Talk:Current Affairs (magazine)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Requested move 12 May 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Current Affairs (magazine) → Current Affairs – Sufficiently precise without parenthetical per WP:DIFFCAPS. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Possible sources[edit]

(warning: mostly about Robinson, rather than CA. The best for CA content by far is the Daily Beast article.)

Minor:

Opinion:https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-immorality-of-nathan-robinsons-far-left-american-revolution

Jlevi (talk) 10:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive or Socialist?[edit]

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)[reply]

Neutrality tag added[edit]

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)[reply]

Huh. Surprisingly, sources seem to describe it mostly as "left-leaning"[1], "progressive"[2], or "leftist independent media"[3]. If you want to change that, you'll need to find reliable sources describing it otherwise. (Also just not a big enough issue to require a page tag--you could alternatively just use the template POV-inline.[neutrality is disputed]) Jlevi (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.currentaffairs.org/category/socialism

Very few high quality sources on this page[edit]

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)[reply]

I agree with your comments and suggest that the page should be shortened to remove trivial content. I made an edit to that effect which was reverted, so I've started a discussion below. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss trivial content per WP:BRD[edit]

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)[reply]

Hallo, and thanks for starting the discussion. I’m baffled as to why you chose to delete that particular section of text. I could understand if you had deleted the ‘Finances and staffing’ or the ‘Content’ section, (though on balance I would be in favour of keeping these sections) but the part you deleted is almost the only part of the article which refers to outside notice being taken of this magazine. Please explain. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to explain above; I feel these sentences are trivial content that do not add to the article. They represent the day-to-day work of a newsmagazine and do not need to be included per WP:VNOT. To me, it appears that these sentences are in the article simply to bolster the subject's claim to influence and notability. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. If you think that the inf is trivial, this may, perhaps, be an argument for deleting the article: but while the article still exists, these sentences should be kept. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain your thinking further? Not sure I understand your argument. Let's give it some time to see if other editors weigh in and consensus develops. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To Ganesha811: my view is that this inf shows that this small magazine has had significant notice taken of it, and therefore is noteworthy. But as you say, let’s wait for more views from other editors. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Current_Affairs_(magazine)&oldid=1206847981"