Jump to content

Talk:Quasimodo (magazine)

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Quasimodo (magazine). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Political alignment

[edit]

I have tagged the infobox's claim of a conservative political stance as disputed, not necessarily because I think this is implausible or untrue, but because it is unsourced and seems to conflict with the main content of the article. The only substantial content in the article, which has been largely unchanged since 2007, is essentially a list of complaints that the magazine had about its censorship by the Catholic university. This suggests, at least to me, that the magazine was not actually that conservative. It is entirely possible, even likely, that the magazine was conservative and that these were relatively isolated incidents possibly only related to a single editor, but in the absence of better sources (which I've failed to find) I remain a bit sceptical. 5225C (talk • contributions) 08:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]