This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is Australia's only nation-wide anti-capitalist newspaper. What about "Socialist Worker"? Andjam 23:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
According to the wikipedia description of far or radical left, the newspaper does not qualify and its articles are in line with the centre left-wing description. If you can argue otherwise fine, but do not change it without an explanation please.
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)
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)
This is basically what the "newspaper" is about. Your best source to verify it would be to skim through it yourself.
The whole entry needs scrapping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.232.64 ( talk) 16:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is all about the problem of using a simple and simplistic one or two words to describe what is obviously a complex situation. It's not as simple as a political party with fixed policies, and we have problems labelling them! The positions of different writers for this publication are going to vary. It's wrong too to think that political orientation sits on some simple, one-dimensional linear scale. We need to describe what the paper typically says, and does, and let readers assign their own labels in their own minds if they feel the need. If a reliable source says that the journal is far left, or whatever, we can include that, but must attribute it very clearly to that source with appropriate words, e.g. "The Mercurial Australian Herald has described the Green Left Weekly as from the loony left", and then link to the source. HiLo48 ( talk) 00:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
How high is the circulation? - Thylacin ( talk) 12:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is Australia's only nation-wide anti-capitalist newspaper. What about "Socialist Worker"? Andjam 23:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
According to the wikipedia description of far or radical left, the newspaper does not qualify and its articles are in line with the centre left-wing description. If you can argue otherwise fine, but do not change it without an explanation please.
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)
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)
This is basically what the "newspaper" is about. Your best source to verify it would be to skim through it yourself.
The whole entry needs scrapping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.232.64 ( talk) 16:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is all about the problem of using a simple and simplistic one or two words to describe what is obviously a complex situation. It's not as simple as a political party with fixed policies, and we have problems labelling them! The positions of different writers for this publication are going to vary. It's wrong too to think that political orientation sits on some simple, one-dimensional linear scale. We need to describe what the paper typically says, and does, and let readers assign their own labels in their own minds if they feel the need. If a reliable source says that the journal is far left, or whatever, we can include that, but must attribute it very clearly to that source with appropriate words, e.g. "The Mercurial Australian Herald has described the Green Left Weekly as from the loony left", and then link to the source. HiLo48 ( talk) 00:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
How high is the circulation? - Thylacin ( talk) 12:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)