Talk:Green Left (Australian newspaper): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 05:47, 6 August 2007

Australia Unassessed

	Australia portal Green Left (Australian newspaper) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Only nation-wide newspaper?

It is Australia's only nation-wide anti-capitalist newspaper. What about "Socialist Worker"? Andjam 23:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well Green Left Weekly is the only one distributed in all Australian capitals, which I would consider the general criteria for qualifying as "nation-wide". --Redit 02:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Pilger quote

I am in favour of leaving the John Pilger quote in unless 60.230.33.208 can come up with a better reason than it "violates NPOV". NPOV does not mean that you can't quote a source supporting or criticising a subject. The quote is there because it shows that Pilger, who is a quite well known left-wing journalist, supports Green Left Weekly. It doesn't indicate, for example, that what Pilger thinks should be considered objective reality, and it notes that the newspaper publishes his article, which may indeed influence his opinion. --Redit 23:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Radical"??? WHo says its Radical???

Hey, youser Skyring ### You just put the word "radical" in there. You added "It is a radical magazine" ### Thatz your POV. Man, POV words defnitly not encylopedic. فيريبراند 04:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a statement of fact. I merely reverted simple vandalism. --Pete 05:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the dab page for Radical, I think the definitions there are helpful:

'Radical', someone holding political views of far left or right varieties, or simply of an extreme kind (Detailed definition or article needed - refer to talk page).
Radical left, another term for the far left

GLW is about as far left as a publication gets in Australia. While I take the point that the definitions go on to mention radical right, and I can certainly think of some extreme far right wing publications, the masturbatory province of gun nuts and racists, the term radical is more usually associated with the Left. It is hard to see the usage here as pejorative or misleading. I should imagine that the editors of GLW would cheerfully describe their views and publication as radical. --Pete 05:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 :It's a statement of fact. I merely reverted simple vandalism. --[[User:Skyring|Pete]] 05:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
+:Looking at the dab page for [[Radical]], I think the definitions there are helpful:
+:*'Radical', someone holding political views of far left or right varieties, or simply of an extreme kind (Detailed definition or article needed - refer to talk page).
+:*Radical left, another term for the far left
+:GLW is about as far left as a publication gets in Australia. While I take the point that the definitions go on to mention radical right, and I can certainly think of some extreme far right wing publications, the masturbatory province of gun nuts and racists, the term radical is more usually associated with the Left. It is hard to see the usage here as pejorative or misleading. I should imagine that the editors of GLW would cheerfully describe their views and publication as radical. --[[User:Skyring|Pete]] 05:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)