Mindmatrix 16:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Prichard and Chun

I've asked for sources for this, and GoldDragon instead removed the {{fact}} tags. Don't do this. Here's a google search to start you off: [4]. Please use this to add relevant citations to the text. I'd expect at least the Toronto Star article that is mentioned in the text to be cited. Mindmatrix 16:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the reference entirely. I don't think thre matter rises to the level of importance that merits inclusion. It's a tangent that disrupts the flow of the article. Sometimes, less is more.

I've flagged...

I've flagged some political opinions on the Star. I think they are a rather exaggerated, the Star is not a "socialist newspaper." If anything, it is painfully centrist Liberal. The article admits the paper has never supported the social-democratic NDP... other editors (above) have noticed this paradox . Any suggestions on to how best fix this? (frogot to sign -- Myciconia 02:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)--)

Cripes, there's quite a number of unreferenced and unsupported claims in the article now. I've removed the one about the "Red Star", since that's clearly a slag at the paper by the extreme right, mostly bloggers. See this for a sample. Mindmatrix 01:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Cripes, yourself. Please remove the fanatically overzealous "citation needed" flags. They come close to vandalism. Let's go through the issues one by one.

1) The Toronto Star being left of center. Who can dispute this? Name the mainstream, large-circulation Canadian newspapers further to the left. The remarkable thing about the Star is that it leans left and still attracts the highest circulation of any peper in the country. The article does not say the paper is socialist, and takes pains to describe its position in some detail. The current wording was worked out after many iterations and much debate. So it's disconcerting to see a "citation needed" label slapped on.

2) The paper's editorial postions sometimes surprise readers. This is a reasonable conclusion any fair-minded reader would draw from regulary reading the letters to the editor page.

3) The source for information about the Star's editorial endorsements is the book "Rae Days" by Toronto Star columnist Thomas Walkom. It was published by Key Porter Books in 1994.

4) Crtitics descriptions of the Star come from rival newspapers, talk show hosts, and other forces of darkness. You may not like them, but they do exist.

The larger issue here, of course, is attribution. I think you've gone overboard. So let's have a reasonable debate on how far to go.

I don't want this to become a debate club, there are opinions here that need to be either sourced, removed, or perhaps put into better context. Myciconia 02:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I'm going try work on this one edit at a time. First, the line: Today, the Star remains to the left of centre in the Canadian context -- precisely how far to the left, especially compared to other papers, is hotly debated. This is an editorial-style comment not suited to wikipedia, as it pushes one view (POV) when there are many others. The Star does not consider itself a newspaper catered to the "left of centre" and, as has been pointed out, has never supported the left-of-centre NDP. The issue of "hot" debate over how leftist the paper is, is therefore misleading as it suggests everyone accepts the authors initial POV. Phew! Myciconia 02:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Just put it as a Left-Wing paper; Liberal's too vague. By the way, you might want to ask for semi-protection before the "edit war" begins. 16:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit War Looming?

This is rapidly turning into a dialogue of the deaf, and I fear an imminent edit war. It is not helpful to slap ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  labels on a story and then write "I don't want this to become a debate club" when supporting evidence is produced. Let's de-escalate, please.

First, consider the Atkinson Principles (linked to in the article)

The Star certainly considers itself on the left, and is proud of it. FWIW, tt is further left than any other Canadian newspaper. Now, this may amount to nothing more than a wishy-washy sort of do-goody reformism that is utterly exasperating to those even further to the left. But that still counts as left of center. The fact that the paper has never supported the NDP is not a paradox that needs to be "resolved" by deleting the initial reference to the paper's overall relatively leftish tilt. A more detailed acount of the paper's politics follows later in the article.

Similarly, the reference to "The Red Star" should not be deleted from a list of how critics characterize The Star simply because the source is far-right bloggers. Sure, the label is unfair and extreme. But it is one of the things said about The Star. Let's not leave things out becuase we disagree. That's POV. The idea of NPOV is to include a wide range of views, in some sort of context. Why not leave it to readers to decide about the fairness of "The Red Star" label? Are we afraid they'll reach the "wrong" conclusions?

Reasonable people can disagree with the Star's political stance, but consider again this statement:

Today, the Star remains to the left of centre in the Canadian context -- precisely how far to the left, especially compared to other papers, is hotly debated.

The words are carefully chosen and fully justified. Again: The Star is further left than any other Canadian paper. And some people hotly debate how far to the left the paper really is.

The sentence should therefore stand as written and the ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  label should be removed.

The article could use some citations for its editorial stance, although I would suggest a few general references instead of citing each and every assertion. --Dhodges 13:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's an edit war looming; rather, some editors want to see justification for some of the claims made. I agree that the Star is left-leaning, at least socially/culturally if not economically. However, there's no reason to include terms like "Red Star" until such time that they are used a bit more commonly. It's the same reason we don't list Scarlanka as a nickname in the Scarborough article. What a bunch of bloggers say is pretty much irrelevant. 69.195.98.203 15:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, this sounds suspiciously like the start of a reasonable debate that is the basis for compromise. In writing the article, I consulted Thomas Walkom's book about Bob Rae, cited above. It contains a section on the history of Toronto Star editorial endorsements from the 1970's to the 1990's. I also consulted "J.E. Atkinson of the Star" by Ross Harkness, University of Toronto Press, 1963. Finally, I carefully read almost every word of every issue of The Star for over one year. I did the same for The Globe and Mail and The National Post.

Suggestions for what lawyers call a "global settlement": Delete all {{Fact}} tags. Add the Walkom and Harkness references at the end of the article. Delete the Red Star reference. Delete the sentence about "critics also target formulaic sob sister stories" because it cannot be specifically attributed.

Are we done yet? Please?

Of course not! The issue here is over political editoralisation, which has no place on wikipedia. If you like, I can put up a request for comment over this policy issue. Myciconia 19:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. So much for de-escalation. The goal posts are shifting and the unwarranted {{Fact}} tags remain while allies are sought for a false premise. All this is done in the name of avoiding "politcal editorialization." Irony abounds. We seem to be gearing up for a full-scale fight...when there is precious little in dispute. I have provided the requested citations, and no one has disputed them.

I see your point how the tags put the article in a poor light. I have made an edit that covers the main concerns I have stated above, without taking anything away from the material in the article. Myciconia 06:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but the rewrite cannot stand. It throws off the balance of the whole article. Merely saying The Star is to the left of its principal competitors robs the article of context -- especially for international readers unfamiliar with Canadian politics. In its quest for fairness, the rewrite downplays the relative leftism of The Star. The Star is the daily newspaper furthest to the left in Canada -- and probably North America. More broadly, The Star is to the left in the Canadian political spectrum. As stated previously, this may be a do-gooder sort of reformism that exasperates those even further to the left. But that doesn't change reality. Tne article goes on to mention centrist tendencies (occasional support for Conservatives, some surprising editorials, avoidance of angry rhetoric by columnists, etc...) But none of this makes much sense unless first counter-balanced by the central reality -- The Star is a left-leaning newspaper (or at least as left-leaning as mainstream, commercial papers get.)

Once again, I urge restoration of the origianl text: Today, the Star remains to the left of centre in the Canadian context -- precisely how far to the left, especially compared to other papers, is hotly debated.

Finally, I have restored the reference to "the people's paper." Both reference books consulted refer to it. The Star used to proudly proclaim the phrase. It no longer does. But detractors do -- which is what the article says. The detractors include columnists at rival papers and bloggers. And, please, let's not revive the "bloggers don't count, especially if we don't like them" thread.

The star being "leftist" is not a concrete fact. Unlike european papers, north american papers do not devide on political lines. Furthermore the star has never gone so far as to back the (moderate) provincial or federal NDP. In pov situations like these, wikipedia follows its responsibility to inform the reader and let them come to their own conclusions. Myciconia 18:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

To the above post, to call the NDP "moderate" is a joke. It is the furthest left from the Liberal and Conservative parties, both federal AND Ontario provincial parties. Although it'strue that it stand to the right of the Communist Party Of Canada.

InfoSurferMan (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the last comment. But it doesn't follow that the original language shouldn't be restored. We need to see things in a North American context. That The Star is among the furthest to the left among North American dailies is beyond dispute. See the Ryerson Journalism Review article referenced above. As written, the article is skewed. Restoring the original language restores the balance and allows readers to draw their own conclusions.

Are we sure that the Star endorsed the NDP? I think I remember reading that it did in a Broadbent biography, but I am not sure. MS123

No, The Star has never endorsed the NDP. But it came close to doing so in the provinical election of 1990. (Source: Thomas Walkom's book "Rae Days")

At what point are either the "citation needed" tags removed, or the content that's not been supported is removed? It's been over two years now. I am dis big (talk) 04:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Bias

how come there is no section for bias? this is a news paper, and every paper has to have some for of bias Paskari 17:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Competitive position

Oh this is just cloying and annoying, this boasting about metro Toronto's population (which is 5.1 million by the way, not 5.5 million; check the Census please). This entire first paragraph appears to be just one more lame attempt to boast about how big metro Toronto's population is. Please; this kind of Chamber of Commerce clap-trap went out in the 1950s.

Did you check the Wikipedia entry for the New York Times? They certainly don't need to boast about the population of metro New York.

And if metro Toronto really was a "competitive" newspaper market, it would have more than 4 newspapers. Either that or, with 4, it would be "competitive" if the population were much smaller; it's one or the other, you can't have both.

Can't the first paragraph be written in such as way that it does not appear to be another marketing vehicle to make Toronto look big and important? It's rather juvenile, the way it reads now. Again, use the New York Times Wikipedia article as a reference. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atikokan (talk • contribs) 04:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Worldpress.org

Whilst I tend to think that holding off on any description of a paper's political affiliation without a specific citation is silly, I question the use of Worldpress.org as a reliable source . Heck, they still list The Canadian magazine as a supplement to the Star. -Dhodges 12:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless you receive and read the paper, you will not know it's political affiliation and agenda. As of this date, it supports most of the Provincial Liberal policies (and thinks more social work should be done) and literally abhors anything that resembles Federal or provincial Conservative. The ONLY question is if the paper is more favorable to the NDP versus the Liberal. In other words, left and further left.

InfoSurferMan (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Left of Centre?

The Star is not left of centre in Canadian political terms, it is liberal, and I have therefore altered this unreferenced statement. --The Four Deuces (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It IS a left of center paper. The Globe and Mail is considered a center paper, the National Post is right of center and the Toronto Star is LEFT of center. Further, one only needs to look at their articles and history.

InfoSurferMan (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is you have to either source the paper itself or academic literature about them. They do not consider themselves left-wing and in fact usually support the Liberal Party. Who considers them left of center? Bill O'Reilly says that the Globe is a "far left" newspaper. By the way, the National Post, which was published by someone who is so right-wing, that he is now in a US prison, is to the right of the right. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The Star's public editor often refers to the star as "small L liberal". They are not anchored to supporting the Liberal Party of Canada or Liberal Party of Ontario, so the current infobox is very misleading. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

New nameplate

According to a note from the publisher, the Star has "restored its traditional blue-ribbon nameplate". Accordingly, Ive updated the front page image used in the article. I've probably made a complete hash of things in terms of fair use and such. Corrections are welcome. -Dhodges (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the new photo was a good call - I was trying to remember the old ("last year's"/"yesterday's") design myself. Krupo (talk) 07:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I had already updated the date under the image. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Mideast conflict

It would be interesting if we could gather information on the Toronto Star's editorial policies on the Mideast conflict, which is a controversial topic in contemporary journalism. ADM (talk) 09:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed tags on this article

This article has been updated numerous times since the original tags were added. I cannot see that any of these issues are still present, so I am removing the "mulitple issues" tag. I'm leaving the section references tag because that section still contains no references. Before adding any new tag, please state here on the talk page what issues need to be addressed in a clear fashion so that other editors know what needs to be taken care of. 64.40.60.24 (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Left of Centre Characterization of The Liberal Party part 2

I'm still finding my way on Wikipedia, so forgive any missteps. The Liberal Party is most certainly viewed as left of centre, though it has tried to define itself as centrist in more recent generations. Historically speaking though, the Grits were the left to the Tories' right, though the Liberals have been flanked further to the left by the CCF and then the NDP. In general, the Liberals support government intervention, taxation to fund social programs, and social liberalism. They don't go as far to the left in some of those positions as the NDP and enacted austerity measures in the 1990s to rein in the national debt, giving some credence to the argument that they are centrist. But Canada has seen movement to the centre by the Liberals, Tories, and NDP to some degree. For any party to claim the centre is a bit misleading, and in my opinion is a branding exercise meant to broaden its appeal, but this does not help illuminate any debate about how to compare or contrast the parties. You could say the Liberals reside between the NDP and Conservatives, and in that sense reside in the centre, but that is relative to other parties and does not explain where the party sits on the political spectrum. (ProliferatingJade (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC))

Star's Endorsement of the NDP in 1979

That is completely false regardless of the poor research of Thomas walkom. In 1979 the Star endorsed the NDP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.115.181.89 (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The Star DID endorse the NDP in 1979, get your facts right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.115.181.89 (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Rob Ford crack scandal

Should there be a mention of the Toronto Star's investigation of the Rob Ford crack scandal? Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Can we find a reliable source that isn't The Star for their treatment of the whole situation? Canterbury Tail talk 02:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

That is what I want to know. Right now, there is Gawker, which also covers this investigation, as well as on the Star's treatment of the whole situation. Should Gawker be used to evaluate the Star? Or should we find more? Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. Trying to figure if Gawker is considered a reliable source or not. Similarly I'm not sure if Crazy Town is reliable either since he author worked for The Star. Hmmm, tough one. I wonder if Toronto Sun or Globe and Mail had anything to say about The Star's involvement. Canterbury Tail talk 03:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Jian Ghomeshi

What should be said about the Jian Ghomeshi scandal and the central role the Star is playing in it. They are staking their reputation on their report and it seems like it needs some sort of mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litch (talk • contribs) 15:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

That should be mentioned. See here: Jian Ghomeshi Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 00:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The Beer Store's anti-competitive practices and reform on selling alcohol in Ontario grocery stores

The Toronto Star ran an exclusive on the anti-competitive practices by the Beer Store, which led to Kathleen Wynne and Ed Clark to reform the sale of alcohol in grocery stores. In fact, numerous Toronto Star articles, editorials, and a series of editorial cartoons by Theo Moudakis, are about the Beer Store and its "monopoly." Should it be mentioned in this article? Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)