Talk:Current Affairs (magazine)
 | Magazines Stub‑class | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Requested move 12 May 2018
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Current Affairs (magazine) → Current Affairs – Sufficiently precise without parenthetical per WP:DIFFCAPS. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Sangdeboeuf: To many people, "Current Affairs" without disambiguater means current affairs, not a periodical publication. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- Well, Red Meat without a disambiguator means red meat to many people, rather than an indie comic strip. Nonetheless, small details such as capitalization are "usually sufficient to distinguish" such topics according to titling policy. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. Very common term. Insufficient disambiguation from Current affairs (news format). Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so a common term can still have a primary encyclopedic topic depending on details such as capitalization and punctuation (e.g. Law & Order). The news format is unlikely to be capitalized. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Also move current affairs (news format) to current affairs and put a hatnote on each. There are no other articles titled with those two words. That way anyone typing the phrase with or without caps will either get directly to their article or be one click away. Station1 (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose no primary. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Per WP:ASTONISH and WP:NOPRIMARY. If Current Affairs was a well established and popular magazine, I might think otherwise.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think that while that's a sensible approach in general, it doesn't really apply here. There's no other article named Current Affairs with both words capitalized; how many people would type exactly that into the search box? Anyone who does should not be astonished to end up at the periodical, with a hatnote directing them to either the news format or the DAB page. Page traffic for Current Affairs (magazine) has steadily grown over time, and now nearly equals traffic for the news format. It also now gets about double the monthly views as the DAB page. After all, we want to help people get to their desired page as quickly as possible. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. Far too common a term. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Possible sources
(warning: mostly about Robinson, rather than CA. The best for CA content by far is the Daily Beast article.)
- Not All ‘Bernie Bros’ Are ‘Angry Young Men.’ Meet Nathan J. Robinson. (The Daily Beast, Mar 2020, long*)
- https://www.wnyc.org/story/lesser-evil/?tab=transcript
- Do We Need a Breitbart of the Left? (Ear to the Pavement, May 2017, podcast interview] (ehhhh)
- Nathan J. Robinson Wants You to Be a Socialist (The Nation, Dec 2019)
- Review: New book describes ‘democratic socialist,’ strives to explain appeal to young people (Post & Courier, Nov 2019)
- Sustenance for the Movement: A Conversation with Nathan J. Robinson (LARB, Jan 2020, interview]
- https://jacobinmag.com/2019/12/nathan-robinson-why-you-should-be-a-socialist-interview
- https://www.adweek.com/creativity/here-is-rams-super-bowl-ad-this-time-with-mlk-blasting-the-evils-of-advertising/ (Adweek, Feb 2018)
- Nathan Robinson’s case for socialism (Vox, Jan 2020, podcast interview)
- Socialism Butterfly (Books Forum, Feb 2020, review)
- https://blog.lareviewofbooks.org/interviews/take-roses-seriously-talking-nathan-j-robinson/
- Here's a Very Smart and Informative Video Entitled "How We Know Brett Kavanaugh Is Lying" (Common Dreams, Dec 2018)
Minor:
- https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/us/politics/pete-buttigieg-2020-writing-message.html
- https://www.gq.com/story/all-of-brett-kavanaughs-lies
- https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/09/antifa-violence-tactics-anger-politics-attacks-liberals-too/
- https://www.dailydot.com/debug/where-is-biden/
- https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2017-jealousy-list/
Jlevi (talk) 10:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Progressive or Socialist?
I think it would be more accurate in the lede to describe Current Affairs as a socialist magazine. Considering how its editor-in-chief has written a book titled "Why you should be a socialist". It has a whole online section titled "socialism" with lots of pro- articles.[1] It seems that it would be more in spirit of the magazine to align it to socialism than, say, the progressivism of FDR or Teddy Roosevelt? - Meangreenbeanmachine (talk) 14:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Neutrality tag added
Regarding the wording of the introduction of the article and the innacurate labeling of the magazine as progressive rather than socialist the article has been tagged as possible non-neutral in nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.123.79 (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)