![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
(warning: mostly about Robinson, rather than CA. The best for CA content by far is the Daily Beast article.)
Minor:
Jlevi ( talk) 10:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
Unfortunately, very little of the page's current content is backed by RSs; of the page's 33 footnotes, 16 refer to a Current Affairs article or webpage, two to tweets, two to Googledocs, and one to Nathan J. Robinson's personal page at Harvard. Very few of these, if any, are acceptable WP:SECONDARY. The effect is to make the page seem like a promotional (on that score, perhaps it is worth double checking that no editors have a COI to declare), and that is not appropriate.
It seems to me that one could proceed via one of three routes. The most extreme would be to say that if an insufficient number of RSs can be found then the topic of the page is not notable and the page should be deleted; one could also suggest that better sources be found to support the existing content, or, third, that portions of the article be eliminated if no suitable RS exists. For my part, I do think CA is notable and deserves a Wikipedia page, and I'd opt for some blend of the second and third routes. I imagine other editors here will have views, and hopefully some of them can find suitable sources (I have tried to add one or two just now). If I don't hear back from anyone in the next week or so and am not able to find much more myself, I will either add an appropriate tag to the page or start making the necessary deletions - but I hope we can work together to keep a page that is both content-rich and also meets the minimum Wikiquality threshold. Publius In The 21st Century ( talk) 20:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Sweet6970; coming here to discuss per WP:BRD. I removed those sentences because they were trivial. All magazines publish articles, some of which generate discussion, and there is nothing exceptional about the articles mentioned here. I'm not sure why they should be mentioned here. —Ganesha811 ( talk) 12:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
I think it could be organized and written better, but it makes sense to me to reference articles that got mainstream attention and show the magazine's writing style. North Carolina Man ( talk) 18:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
It's really not for editors to say whether the content of the articles is "exceptional", but the description of an article as an exhaustive refutation of a SCOTUS nominee's testimony seems exceptional. And the articles were literally "exceptional" in the way that the text says: one resulted in inviting the author and publisher to discuss it on a highly notable widely syndicated radio show, and the other was quoted in the highly notable and widely read New York Times. To ignore these aspects of the text and call it trivial
and merely representative of the day-to-day work
of the publication is a mischaracterization. And in re it appears that these sentences are in the article simply to bolster the subject's claim to influence and notability
(which actually contradicts the dismissive language) -- bolstered by whom? Please assume the good faith of the editor who added the material. And
WP:VNOT isn't relevant--the text was not included merely because it was verified. Finally, from
WP:BRD: Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen.
--
Jibal (
talk)
02:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
(warning: mostly about Robinson, rather than CA. The best for CA content by far is the Daily Beast article.)
Minor:
Jlevi ( talk) 10:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
Unfortunately, very little of the page's current content is backed by RSs; of the page's 33 footnotes, 16 refer to a Current Affairs article or webpage, two to tweets, two to Googledocs, and one to Nathan J. Robinson's personal page at Harvard. Very few of these, if any, are acceptable WP:SECONDARY. The effect is to make the page seem like a promotional (on that score, perhaps it is worth double checking that no editors have a COI to declare), and that is not appropriate.
It seems to me that one could proceed via one of three routes. The most extreme would be to say that if an insufficient number of RSs can be found then the topic of the page is not notable and the page should be deleted; one could also suggest that better sources be found to support the existing content, or, third, that portions of the article be eliminated if no suitable RS exists. For my part, I do think CA is notable and deserves a Wikipedia page, and I'd opt for some blend of the second and third routes. I imagine other editors here will have views, and hopefully some of them can find suitable sources (I have tried to add one or two just now). If I don't hear back from anyone in the next week or so and am not able to find much more myself, I will either add an appropriate tag to the page or start making the necessary deletions - but I hope we can work together to keep a page that is both content-rich and also meets the minimum Wikiquality threshold. Publius In The 21st Century ( talk) 20:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Sweet6970; coming here to discuss per WP:BRD. I removed those sentences because they were trivial. All magazines publish articles, some of which generate discussion, and there is nothing exceptional about the articles mentioned here. I'm not sure why they should be mentioned here. —Ganesha811 ( talk) 12:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
I think it could be organized and written better, but it makes sense to me to reference articles that got mainstream attention and show the magazine's writing style. North Carolina Man ( talk) 18:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
It's really not for editors to say whether the content of the articles is "exceptional", but the description of an article as an exhaustive refutation of a SCOTUS nominee's testimony seems exceptional. And the articles were literally "exceptional" in the way that the text says: one resulted in inviting the author and publisher to discuss it on a highly notable widely syndicated radio show, and the other was quoted in the highly notable and widely read New York Times. To ignore these aspects of the text and call it trivial
and merely representative of the day-to-day work
of the publication is a mischaracterization. And in re it appears that these sentences are in the article simply to bolster the subject's claim to influence and notability
(which actually contradicts the dismissive language) -- bolstered by whom? Please assume the good faith of the editor who added the material. And
WP:VNOT isn't relevant--the text was not included merely because it was verified. Finally, from
WP:BRD: Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen.
--
Jibal (
talk)
02:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)