Talk:Quadrant (magazine)

message: I'm the one who has included a fair deal of the information on the page, and a lot of it has come from Quadrant's websire, and the editions of it, especially it's 50th Anniversary series that featured articles on Quadrant history and its personalities. I'll leave the tag up there for some time to see if anyone can suggest further information with citations.schgooda 18:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Why "Quadrant"?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: I'm not sure if the line in the current article about Quadrant being supportive of Aboriginal rights (currently needing a citation) is accurate or justified, especially considering the current editors stance - " In The Fabrication of Aboriginal History and other recent writings on Australian Aboriginal history, Windschuttle has exclusively criticised left-wing historians who, he claims, have extensively misrepresented and fabricated historical evidence to support a political agenda. He argues that Aboriginal rights, including land rights and the need for reparations for past abuses of Aboriginal people, has been adopted as a left-wing 'cause' and that left-wing historians have manipulated the historical evidence to increase support for that cause." (from the current wiki article on Keith Windschuttle)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.201.225 (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed the line. Citations were requested 6 months ago. No citations were forthcoming. Therefore deletion was necessary. --Lester 02:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aboriginals 

message: I agree with the person who tagged the article: Having an entire and large subsection on this controversy gives undue weight to the topic. One article out of a 60+ year history does not seem to warrant an entire subsection, especially since there seems to be no long-term effects on the magazine.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 07:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of section on "2017 controversy" 

message: I've made these 'red links' following the discovery of Franklin's name being incorrectly linked at the top of the List of Old Xaverians article (yet another conservative Catholic connection for Quadrant). I'm 'assuming good faith' in that these listings are accurate and refer to the same person, but there's no citations or references I've seen that confirm this.
I'm hoping that all this will kick-start the long overdue creation of an article on Franklin, and I've started a Talk Page associated with the red links. It's a bit surprising that Franklin's huge scandal in May 2017 did not prompt a separate page for him, especially given that he was prepared to publish his own rapturous terrorist fantasies about the possibility of bombing the ABC's TV studios during the production of their Q&A programme and the consequent murder and carnage of people whom he apparently despised because of their progressive views. The episode of the ABC'S Media Watch that covered this (and Franklin's background) would seem to be the one of the best starting points given the apparent dearth of other source (the relevant Media Watch episode can be found here). 
In addition, this article on Quadrant needs some good secondary sources to balance and complement the numerous (and somewhat self-serving) details sourced from the magazine itself. It also urgently needs balance by the inclusion of more neutral views as well as those from the magazine's many critics. 
Cheers! 110.22.191.65 (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Red links' for 'Roger Franklin (journalist)'; need for more secondary sources. 

message: , it doesn't matter that the article name has changed, so long as there's still a redirect. It's potentially useful to indicate the date in this article, so why remove it? You didn't write an edit summary, so my revert was justified. Instead of reverting mine, you should have taken it to the talk page. Please self-revert. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversion

message: I modified the Lead to state upfront, in wikivoice, that Quadrant is conservative, and removed the “independent observers have labeled it conservative” bit. I also turned the Lead into one paragraph rather than having one large paragraph and then one tiny paragraph. 
The reason for doing this is WP:NPOV, specifically WP:YESPOV. Stating that “independent observers label it X” when there are no contradictory labelings just means “reliable sources label it X.” When WP:RS label something X and there are no contradictory RS descriptions, we can and should, per NPOV, simply call the thing X in wikivoice. ThanksForHelping (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight modification to Lead