Talk:Green Left (Australian newspaper)

message: It is Australia's only nation-wide anti-capitalist newspaper. What about "Socialist Worker"? Andjam 23:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Only nation-wide newspaper? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  John Pilger quote 

message: 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)
replies: text: I would also add that the info being repeatedly inserted is totally unsourced. Johnfos (talk) 11:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Fostering anger?

message: 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)
thread_title:  History 

message: Hi there, the article says it was founded in 1990, but the 20th anniversary celebrations are happening in 2011. The page is in the category fr 1991 foundations. Can we clear that up?--Duncan (talk) 10:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  1991 or 1990? 

message: I would like to suggest that since it is highly unlikely that a national newspaper advocates in support of terrorism the description of wrongly is accurate. It is also widely known that the Australian publishes material which is biased against the far left. If the Green Left Weekly does support terrorism then a source to support that claim in needed. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not the paper does support terrorism is not the issue for the Wikipedia article surely? There is a citation for the claim that the paper has been accused of supporting terrorism - that is not the same as saying the paper does support terrorism. Is is clearly POV to add the word "wrongly". That is your judgement. Someone else may think the word "rightly" is appropriate there. My view is that neither rightly or wrongly are appropriate in this article (without proper citation). Ytic nam (talk) 11:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accusation of supporting terrorism 

message: While it's fine for editors to have their own individual opinions, we need our material to be reliably sourced. That is, we report the facts and views of third parties. --Pete (talk) 05:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Far left can used to describe violent guerilla and separatist movements.  I think this newspaper is more moderate than far left. However the far-left politics article itself is very problematic.  You are correct an inline citation for such a description is needed whichever is the most correct term. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not too fussed on the precise identification of their political stance. In fact it may not even be possible - "chaotic" is an adjective that springs to my mind - but I do think we should have a good source for any label, and a consensus if there's any controversy. Having a new editor adjust the article according to gut feeling is not quite the thing, though i do welcome the participation. --Pete (talk) 05:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

text: We describe the Australian Labor Party as centre-left, a term which has been stable for a while. My recollection of Green Left Weekly is that they are quit a bit further leftwards of the ALP in their views. Perhaps a regular reader could comment? --Pete (talk) 07:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Yes traditionally the ALP is viewed as centre-left, however since Hawke/Keating it has moved to the centre. This re-alignment puts the views of the GLW more at the the center-left in the australian political context, and the wikipedia article on  center-left matches the views of the GLW. I do agree with omitting the centre-left/far left from the description altogether as specific labels such as these can only cause confusion. Perhaps just use the general term "left"?  (talk)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.13.128.104 (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The point I am making is that we - meaning Wikipedia - describe the stance of the ALP as centre-left. If we also describe the GLW as centre-left, then we are saying they share a common political ground. My feeling is that they do not, and that the GLW stands well to the left of the ALP. If you feel that the ALP occupies the centre, then perhaps you should seek to change our description there. The two go hand in hand. --Pete (talk) 04:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Not sure "socialist" is a precise label. Not sourced, either. --Pete (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green? Left? Weekly? 

message: How high is the circulation? - Thylacin (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circulation