Talk:Quadrant (magazine)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Is Quadrant conservative? It's more of a liberal magazine (though with a conservative bent...).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lewd199 (talkcontribs) 13:41, 18 October 2006.

Quadrant is absolutely conservative. It is beloved of John Howard and his conservative backers. Quadrant dinners are where you'll find Howard and Costello giving speeches to their biggest fans. Whatever Quadrant was in the past, today it is the magazine of the Australian right, drifting further to the right along with the Howard government. You use the term "liberal" (small l), making me wonder if you're confusing it with Liberal (big L), which is ironically the name of Australia's ruling conservative party. The party got its name from economic liberalism (support of free markets) and is opposed to liberals. See Liberal conservatism and Liberal Party of Australia. 07:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Quadrant is "the magazine of the Australian right". But the "right" side of politics is also different to being conservative. If the magazine has commentary and suggests changes to society that are radically different to what we have now, then it is not conservative. Do people not like being described as "left" or "right" in politics? I don't think anybody would consider Quadrant to be "left-wing". Lester2 03:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I somehow feel sure that the Adelaide Institute and the Australian League of Rights don't get much of a look-in. So "magazine of the Australian right" is not true, is it?
<rant> Lester2 has hit upon a sore point: in American politics, "conservative" does not mean "conservative" (and "liberal" does not always mean "liberal" either, but that's a different rant). Whereas (for example) some British Conservative leaders have been conservative in the sense of "opposed to all change", U.S. conservatives are conservative in the narrower sense of "wanting to preserve certain, specific things". And, of course, these days Australians use the word in both senses. So the meaning of the word, which I for one would have liked to conserve, has been lost. (Suggested replacement: "reactionary".) I've given up, and now go with the American sense. </rant>
Following my recent edit, so does this article. IMO, "right wing" is far too large and vague a category, whereas "conservative" is the best short label I can think of.
I also found and quoted something from about their political stance. Cheers, CWC 10:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Hate to burst a bubble but it was set up by the CIA if you look at their article under Congress of Cultural Freedom a CIA front.petedavo 04:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, like most things funded by the CCF, it was started independently and later got CCF funding, IIRC. During the 50s there were CIA/CCF people going around giving away millions of (US) dollars of US taxpayer's money, sometimes very foolishly. Quadrant was one of their better 'investments'. Cheers, CWC 13:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


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)


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


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 (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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)