Talk:Leah McLaren

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.


The following text and links were removed because they seemed to be personal opinions, not fact:

  • "There was formerly a blog (now closed) devoted entirely to mocking her columns [1]".
  • Nepotism in hiring McLaren (PDF link to article in Golden Words, the humour newspaper of the Engineering Society at Queen's University)

This edit was in response to http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_strauss/20060103.html.

Elpoca 20:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Between Elpoca and Martham, all criticism of Leah McLaren has been removed from this article (no doubt in response to the criticism expressed on the CBC website). I don't know Leah McLaren from Adam (Eve?), but it would seem to me that her work is at least somewhat controversial, and that this fact should be noted in the article. I agree that the particular way that this was formerly done was not wiki. Noel S McFerran 21:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. That's why I didn't delete all of the text dealing with the criticisms. However, it is unverified (except for the highly suspect links), so until it is confirmed then perhaps it is best that it not be put back. Elpoca 22:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Great job guys! Stephen Strauss writes:
When I checked on Wikipedia a week after my last column, all the scurrilous, inaccurate references to Leah McLaren had been removed, leaving a truer if – hear the never satisfied molly-dooker talking here – less interesting entry. [2]
Pat yourself on the back :-) Ta bu shi da yu 21:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
If the external links were removed from the article, shouldn't they be removed from the talk page as well? Surely the entire contribution remains open to the original criticism? And, given they're external to Wikipedia, should they have been removed on account of their consisting merely of opinion? And if the links can't be deleted, isn't their removal futile? (teeth clench) - Must..Fight..Wiki.. --shtove 01:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I find it disappointing that Stephen Strauss' attacks on this article resulted in it being self-censored, apparently by people who are not familiar with McLaren's writing. Strauss is also a writer for McLaren's paper and is hardly unbiased - and clearly does not understand how Wikipedia works, else would have edited the article himself, instead of griping about it on the CBC. In fact, he didn't seem to understand that the link to the article that called McLaren names was just that, an external link. He was welcome to add a link to an article praising McLaren (if he could find any).

The deleted text was opinion, and perhaps this was not stated clearly enough. Nonetheless, the mere existence of entire blogs devoted to criticism of McLaren is an indication that not everyone likes her writing, and the article should reflect this. The accusation of nepotism is well-founded - Cecily Ross is McLaren's mother, that is a matter of public record, and in fact even served as her editor: [3]

The text of the 2000 column described in the deleted text was until recently at [4]; its Google cache can be seen at [5].

- Tyronen

The article notes that Cecily Ross is McLaren's mother. Anything beyond this is unproven conjecture. Also, the fact that there was one anti-McLaren blog is not proof that there is widespread disregard for her work. In fact, my research has shown her work is generally well-received, and consequently my edits to the article reflect this. Elpoca 03:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
There still seems to me a clear bias in favor of McLaren here. How is it that links to blogs critical of her were removed, but links to reviews favorable of her were kept, including one from her own paper, behind a subscription firewall? Previous versions of the page linked to the Toronto Star's negative review of her book; even that has been removed. If you truly want no opinion at all in the article, then no reviews should be linked. - Tyronen
Well-received? I have never really bothered to pay much attention to her, but from my personal experience in speaking with ither Globe and Mail readers, she's been described frequently enough as, more or less, a self-obsessed ditz that I would suspect this (negative) opinion is not that rare. --Saforrest 19:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uniformly positive

I am placing the POV tag on this article. My original text describing criticisms of McLaren was deleted, and no one has come forward with any alternative wording. McLaren's presence at the Globe has been controversial virtually since her appointment, and there is plenty of evidence on the web (the deleted links are just a few examples) of this. The trouble is that, when Stephen Strauss (another Globe columnist) criticized the original article, it seems to have provoked a fear of another John Siegenthaler-style backlash. Never mind that in Siegenthaler's case the accusations were clearly libelous, which they certainly were not here. The article as is cannot be considered unbiased as it completely obliterates criticism of this writer. If no one submits any alternative, I will restore my original text. We should not let ourselves be intimidated by the Globe and Mail. Tyronen 22:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)