Talk:Crikey (electronic magazine)

Untitled

An ad.

Added some critisisms of Crikey. That should solve the problem of it looking like something promotional. I would like to see bits of it rewritten as it does still seem to have a slight POV problem. - Bambul ☯ 06:24, 1 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It had a slight POV problem before, but it now has a much worse and obvious bias - against Crikey this time. The ban from the lockup was more complicated than that; the defamation claims are made to sound the worst possible without any context, and there's no mention of the many times they have indeed been right, or the changes they've managed to force. On the other side of the equation, it also doesn't address the many complaints about Crikey's quality since the PMP takeover. Ambi 06:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Was the lockup ban really about Crikey's reporting? It didn't really affect the commentary - Crikey hardly needs up to the minute access. It was more of a slight against its media credentials. Have tried to add some more objective info.--Jack Upland 03:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is its political slant - the 3 main names mentioned on the page are Liberals (sort of)? -Matthew238 23:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a whole, it doesn't really have one. Mayne is a bit of an eccentric (former Liberal, then People Power, then unaligned), and Beecher is more of a media figure than a political one. It does take on a right-wing slant, however, as their main political correspondent, Christian Kerr, is an ex-Liberal staffer who is ideologically very similar to Andrew Bolt. Rebecca 02:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Kerr is more intellectual and less extreme than Bolt, though he is clearly more right-wing than Mayne. I would say the writers are generally 'socially liberal' free marketeers, representing the often-discussed segment of former Liberal-supporters that has increasingly become alienated from the Howard Government due to its lack of accountability, dog-whistling racism, and 'social conservatism' (influence of the Religious Right etc). It is notable, however, that many of its readers, as evidenced by its Comments section, are left-wing. There are a number of contradictions in the general political line, such as:

Animosity to unions, except the Media Union which represents them.
Sympathy to environmentalism but antagonism to green groups.
Willingness to take up leftwing causes (civil liberties, social reform) but antagonism to identifiable leftists.
Championing of open debate but vilification and dismissal of unions, greens, and leftists.--Jack Upland 00:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split the article?

Shouldn't this article be split into one on the word crikey and another on crikey.com.au? --130.226.173.20 09:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should be on the term, not the site. And 'squatter' seems pov.

I agree! Why focus on just one company rather than the general word. Especially now given the death of Irwin.

It makes sense to have two different articles (at least). But Irwin's death isn't a good reason - it will only generate transient interest.--Jack Upland 23:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now done this. In a pedantic way, which others should feel free to improve.--Jack Upland 11:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a dab page

This page does not qualify as a disambiguation page per WP:DAB policy. The policy specifically states that there should NOT be disambiguation for dictionary definitions, and also that disambiguation pages should be for similarly TITLED pages, not just for related comments. I am redirecting this page to the only link with Crikey in the name. -- cmh^TC 05:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem remains:

The expression exists in its own right. I've just deleted a comment about "crikey" being antisemitic in South Africa!
The expression is currently linked with Steve Irwin

--Jack Upland 06:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand these issues, however, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wiktionary is. Unless there is some encyclopedic treatment of the word then it doesn't merit its own article. Irwin's use of Crikey is well-treated at Steve Irwin. -- cmh^TC 18:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but perhaps we could have a dab page mentioning Irwin's movie, catchphrase etc and directing people to his page and also directing to this page. The problem is that there seems to be a lot of traffic which is coming here and causing havoc.--Jack Upland 10:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the dab policy specifically says that dab pages are for paths leading to different topic pages that share essentially the same term in their title. Steve Irwin and Crikey do NOT have the same words in their title, and are not appropriate on the same disambiguation page. Could you explain what you mean by "havoc"? I don't see a problem to solve here right now. -- cmh^TC 13:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The havoc seems to have passed and was probably related to Irwin's death. For instance, as mentioned above, someone had said in the Criticism section that "crikey" was antisemitic in South Africa. Obviously not related to the magazine. And clearly from the above comments people were coming here looking for Irwin and the charity that's been set up.--Jack Upland 23:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italicize?

Shouldn't the name of this magazine's title be italicized? It's still a magazine. —Jared Hunt September 9, 2006, 03:25 (UTC)

Wikiproject Computing

I have removed the WikiProject tag, as this article is either a redirect or deleted. If you oppose, please restore the tag. Thank you, fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 16:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]