Talk:The Advertiser (Adelaide)

Page move
This page has been moved to The Advertiser (Australia) with The Advertiser now a disambiguation page. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I have just added an info box. Could somebody please fill in who the current editor is. Regards -- Ianblair23 (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Since the other main page titled "The Advertiser" is The Advertiser (Bendigo), I am moving this to The Advertiser (Adelaide). --Xyzzyva 07:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Takeover date?
Taken over by News Limited in 1990? Centre-Left until then? That is not my recollection at all. My recollection is (a) it was owned by Murdoch at least by the last 80s; (b) it has been right-of-centre since the 70s, though to the centre-left on some social issues such as abortion; (c) sometime in the 80s it gave editorial support to Labor (Bannon I think, though possibly Hawke) for the first in 50 years (indicating solidly right up until then); (d) It also gave editorial support for Rann at the last election Rocksong 01:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"conservative"
Can this be removed? The advertiser is far from being conservative, just like it far from being liberal. If there was such a thing as 'idiot populist' it would best describe them, but in lieu it should just be 'populist'. Michael talk 06:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think conservative is fairly accurate. Populist/ Conservative would be true as well. Known for embellishing beyond reason to ensure sales also could be added. Is far to preachy and moralistic and lets this get in the way of facts. Of course that’s all summed up by tabloid.


 * I would tend to agree with that too 130.220.153.169 (talk) 05:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

COI template
User:Kucheld has made dramatic edits to this article, and an anonymous user made an edit to an article he created that claims the article reflects official Advertiser copy. Based on the sweeping changes made and that comment, I felt it prudent to note the possibility of a conflict of interest. Erechtheus 02:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Advertiser front page 12-12-2005.jpg
Image:Advertiser front page 12-12-2005.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Media Watch
I've deleted 2 paragraphs plus a category entry, all related to a single story on Media Watch (TV program). If WP documented every Media Watch appearance, the pages of every media outlet in Australia would get clogged very quickly. I think the appropriate course of action is that a mention on Media Watch alone does not make an incident notable enough for WP; and that it only becomes notable when a Media-Watch-uncovered scandal gets wider coverage (e.g. cash for comment affair or "Barcelona Tonight"). Peter Ballard (talk) 06:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see what this has to do with undue weight, since it's not about viewpoints. Unlike cash for comment affair this story was linked to an international controversy. --129.241.151.140 (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The new logo
The Advertiser's logo has since been replaced with a more simpler version than the one shown on the article. will this be updated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.211.72 (talk) 04:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)