Talk:Chronicles (magazine)

Old comments

I have deleted a sentence about Buchanan starting the paleocon magazine The American Conservative, as (1) it is completely irrelevant to this article, (2) he had very little role in starting it, (3) it is not a paleocon magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.197.251 (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, actually, it is a paleocon magazine (or at least it was when it came out about five years ago; opinions differ as to whether it has substantively changed since then), and Buchanan had a major role in getting it going, but you are correct that there's very little reason to note any of that in an article about Chronicles. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Lubinskas

This is almost off-topic, and I don't care either way about the link, but in the comment on the removal - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronicles_%28magazine%29&diff=67435287&oldid=67369612- what's the basis for calling James Lubinskas a "neocon" (well, actually, this calls him a "necoon", but we all typo now and then)? I know of him mostly for his involvement with U.S. English, not a particularly neocon group, arguably more paleo (more precisely, having done a bit of web searching, he seems to be in with the Occidental Quarterly crowd, who don't call themselves paleo, but everyone else calls them that. Anyway, nothing neoconservative about them.) Or was the remark just offhand and didn't mean much? I'd be interested (and a bit surprised) if he actually has neoconservative ties or views. - Jmabel | Talk 19:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Selected articles

What criteria is being used to compile the list of selected articles? Any? Or is it just some editor picking articles that he likes? If it's the latter then it has no reason to exist. Acceptable criteria would be things like "most cited", "most read", "lead articles by month". -Will Beback · † · 01:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Simple: a list like this needs no criteria, also I'm sure you'll go looking to prove me wrong. By your logic, we'd have to delete every template, external links set, and category as OR as well. I think there are people who want to do that, but I find it unhelpful. Yakuman (数え役満) 01:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, every list needs a criteria, otherwise it's just the POV of the editor who added it. Since you are the editor who added it, please explain why you selected these articles. -Will Beback · † · 01:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"External Links," "Category," templates don't have specific criteria. You're welcome to your opinion, however. Every article is a list of suppositions about a subject. They need to be cited, but there's no criteria for the compilation. Yakuman (数え役満) 01:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

All of the articles listed are available in "external links" so there's no demonstrated reason to duplicate that content on the page. You've refused to give your rationale for picking these articles. We don't need this POV list of one Wikipedia editor's favorite articles. And "External Links," "Category," and templates do have guidelines. -Will Beback · † · 01:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"One Wikipedia editor's favorite articles" is a personal attack. I am not active in any political party or public policy organization. Please do not assume that my edits represent an agenda. I am committed to maintaining a neutral point of view in all articles I edit. Yakuman (数え役満) 02:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to delete the list again. If you'd like to add back any individual itmes, then please justify them even as we'd justify adding a template, category, or external link if questioned. -Will Beback · † · 02:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Article under Attack

This entry appears to be under attack by white nationalists who dislike the editor's frequent public denunciations of white nationalism. The material they are inserting on Chronicles' stand on immigration are not supported by the text in the references that they are citing--all that can be drawn from the text is that the editor (Thomas Fleming) has denounced white nationalists' obsession with "whiteness" and "the white community." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.136.63 (talk) 11:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Noted, but Wiki policy is always to assume WP:Good faith. Also be wary of making inflamatory statements such as the above; avoid name-calling. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort.

Now, when making the edits, you criticized the quotations of and references to primary sources. They were written and they are relevant. I have retained them, less the commentary. Let them stand as they are. -Castanea dentata (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Paleoconservative

The term "paleoconservative" used to describe this magazine comes from a book that can be searched on google books. The term is not anywhere in the book, and the specific page (p 155) as cited, is part of a larger chapter about fascism in Great Britain in the 1930's. An administrator (Will Beback) has restored this citation even though the comment I left the last time I removed the term "paleoconservative" stated this. I'm assuming this was done without him taking the time to verify the citation or lack of. The book is 'Fascism: Critical Concepts in Political Science', Roger Griffin, Taylor & Francis, 2004, p 155, ISBN=0415290201, 9780415290203 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.221.36 (talk • contribs)

My apologies for the mistaken citation. I'm not sure how I made that error. Here are a replacement cites:

• In the 1990s, Francis maintained a syndicated column in the paleocon Rockford Institute's Chronicles, ...[1]
• Thomas Fleming, editor of the paleoconservative journal Chronicles...[2]
• Kirk asked to have his name removed from the masthead of the paleo- conservative Chronicles.[3]
• [4]
• Instead, the paleoconservatives' organizational headquarters was the Illinois-based Rockford Institute, publisher of the paleos' monthly magazine Chronicles of Culture.[5]

Those are ample for the assertion. Please register an account and sign your talk page postings.   Will Beback  talk  17:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Paleoconservative 2

• The magazine is known for promoting anti-globalism and anti-intervention stances within conservative politics, and is characterized as "paleoconservative."

Why does this information keep getting removed by an anonymous user? The sources do check out, and so the deletions appear to be vandalism.   Will Beback  talk  16:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that an editor identifying himself as Scott P. Richert, now executive editor of Chronicles, has appeared on Wikipedia and described the magazine as "one of the two chief paleocon magazines". See Talk:Paleoconservatism/Archive#Sources.   Will Beback  talk  21:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

References

Ironically, the latest removal of the references & of the term paleoconservative both removed all the references that showed notability but left a reference that said that Chronicals proclaims itself to be paleoconservative. Dougweller (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The IP hopped from Pittsburgh (different IPs all geolocate to Pittsburgh) clearly doesn't care about what the references say, removing the word and leaving edit summaries that show that the references are being ignored. 05:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Dougweller (talk)

This article has been hijacked

This article is obviously being hijacked by someone unhappy with Chronicles.

It's true that some people were upset by the Spanish language articles at the Chronicles website, but these articles had nothing to do with immigration nor did they in any way change the tone of Chronicles overall. To say that "Chronicles has accepted more moderate approaches to Hispanic immigration and diversity" is not only misleading but false.

Not only does nearly every issue of Chronicles have an article critical of immigration and diversity, but the editors of Chronicles recently published a book, Immigration and the American Future, which is a hard-hitting critique of both illegal and legal immigration. Furthermore, Peter Brimelow is a regular contributor at Chronicles-related events, such as the John Randolph Club.

I'd recommend until a decent article can be written to have only a stub:

Chronicles is a U.S. monthly magazine published by the Rockford Institute. Its full current name is Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. The magazine is known for promoting anti-globalism and anti-intervention stances within conservative politics, and is considered one of the leading paleoconservative publications. Its present editor is Thomas Fleming. The executive editor is Scott P. Richert, Aaron D. Wolf is associate editor, and Chilton Williamson is the senior editor for books.

--CM732 (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The article appears to be well sourced, so deleting most of the contents wouldn't be the best solution. The Spanish language articles are mentioned in a neutral fashion, so I don't understand the concern with that. Also, the issues of immigration and diversity aren't even mentioned, though they probably should be. So perhaps the article should be enlarged rather than shortened.   Will Beback  talk  04:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I am taking your advice and enlarging the article. The current entry says: "Chronicles has accepted more moderate approaches to Hispanic immigration and diversity," for which there is no evidence. The articles referenced in Spanish have nothing to do with immigration or diversity. I'm also going to add a section on immigration and a section on controversies. The bit about the Spanish language articles (which I think is superfluous but I'll leave here since it seems important to others) will be moved to the controversies section.--CM732 (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone again is attempting to hijack this entry. May we please revert it to " 17:22, 17 November 2009 Barotoa (talk | contribs)". Thanks. --CM732 (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I reverted it back to above date, and I sent Marek69 a message regarding the hijacking of this page and why I reverted this entry. A disgruntled reader of Chronicles had wrought havoc with this entry. I tried to clean it up. I don't know why someone reverted it back to the hijacked form. As I say above, the hijacked version of this entry links to articles in Spanish that have nothing to do with immigration or diversity. It also attempts to divorce Chronicles from paleoconservatism although any credible source will list Chronicles as one of the leading paleoconservative publications. --CM732 (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Srđa Trifković

I understand that Srđa Trifković is no longer an editor. But he has been a contributor, right? The archive includes dozens of articles.[6] Just because he's no longer employed by the magazine doesn't mean he was not a contributor in the past.   Will Beback  talk  05:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and Trifkovic still writes sometimes for Chronicles. In fact, an article by him appears in the Dec. 2009 issue: "A Tale of Two Subversives." --CM732 (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Updates

Alphabetized names of articles and removed controversy section. I noticed that hardly any other magazines have a controversy section and the Auster "controversy" was so minor it doesn't warrant a section in itself. --CM732 (talk) 04:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Notable contributors

This, besides being unsourced, dwarfs the article and seems clearly there to make the magazine look important. I don't think we have such a section in many of our journal articles, do we? Dougweller (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It does seem extraordinary. There is a comparable list in Life (magazine), but that article is much longer.   Will Beback  talk  22:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge

We have two short stubs on the Rockford Institute and their magazine, Chronicles (magazine). Best practice is to merge the magazine into the org. Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Anything to do with the RI should be part of the RI article until that article grows too large. Dougweller (talk) 10:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

This topic has substantial coverage by multiple sources and qualifies under WP:N as a standalone article. In addition to the sources in the article, I found [7], [8] and [9]. Article should be expanded, not merged. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The article was created in 2004. Since that time, it has expanded to a total of 6,174 bytes. After removing the fluff, it is currently 2,054 bytes. The first source you offer, Murphy 2001, is a book about the Agrarian tradition in the American South and its influence on American conservatism.[10] It does not offer much more than what is already in the current article. The second source you offer, Frum 1995 is a book about the Republican Party. Like Muphy 2001, it does not offer much more than what is already in the current article. The third source you offer, Lubinskas 2000 is an article published in FrontPage Magazine, a source that is generally regarded as unreliable on Wikipedia. Feel free to see the archives at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Questions about notability are not under discussion, nor does the notability guideline have any bearing on whether this magazine requires a stand-alone page. When we have two short stubs that are related to one organization and haven't shown any growth in many, many years, best practice is to merge the two together, in particular, stubs dealing with a publication and it's parent org. Since it is unlikely that either article will expand beyond any great length at this time, there is no good reason not to merge them together. In fact, it is only after they have been expanded beyond a certain length that they should be split, so the process is backwards here. They should not have been created as two separate articles in the first place. To summarize, the daughter article (this one) is currently 2,054 bytes and the parent article (Rockford Institute) is 3,305 bytes. Merging them together results in a more complete coverage of the topic and expands the scope that already has a large overlap. As I've previously stated, there has already been enough time for expansion to occur on both articles, but both have remained stubs since 2004. Viriditas (talk) 12:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I just read the merge request that has been pending for a long time. I read that the articles were formed in 2004 and are still basic stubs so a merge could probably already have occurred without real objections.

Since no one came to any conclusion so far I would like to offer:

1)- Both articles are certainly nothing more than long term unimproved stubs,

2)- Both articles concern and organization and the publication of that organization that are linked. Clicking on the external link The Rockford Institute gives a redirect to the Chronicles website [11]

3)- Merging does not do away with the mentioned references that was presented as a case for separate articles but will make an improvement that has not seemed to have occurred since 2004.

There is a currently a consensus to merge so I would like to ask if someone would complete a merge for article improvement. Otr500 (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

There has been a discussion on this "source" talk page to merge that should have actually been discussed (according to WP:Merge) on the destination page but there was a proper link to this discussion. The discussion also did not follow normal protocol of support and oppose comments, however:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge Otr500 (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for new discussion

Hello everybody. The last discussion ended ten years ago about wether there should be a Rockford Institute wiki page or a Chronicles (magazine) page. The R-Institute is now defunct for many years. It seems illogical to report on the - still existing magazine - under the headline of a defunct institute. I therefore propose to open a new page specifically about the magazine. Pepe1979 (talk) 12:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Currently the Rockford Institute and its successor the Charlemagne Institute, which publishes the magazine, share a page. Llll5032 (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC)