Talk:Green Left (Australian newspaper)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

It's a statement of fact. I merely reverted simple vandalism. --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. --Pete 05:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Pretty mundane use of "radical," even though it does serve to reify the normative POV. "Radical" views include things like opposition to trade in commodities made by children and prisoners. The normative point of view is that this is a break on "free trade." Still, as Pete notes, the adjective is not exactly shunned by the far left. My question is, Do we really need a FACT tag on that word? It's pretty ugly and, I think, unnecessary. --Dylanfly 17:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Fostering anger?

I am again removing the IP rant about ... "primary focus in all stories is to foster anger at the United States, Israel and the Judeo/Christian empire." This sort of language is not encyclopedic or neutral. Johnfos (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I would also add that the info being repeatedly inserted is totally unsourced. Johnfos (talk) 11:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

History

I remember a few months ago this article had a little section about the history of the newsletter which was quite interesting. I added a reference to how early sponsors had been the Australian Democrats. The text was removed even though I had a GLW article citation that says specficially: "Democrat Senators Sid Spindler and Janet Powell were early sponsors of the Green Left Weekly project". To know your future you must know your past :) 124.168.11.51 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC).

creepy that the history details have been purged 203.206.162.25 (talk) 02:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)