Talk:The Guardian/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Political alignment and controversies

That section seems incredibly POV. All it seems to be doing is pointing out "wrong" opinions the paper has had and the criticism forthwith. --91.109.49.44 (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree absolutely. Any DAILY newspaper can't help but have many controversies and inconsistencies occur, over the decades. But this list just seems designed to imply that the paper's overall stance is very far from where it really is. Highly POV. Boldymumbles (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Top

Its international reprint weekly is titled Manchester Guardian Weekly, which leads Americans to frequently refer to the British version as the Manchester Guardian though this has not been its name for many years.

Hmmm... the Guardian Weekly section of the Guardian's website refers to it as just that, and the British Library catalogue of newspapers doesn't indicate that it switched back to being the MGW. A Google search seems to find mainly American sources like the NYU library catalog. I can't help wondering whether the Weekly is sold as the MGW in America but not worldwide, or something like that. --rbrwrˆ

This may be a case of its use for disambiguation purposes, much like The Times being catalogued as The London Times. Mintguy (T)

...in which case the recently-added passage quoted above is essentially wrong. But it still seems to be commonplace for US libraries to refer to it as the Manchester Guardian Weekly, even where they use The Times [London] or some other method of disambiguation for other papers. Some (see the NYU link above) also suggest it went back to being the MGW in 1978, as does the edit summary by 12.144.5.2. Furthermore, The Library of Congress catalogues it as GW from 1968 to 1984 ("Sometimes published as Manchester guardian weekly, Jan. 1, 1972-Dec. 30, 1972; Dec. 17, 1978-Jan. 7, 1979"), MGW from 1985 to 2000 ("Scattered issues have title: Guardian weekly, 1999") and GW again from 2000. This is starting to make a it more sense, though I'd still like to know whether GMG uses the MGW title oficially anywhere at the moment.--rbrwrˆ

Grrr. Those LoC links were tied to a session and have timed out. --rbrwrˆ

Note, They have a forum which has many virtues. many erudite posters, but... is extremely poorly moderated. For instance, they have two 'policies' pages, one is extremely liberal (the one which is available from the ordinary users pages) and has four elements. The worst censure there is is "ocassional" removal of text, which "they really hate to do". They have another, hidden ( if one sees the first (s)he will not expect a second ) much longer and leads to banning at the drop of a hat. I've seen gangs of posters hunting down and mercilessly harrasing individuals with no response from mods after complaints. When the offended returns the offense (s)he is banned. No sense of context, no even hand, capricious acts of destruction, give the guardian a bad name. Thus an instutution of potentially great global signifigance is whittled down to a shadow of it's potential. If only the Guardian would take moderation seriously, we might expect great things from their 'talkboards'. Wblakesx

---

Let me summarize the main points of the Introduction section:

1. The Guardian is known for carrying an extraordinary amount of typographical errors.
2. Its readers are a bunch of weirdos.

Not exactly NPOV, eh? Doesn't the paper have some positive qualities? regards, High on a tree 15:35, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

I've just removed the following sentence: "There is a section of the educated British Middle Class that consider the Guardian to be a relatively good newspaper, marred largely by anti-middle-class rants by intellectual journalists who come from a middle-class background. " This seems to me a bit POV, a bit trivial, and not really encyclopedic; all it's really saying is that some readers like some contributers to the paper less than others, and that's probably true of most newspapers, at least most of those in which the words outnumber the pictures. seglea 18:52, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I spotted this addition earlier and meant to revisit it once I got home. It is just the view of... some people. I think it's a weasle word too far. --rbrwrˆ 19:04, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"a weasle word too far", nice phrase, I quite like it! WblakesxWblakesx

Screen Burn controversy

I reverted this addition:

Immediately preceding the 2004 election, the paper, in an editorial, called for the assassination of George W. Bush. While the paper tried to explain that it was a joke, it nonetheless hurt the newspaper's standing and credibility.

Well, yes, the paper did explain that it was a joke (as well as apologising), which is reasonable given that it wasn't in an editorial but in a humorous column ("Screen Burn") in the TV listings supplement. It is already mentioned in the article on Charlie Brooker, who wrote the column. Did this really have any long-term effect on the paper's standing? It seems like a storm in a teacup to me, but I'm a long-term Guardian loyalist. --rbrwr^± 21:45, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I believe that this comment did damage the Guardian's standing. It typifies the kind of offensive comment that the paper treats as being ok if directed at a perceived political opponent. I think the article as a whole is too generous to Britian's crummiest broadsheet.

Charlie Brooker is well-known for his irreverent humour and scathing wit and his piece calling for a new Booth or Oswald was to be taken in that context. The only long-term impact would seem to be a few disgruntled Americans. I would suggest that most Brits have moved on and see it as a lot of fuss about nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveRamone (talk • contribs) 20:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Operation Clarke County

I've added this:

The point of this venture was for the writers to give Clarke County voters a taste of international opinion. The Guardian's web pages describing how to get the name and address of a Clarke County resident stressed that this campaign in no way encouraged letter writers to endorse any candidate in the election.

I know this because I actually got the name of a resident of Clarke County from the Guardian's web site. I didn't send a letter as I know that I'd resent an outsider 'explaining' my countries politics to me.

Long live The Guardian, one of the few voices of reason in the British press. Alun Parsons

I think a better title would be the Clark County fiasco. There had been mounting evidence that urging foreigners to send anti-Bush letters to Clark County - an isolated slice of the rural mid-West.--Crt101 02:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Cutting down OCC section to more concise summary

I think it's time the OCC section was reduced to a short summary within the main text. The episode is a pretty tiny affair in the paper's history which appears to have gained undue weight simply because many Americans heard about it. Joe D (t) 23:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I quite agree. Another example of systemic bias. Big deal in the USA, nothing to write home about anywhere else in the world (particularly the UK, which is the papers target readership anyway). This gets loads of attention here in wikipedia, due to the disproportionate influence the USA has on this sort of project.Alun 20:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

purpose of name

It was decided to call the newspaper the Manchester Guardian. A prospectus was published which explained the aims and objectives of the proposed newspaper. It included the passage: "It will zealously enforce the principles of civil and religious Liberty, it will warmly advocate the cause of Reform; it will endeavour to assist in the diffusion of just principles of Political Economy."

source: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRguardian.htm --Mick2 16:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Typos uncommon? Serious?

I would dispute the assertion that typos are now uncommon. And what the hell is a "serious broadsheet"? I know this is a term often used in the UK to differentiate papers from the tabloids (mainly because the tabloids have much much higher circulations) but it's not common elsewhere. Shermozle 12:45, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think it no longer has the reputation for an excessive or exceptional number of typos - obviously, anything with a turnaround as short as a daily newspaper will have some, but I don't think the "Grauniad" is any worse than any others these days. But I could be wrong.

As for "serious broadsheet", by all means clarify it - I notice Broadsheet#Connotations is similarly biased towards this UK viewpoint. To a UK reader, "serious broadsheet" is almost tautological already; it's not to do with "higher circulations", it's to do with [perceived] difference in editorial style, focus and attitude. The Sun and Daily Sport are undeniably different from, say, The Times and The Guardian; "tabloid" vs "braodsheet" is (or was until recently) just a neat short-hand for referring to that difference. - IMSoP 19:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, what IMSoP said. I'd add that I read the Guardian on a regular basis in paper format and I certainly don't feel that typos are common. The ones that do slip through are mostly homophones, with which they have a certain amount of fun in the "Corrections and Clarifications" column. The real point is that in the 1960s, when the paper was seriously under-resourced and editing and compositing functions were split in various ways between London and Manchester, typos really were common. --rbrwr^± 19:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also read the Guardian regularly and I have to say that typos occur quite regularly (I find it's typically omission). And also design (?) errors where the end of an article (last paragraph, last few sentences) is simply lost. I find this incredibly annoying. Regardless, an argument about uncommon / common is kind of pointless (one man's blah blah is another's yadda yadda). And this whole issue should be repackaged as one of reputation, and written with a light-hearted touch. And maybe a link to a famous Guardian article (I remember a mention in the Guiness Book of Records 1985 -- if anybody's got a copy! -- about an article with hundreds of spelling mistakes including calling the pope, the pop); or the attribute mis-quote about worst tea[m]: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1019882,00.html. Which has a whole article discussing this sort of thing.--Jones77 07:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The point is, though, there was a time when the Guardian was much much worse than any other newspaper for typos and other similar errors. It is now no worse than any other newspaper. Common/regular is neither here nor there, since typos are both common and regular in any newspaper - the question is whether it is something the Guardian has a particular problem with any more. And the answer to that is: no. --Dannyno 19:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

And I'll add that broadsheet never meant anything to do with circulation, and while dictionaries no doubt still define it as the size of a sheet of paper it really has come to be a synonym of "serious editorial style", as the Times and Independent are still described as broadsheets despite no longer being that size. Joe D (t) 19:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I should be clearer what I meant by the "circulation" part... I'm talking about how papers, when either pitching for readers or advertisers, use ther term "serious" to differentiate themselves. So you get "The biggest circulation _serious_ daily", to differentiate themselves from, say, The Sun, which has a vastly higher circ than all the broadsheets. As for typos, well I guess I do this stuff for a living so it jumps out at me. Shermozle 09:25, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so what do you think is in need of elucidation about "serious broadsheet"? Is it the nature of the seriousness? It seems to me that there are a number of aspects to that:

• The news agenda is led by politics and world news rather than entertainment, celebrity and sports stories
• There is relatively little use of humour in the news pages
• The language is more complicated (reported in some places as a reading age of 13 vs. 7 for the Sun, though I don't know the origin of that claim)

...or is it the overloading of the term "broadsheet" to mean both a large-format newspaper and a serious or upmarket paper? That is dealt with in broadsheet and I suspect it would be somewhat of a digression in this article. However, if it can be dealt with in a reasonably elegant phrase, it would be a good idea. After all, we don't want to confuse people just because they're not au fait with the UK newspaper market. --rbrwr^± 21:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Although it would be useful to explain quickly if we could for non UK readers, it is a UK newspaper and its place in the UK newspaper market is necessarily going to involve concepts more familiar in the UK, so maybe its not worth worrying about that much. After all we can link to broadsheet articles137.138.46.155 14:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Dilpazier Aslam

The paragraph starting "The stereotype was further re-enforced" in "The Guardian in the popular imagination" seems out of place in this section. Has the Guardian's image been affected by Aslam's article and the writer's termination?

A mention of the firing of Aslam could be put in the history section, although I am not sure it is worth mentioning. This might be a case of a current interest getting too much space in a Wikipedia article. For instance, there have surely been cases of columnists or other writers at the Guardian leaving or being fired in politically relevant circumstances over the years, haven't there? If so, they would seem to have been forgotten in the greater sweep of events.

I'm not sure if it should be mentioned in the article. Any comments? -- User:Robertbyrne.

It does strike me as a bit of a storm in a teacup - an example of Wikipedia's tendency to give undue prominence to very recent changes, and to internet-related stories like a "significant victory for bloggers". I also think you're right to say it's out of place, as it's about the actions of the paper's editors and management, not about the readers (who are the subject of the stereotype in question). It's thus something of a non-sequitur as it is. On the other hand I don't want to take sole responsibility for removing it (I'll spare you my Guardian reader's angst about being NPOV about the Guardian). --rbrwr^± 07:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure it is a storm in a tea cup. Islamist terrorism is obviously not going to go away in a hurry. As an issue it will be around for some time to come. Of course it has affected the Guardian's image! Why else would they have sacked him? I do not agree it is out of place either as it goes with the general stereotype of the paper as self-hating and a friend of any enemy of the West. Exactly what sort of views did the paper think a member of the HT would bring? Anti-Semitism? Homophobia? The common ground is a dislike of the West - which is pretty much what everyone thinks of the Guardian except the people who read it. It also belongs there because of the quote provided - the quote is actually out of context. How does a quote about the Guardian's concern for the civil rights of terrorists but not the victims go with the way the paper is seen? And what else does the Aslam mess do except reinforce the view that the Guardian cares more for terrorists than the victims? The fact that the Guardian has employed people closely associated with Sinn Fein (if not the PIRA) is also held against the paper. All this goes into the view that most people, especially on the right, have of the paper. So it is relevant, it is just that the section makes more of the museli-eating view rather than the bomb-hugging view. But that view is there. Lao Wai 08:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think any serious people think The Guardian employed Aslam because he was a member of any Islamic organisations. Or indeed that the Guardian is "bomb-hugging" (to be a little blunt, isn't that what suicide bombers do, not journalists?).

You haven't addressed Rbrwr^±'s point that, even if this reinforced a stereotype, it doesn't reinforce the GROLIES stereotype, so you need to write a new section just to make the article logically consistent. Also, you have linked to an article about Aslam which only covers his departure from The Guardian, and I'm not sure he's a figure who needs an encyclopedia entry at all. -- Robertbyrne 14:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree to some extent with the first bit. Aslam was employed because he was a minority, specifically and clearly, and probably because he was able to represent unrepresented voices - angry young Islamic men rather than bombers. I agree they may not have known he was a member of HT although I think it is likely they did. He would have submitted a resume and previous work to get the job. I also disagree to some extent about the GROLIES stereotype. It clearly does go with the quote about the terrorists vs the victims of terrorism. I do not think it needs a new section. Maybe the GROLIES bit does and ought to be moved to the end or a new section? But what is the stereotype if not someone who is willing to embrace diversity even if that means the odd suicide bomber? It may be unfair but it is the stereotype of the Guardian. I think that Mr Aslam may well deserve an article of his own, at least he will if he keeps on being "sassy". But it was there and I did not create it. Lao Wai 16:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion what you are describing is the image of The Guardian which might be held by American neoconservatives, stemming from its positions on American foreign policy, rather than the popular image it has in Britain, or even among its international audience. At best a separate section could cover such opinions, although it does seem absurd to me, as it would imply that any article on Wikipedia should have sections on what people of every political persuation think of the topic at hand. As I am not British or American and have never edited this article, and because it could get tiresome, I'm not going to enter into an edit war over it.

Some of your comments here are preposterous though. The Guardian has clearly stated that Aslam didn't declare his association when he applied, and it only became clear to certain staff members after he started working. You also seem to be implying that Aslam is some kind of terrorist, and that The Guardian, through gritted teeth but in compliance with some kind of adherence to "diversity", would happily employ terrorists. All of this makes it appear that you are more interested in putting forward a POV rather than writing a high-quality NPOV encyclopedia article. -- Robertbyrne 16:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree about neo-conservative bit. It clearly has that image among conservative British people as can be seen by discussions of the paper in the right-wing press. I think it would be foolish to include a separate section covering every single point of view. But this is not a minor issue. The public backlash in the UK was so strong they sacked him. This suggests it is a little more than retired former colonels who read the Telegraph. The G has done something that has offended even their own readers. But let's, by all means, avoid an edit war.

Which comments are preposterous? How exactly would the Guardian know? He may not have signed the form stating he was a member of the party but it is likely that he presented a full CV and examples of his previous work. He wouldn't have much of a CV to present to start with and so would include what he could - he is a fairly young man after all. I might be wrong, but it is a reasonable inference that he showed some prior work and a full employment history. I am not implying that Aslam is a terrorist - HT is a non-violent group. Nor do I agree with your rather odd characterisation of my views. First of all the G would not employ Aslam with gritted teeth but with a joyous warm multi-cultural embrace. They specifically hired a minority under a specific minority outreach programme. No gritted teeth there but lots of diversity. As for terrorists we can all agree that Aslam is not one. They do have a history of employing, as well as giving space to, people with some link or other to the IRA. Would they happily employ a terrorist? Well a former one, if he was the right sort of terrorist, perhaps. If he worked for the ANC for instance. But it does not matter here as Aslam is not a terrorist. I was mildly appalled by the Aslam article as well as several others they have run, but I have kept that out of the article to the best of my ability but have not hidden it here. I think that shows the only real commitment to a NPOV article is mine. But if you have any constructive suggestions I would be happy to hear them. Lao Wai 18:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I have made an edit I think is necessary for the quality of the article.

I thought your statement that "But what is the stereotype if not someone who is willing to embrace diversity even if that means the odd suicide bomber?" was preposterous. And as has been stated here more than once, it would be a different stereotype than the one referred to by the description "a person with leftist or liberal politics rooted in the 1960s, working in the public sector, regularly eating lentils and muesli, wearing sandals and believing in alternative medicine and natural medicine" in the previous paragraph. And "bomb-hugging" would in any case be a stereotype of the editors, or more likely, an allegation against, characterisation or criticism of them. -- Robertbyrne 20:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually I could probably live with that. I still don't see that my characterisation of the stereotype is preposterous. It may not be fair but that is another matter. And in a strictly accurate sense while they have not embraced anyone who was a suicide bomber, they do have an odd relationship with some odd people who may or may not have been in the IRA and now they have employed someone who belongs to a group with an odd relation to suicide bombings. Nor do I agree it would be different to that of people with politics rooted in the leftist politics of the 1960s. After all a number of such people actually set off bombs and a few more, like Joschka Fisher, provided some degree of support. There is nothing in that stereotype that precludes supporting people who blow things up. Notice, again, that the quote includes both parts of the stereotype - that the G's readers eat muesli and they are less than enthusiatic in their criticism of terrorism - all pre-September 11 too. Besides none of this went into the article. As I said, I am clear in what I think here, but not there. Lao Wai 20:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

GUTalk and 'Chatroom'

The Guardian also has a number of talkboards that are noted for their mix of political disussion and whimsy. They are spoofed in the Guardian's own regular humorous Chatroom column in G2. The spoof column purports to be excerpts from a chatroom on permachat.co.uk, a real URL which points to The Guardian's talkboards.

I don't think the Guardian's talkboards are being spoofed in the Chatroom column at all. That's clearly a parody of a completely different kind of person using a completely different kind of technology.

I disagree, it is not in fact a parody, just cut and pasted from the chatroom as is... Ldrowe 22:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The comedy of the 'permachat' discussions is so well-constructed it's evidently not excerpted from a real chatroom. Barnabypage 23:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sarah Tisdall

There some controversy in the early 1980s when The Guardian revealed a source for one of its stories - her name was Sarah Tisdall [1]. This is a significant event in the paper's history, as well as a major point about journalism and ethics, that needs to be mentioned in this article. bulentyusuf 15:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I have put in a brief paragraph about this. There are already more details about the case in the article about Sarah Tisdall. MFlet1 13:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Masthead typo

There's a persistent story that the "Guardian" once managed to mis-spell its own name on the masthead. Does anyone know if this actually happened, and when? -- Arwel 21:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe that this is a myth, although I have no definitive source. Mrf-rouk 11:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I also think it is implausible, because the masthead would not have been typeset afresh each day. Barnabypage 12:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

External links

I've moved these links here, as they're about WP, not about the Guardian - avoid self references. sjorford #£@%&$?! 15:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Featured G2 article on Wikipedia, Tuesday 26 October 2004
• Featured Online article on Wikipedia, Thursday 11 August 2005

Left or Center-Left

As a daily Gaurdian reader I contendthat to charecterise the paper as center-left is a distortion.

It is the most left-wing paper in the UK, exepting fringe weekly such as Daily Worker or whatever they call it now. Blair et al are center-left, the gaurdian routinely critique them, and it is allways - allways - from the left. I'm not saying they are far left, but a paper too left-wing for aaronovich is NOT center-left.

I really don't think this is controvertial.

jucifer 23:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

We can tell you're a Gruaniad reader from your spelling. I would say the Independent is more left-wing these days. Jooler 02:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Juicifer is weirdly behind-the-times (long-term ex-pat Brit?). The Daily Worker has been called The Morning Star since 1966, David Aaronovich hasn't been leftwing for at least a decade (see under Christopher Hitchens), Blair hasn't looked centre-left since the last century (was probably always centre-opportunist) and a paper that has Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins and others can hardly be described as simply "left". The Guardian has been trending centre (since the death of Hugo Young in particular) - there's more of a case for dropping "left" from "centre left" than dropping "centre". Rd232 ^talk 09:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The Guardian has moved slightly towards the centre in recent years, but it has always had a diversity of opinion - I remember the days when you might get Tony Benn, Enoch Powell, Sir Alfred Sherman, Michael Foot and David Owen contributing to the comment pages in the same week. It only looks left-wing in comparison with Blair because of Blair's hurtling to the right - it has remained pretty true to its liberal freethinking roots. --  ajn (talk) 10:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Powell and Owen gained access to the newspaper on the basis of their political careers, not because they are (mainly) known as journalists, as Hastings and Jenkins are. BTW, the Press Gazette interview[2] with Alan Rusbridger in September was predicated on the Guardian leaving its "left-wing niche", and Rusbridger does not seem to think that it has been there for some years. Really his argument is contradictory, and since the Indie has the largest proportion of LibDem readers of any Brit newspaper, is revealing of where he is coming from. Oh dear, "personal manifesto!" Philip Cross 15:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

They all gained access to the comment pages because of their political careers - the point is that the paper has always been open to a very broad diversity of opinion, in the way that the Mail or the Murdoch-era Times, for example, have never been. It has supported the LibDems, SDP and Labour over the years, often simultaneously - there's very rarely been a "party line" other than a broad anti-Tory one. I appreciate that Conservatives and US Republicans may not like that, but that doesn't make the paper "far left" or even "left-wing". It's centre-left. --  ajn (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree (having been a Guardian reader for the last 20 years) and think that people should stop changing it back to far-left, hard-left, Old Labour or anything similar (have just had to rv this yet again). MFlet1 13:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Amazing!!!! all the papers that are right wing are closed to other opinions, yet the most biased far far left paper (the guardian) is open to all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are unbelivable. Daveegan06 21:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree that The Independent has lurched to the left of The Guardian now but if The Times gets to be described as 'right wing', then The Guardian should simply be called 'left wing'. The two papers both sit in a similar relative position, if you ask me, in that they regularly publish views from writers whose politics don't match the nominal positions of the paper Bombot 12:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Meh, forget what I wrote above. The politics box on The Times page describes it as centre-right. Bombot 12:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This is so biased. The Daily Mail article states that it is 'right-wing' while apparently the Guardian is 'center-left'. :rolleyes:

When you look at the whole political spectrum, the Guardian cannot possibly be described as left wing. It is NOT a socialist newspaper, it advocates social democracy, a form of capitalism. Whether or not it is more left wing than other British newspapers is irrelevant, it is still a paper of the centre ground, albeit centre-left. The Daily Mail's conservatism, nationalism, support for laissez-faire economics, and anti-government intervention puts it firmly right-wing. --Mrf-rouk 11:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't biased, it's just a statement of fact. The Mail has supported the Conservatives throughout its entire history - well, apart from the period when they supported Oswald Mosley's fascists - whereas the Guardian has alternated between Labour, Liberal and SDP. The latter two are/were centrist, not left-wing, and it's debatable (to say the least) whether Labour is left-wing any more. MFlet1 21:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Are these fine gradations really that important? Why not just left, right, and center, and forget about left-of-center, center-left, left-by-center-left, mostly-center-but-listing-3-degrees-to-port-in-gale-winds, and so on? Or maybe even leave out the political characterization altogether? Raymond Arritt 22:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Finer gradations of political allegiance are important because the extremes of right/left are little regarded by the majority yet still prevail in certain quarters. I think the general concensus from above is that the Guardian is centre-left and so I have changed the article to such, the few that dispute this do not provide robust arguments. Sisalto 05:40, 25 September 2007

The fact the Gurdian has some non left-wing articles don't make it to be central.Even if it had some right wing articles.There are enough source that regard it as left wing and I have yet to see source call it center left.I think unless people can cite the claim that it is center left we should write left wing only. An example for one source: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C200410%5CPOL20041025a.html

cnsnews.com??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sisalto (talk • contribs) 23:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

There are people that see the Guardian as bias.I don't see what the problem with cnsnews.com .But anyway I have the CNN.No one can claim the CNN is bias.:

http://thebrowser.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/

On the other hand I have yet to see any source what so ever calling it central left.It mean you have no source for that claim.132.72.71.99 23:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Consider The Telegraph which is listed as centre-right, yesterday (6th Nov) it featured an article saying the conservatives should "admit" Enoch Powell was right! User:sisalto 02:09, 8th November 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 02:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

A problem with one article should not encourge us to do problem with anther article.132.72.70.48 09:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

And by the way there is nothig wrong in being left wing.Being center left is no way better than being left wing and being right wing or center right id no better than being left wing.Everyone has is own opinion about what is the best political way.But the fact is that this newspaper is considered left wing.132.72.70.48 09:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that only one major newspaper is to the left of the Guardian does not make it left wing. Granted it would be off the scale in the US, but in the country of its publication it stands to the right of much of the Labour Party and of several smaller political parties. It has been the burden of jokes for decades as being "soft-left". I am not surprised the anonymous editor above has not found any references to it being called "central left" since this is not a recognised political term. Rachel Pearce 12:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"The fact that only one major newspaper is to the left of the Guardian does not make it left wing."-I never claimed it does."Granted it would be off the scale in the US, but in the country of its publication it stands to the right of much of the Labour Party and of several smaller political parties"Well you can not invalidate sources just because they are American nor even they are American that refer to British politic.American can understand the British politic as well as British can understand the American politic."I am not surprised the anonymous editor above has not found any references to it being called "central left" since this is not a recognised political term."In such case wikipedia also should NOT use in the term central left but only in the term left,central or right since they are the terms that are recognised as political term,wikipedia shouldn't invent a new political term because it will be original research.Anyway the fact is that the attidue of this newspaper is left wing.And it is consider as such by the media.132.72.70.14 12:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

My view is that if The Guardian is listed as left-wing then likewise The Telegraph should be listed as right-wing. Are there references for The Telegraph being centre-right?? Left-Wing suggests a degree of irrationality; The Guardian does not immediately take a left-wing approach in all it's articles, it has a level-headed considered approach. The Guardian is not 'biased' towards a leftist interpretation. sisalto 23:25, 8th November 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 23:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

" Left-Wing suggests a degree of irrationality" - not at all.It is just political agenda.The fact that Guardian is leftlist doesn't mean that it blind and in some specific aspect can not take the position of the right.It is only mean that the general attidue of the Guardian is left.There is nothig wrong in the left wing or the right wing at least in my eye.It is only political agenda.132.72.70.52 16:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Story in The Guardian

Patrick Barkham wrote a piece about WP in today's Guardian [3], in which he mentions edits he made to "polish" the article - although he was kind enough to revert himself afterwards :) — sjorford (talk) 10:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

One thought arising from that Guardian article. The perrenial criticism of Wikipedia is that mischievous editors can add inaccurate/biased information to an article which may not be noticed by a wiki-admin before a few people have read the piece and been misled by it. Maybe we could introduce some kind of "health warning" for recently-edited articles - or articles that contain edits that have not yet reviewed by an admin, clearly indicating that the piece may contain some inaccuracies. This won't catch all the problems (no system is perfect), but it might at least indemnify Wikipedia's reputation. Clearly some articles on Wikipedia are for more thoroughly checked than others. Maybe we need to introduce a "tiering system" to reflect this? 80.41.29.243 11:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

He edited here on the Tony Blair article and didn't revert himself but someone else did. Try Village Pump for any wikipedia-wide suggestions as this is not the place to get them considered (I am not sure how prasctically possible it would be anyway), SqueakBox 15:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I was glad he liked the Ian Aitken stub, since I'd only just put it in :-) Linuxlad

Actually, SqueakBox, he did re-instate the changes himself (although he didn't revert) - first edit seems to have been made at 14:31, manual reversion at 15:22. The changes in the mean time were elsewhere, by the looks of it. Bobbiejohnson 19:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Patrick clearly did no wrong. The other edits to the Blair article made it more complicated, not that there was anything in his edits which could be considered other than POV (ie no vandalism or deliberate misinformation that I could see) and expressing POV, especially for newbies, is par for the course. As far as I am aware people who work for the Guardian aren't prohibited from editing this article (but they would not have been allowed to start it). If Patrick had vandalised wikipedia (including misinformation) someone would probably have checked his IP address and discovered that the edits were being by The Guardian in Manchester (he didn't edit anonymously, which you can only do by opening an account anymore than did the ignoramuses who edited in the name of their Congress masters, making me wonder how much those advisers got paid for showing less technical competence than a savvy teenager), SqueakBox 17:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I work for the Guardian too. But I think you're right, Squeakbox - it wasn't vandalism as such. On the subject of making changes to your own entry, I've made changes to the Guardian's: but only in so far as correcting clear errors (I think I removed a link that went to the wrong article). I'm not sure I'd be happy making any changes beyond that. But that's not really a matter for this forum. Bobbiejohnson 19:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I saw you identified the company you work for, and I think that is sound practice. One could argue shareholders might have more personal interest in promoting a company than other than the senior members of the company itself, and of course disgruntled employees I am sure disparage their companies on wikipedia. Of course Patrick edited in order to write an article for The Guardian whereas if he had edited solely to promote (or denigrate) The Guardian it would have been very different, and the latter is what these Congressmen's staff were doing, albeit incredibly incompetently. At the end of the day if you sign into an account your edits will only be judged on how good they are, and in that respect Patrick's edits would probably be still intact, SqueakBox 19:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article

The Guardian was nominated as a featured article candidate on 1 Feb 06, and withdrawn on 10 Feb. The discussion can be found here. If the improvements mentioned are made, a Wikipedia:peer review may be helpful before renominating. Rd232 ^talk 22:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It's much worse than the objectors suggest. The history section of this article is a complete travesty, lacking crucial detail and stuffed with errors.Paulanderson 17:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Guardian & Israel

The 800 pound gorrilla that is not mentioned in this article is the Guardian's take on Jews and Israel. Many find the coverage of Jewish issues and Israel by the Guardian to be extremely anti Jewish, anti Israeli. When Susan Goldenberg reported from Jerusalem, the vitriol dripped off every word. I don't have the time now, but at some point this should be covered.Incorrect 17:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Suzanne based in Washington these days? Was about 4 years ago that she moved from the Middle East to the US. Are you talking about one of her reports from back in 2002, or a more recent one? If you could quote a link to the relevant newsunlimited.co.uk articles, we can cite that in the Wikipedia Guardian article. Thx. --Oscarthecat 17:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who refuses to accept that Israel is a model global citizen is of course a raving anti-semite and holocaust denier. Especially if they mention inconvenient facts like illegally occupying chunks of Palestine, defying UN resolutions and bulldozing American teenagers to death... To print reports from journalists critical of Israel's actions may be unfashionable (at least in Bush's America) but it's hardly anti-semitic. Just zis Guy you know? 19:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The material in the intro section written by Tchadienne (since removed by Seglea) accused The Guardian of anti-Semitism because of one article by Ian Black that states that "[Israel's] credit has run out" and notes that the Israeli government regularly abducts Palestinians (contrary to what Tchadienne wrote, the Black article does not say "innocent" Palestinians). The first of these statements is a perfectly legitimate opinion, whether or not you agree with it; the second is a reference to the extra-legal means used by the Israeli government to deal with suspected terrorists, but is in no way derogatory towards Jews. Tchadienne should probably calm down and realise that a criticism of Israeli government policy is not the same as anti-Semitism - this piece was offensive to anyone who has actually been a victim of genuine anti-Semitism or racism of any kind. The Mel Gibson criticism (The Guardian said Gibson made "allegedly" anti-Semitic comments) sounds to me more like someone trying to avoid potentially being done for libel. modernway

It is not anti-semitic to criticise the actions of the Israeli government. --Dannyno 13:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I find it rather ironic that there is apparently an ongoing edit-war over calling an article anti-semitic which contains the sentence "Those who oppose the policies of the Israeli government are accused of hating Jews." JulesH 08:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is it ironic? Bwithh 16:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It clearly is not anti semitic to criticise the Israeli government, at least that is the case outside the US. And as we are an international and NOT a US encyclopedia The Guardian has no case to answer and claiming it is anti-semitic in the article should be treated as trolling and speedily reverted, SqueakBox 17:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I find far less problem with this edit [4] which states that the paper is critical of Israeli defence policy (not Israel or Jews in general). It's entirely accurate to say that the Guardian is currently critical of Israeli defence policy, and this does contrast strongly with America's unwillingess to show even mild disapproval of it and Blair's following the same path, although whether this is significant in terms of the 185-year history of the paper is another question entirely; it seems to me to be just another example of the paper being soft-left politically. Just zis Guy you know? 10:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to possibly confuse anyone (though I can't imagine that I am going to considering that Israel is THE Jewish Nation-State. Anyhow, I felt that stating that the Guardian criticises Jews is a poor reflection of the facts. The Guardian blantantly has nothing against the Jews (it has acted as a profound catalyst for increasing Jewish wealth appropriation in the post 7/7 attacks and has advocated powerful anti-Islamist policies across the globe, furthering a variety of widely acknowledged practices such as the creation of an increasingly undemocratic police state controlled by a few rich elites (religion undisclosed) in both the UK and USA.

Possibly this criticism would be best directed towards the Independent. I remember reading page 6 of the Independent on Monday 06/08/2006, with an article saying something blatant like "THIS DRAFT IS SHOWING WHO'S RUNNING AMERICA'S POLICY : ISRAEL" - a reference to the pathetic attempts by the UN in regards to reducing the current violence in the Middle East).

Anyhow, my point remains. The Guardian is far more islamophobic that it is anti-israel (supposing, of course, that your mind is contorted enough to suppose that it IS at all anti-israel). Thus, the supposed bias of this section doesn't exist in objective terms as the eternal yin-yang balance of Islam-Judaism is preserved.

NukeMason 10:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section needed

Article is too pro-Guardian. Starts with lots of awards received, but makes little mention of any criticism. Doesn't achieve the neutral point of view required by wikipedia. The recently added link AIM Report: British Media Invade the U.S. - April A in External Links ought to just be a reference from a new criticism section. May be worth having some reference to GuardianLies too. --Oscarthecat 21:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added the npov tag (and legitimate criticism) three times. Vandals and an admin choose to remove it. Not much one can do in a situation like this. Tchadienne 23:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Tchadienne, but what you've added is partly original research (WP:NOR), partly legal hedging (you've never seen "allegedly" used this way?), partly ludicrous (this is supposed to be an example of supporting anti-semitism?? Did you actually read it yourself?). More fundamentally, you and others trying to argue this about the Guardian are picking on the views of individual writers, views which generally cannot unambiguously be considered anti-semitic, when the Guardian has always had a relatively broad spectrum of views. You'd be on better ground if you looked at editorials, but again picking individual ones will look selective, while doing a proper review would be original research. PS please do not use "vandal" as an epithet for editors who disagree with you - see WP:VAND for what vandalism is in Wikipedia. Rd232 ^talk 07:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

For your information, I've been hear a lot longer than you have, so attempting to yell me into submission is futile. Not only is it not original research, but your entire argument is faulty. Sincey you choose to point me to WP:VAND I'll point you to read WP:NPOV. Tchadienne 13:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No-one is going to let someone get away with pointing to an article and saying "this is anti-semitic", or "this questions the existence of the state of Israel", or "this defends Mel Gibson", when the article in question in fact does nothing of the kind! --Dannyno 13:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence is a weaselly generalisation supported by unreliable sources. The second dies of shame when reading it out "Anti-Semites are often openly defended for their views[5], and anti-Semitic prejudice is misportrayed as legitimate criticism of Israel[6]." The next two sentences are in all likelihood original research (though you denied it, you could not give evidence to the contrary, which you should have been able to do if it was actually published previously). It's merely suitable for a blog, a blog like that on which the last sentence is based. I only hope that "last rv of the day" is a joke and you're not continuing like that on a daily basis now. Sciurinæ 17:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I will revert, thus re-adding the criticism, everyday until the content remains on the page. Any vandalism I come across will be reverted. Tchadienne 18:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Tchadienne's edit is here. This is not criticism of the Guardian; these are his personal opinions and those of some blogs. Furthermore, the opinions seem throughly unjustified by the Guardian columns cited. Take it to the Fray; wikipedia is no place for this. By the way, Tchadienne, threats to revert war are strongly deprecated. Please reconsider. Septentrionalis 20:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not see this as an actual PoV controversy, unless there is some support for Tchadienne's position (and even then it is doubtful; this is simply a bad edit.) Septentrionalis 20:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have looked through the various disuted edits, the proposal that this article is biased based on those sources is risible, for example I have no idea how a piece essentially lambasting Mel Gibson for a vile drunken outburst could be viewed as supportive of anti-semitism,. If Tchadienne is serious in the above statement that the disputed content will be reinserted whenever it is removed then I propose an indefinite block for threatened vandalism. There are many potential valid criticisms of the Grauniad, as any reader of Private Eye will be well aware, but antisemitism ain't one of them. Tchadienne's edits are complete bollocks and were rightly removed. Just zis Guy you know? 16:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It should also be pointed out that any statement attributing certain biases which is sourced from articles from the Guardian itself is most definitely both original research and POV. Criticisms should be reported, not invented, and reported from verifiable reliable sources (and that generally precludes blogs). --Daduzi ^talk 16:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I reverted Tchadienne's reinsertion of the NPOV tag. Tchadienne asserts that User:Incorrect also asserts the Guardian is antisemitic, but Incorrect's user page states stated that their opinions on anything to do with antisemitism are tendentious and not neutral. Unless and until we have a reliable source for these statements, there is no provable dispute. Failure to persuade others of the merit of your content is explicitly not grounds for adding a "disputed" tag. Just zis Guy you know? 16:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Tchadienne has been here long enough (also under usernames Freestylefrappe and KI) to known better than to behave in this way. BTW on the section title here, I think criticism sections are generally a bad idea because they snowball full of baseless junk and become pointless battlegrounds. If there is actual content to go in one, it can usually be better incorporated in the article without creating such a section. Rd232 ^talk 17:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Reading through this lot it's pretty clear that the problem here is not with the Guardian as such but with its editorial stance. It is a left-leaning paper, which means that according to the Monday Club and the Republican Party it is a Stalinist rag which should be denounced as such. The Guardian is no worse than any comparable paper and better than some. The "GuardianLies" website above is laughable, anything but a reliable source; it's a collection of axe-grinders coming back with "and another thing..." several years after they lost the argument permanently and decisively. Of course the Guardian has editorial bias. Every newspaper does. We state what the editorial bias is. That's all that's needed, unless and until someone can provide some credible evidence from reliable sources that shows it to be significantly worse than any comparable newspaper. Just zis Guy you know? 19:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I also agree with Rd232 that a crticisms section is a bad way to go. The article is pretty well balanced as it is; any additions should be integrated into the text. The anti-Semitic (meaning, presumably "critical of Israel": nb that they are not the same thing) accusation is particularly ludicrous - as the article makes clear, the newspaper was an early supporter of Israel. --Guinnog 20:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The paper was accused by Julie Burchill, one of the its own journalists, of being anti-semitic: "But if there is one issue that has made me feel less loyal to my newspaper over the past year, it has been what I, as a non-Jew, perceive to be a quite striking bias against the state of Israel. Which, for all its faults, is the only country in that barren region that you or I, or any feminist, atheist, homosexual or trade unionist, could bear to live under. I find this hard to accept because, crucially, I don't swallow the modern liberal line that anti-Zionism is entirely different from anti-semitism; the first good, the other bad." [7]. There is absolutely no justification for removing this from the article. Lancsalot 19:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

What's ridiculous is that you had spun this into "The Guardian's coverage of Israel has been a persistent source of controversy. In December 2003 journalist Julie Burchill left the paper for The Times, complaining in one of her last articles that this coverage was anti-Semitic"

She didn't. And, honestly, if Julie Burchill is the best data point you can get, you're rather grasping at straws. --Guinnog 19:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

She did exactly that. Your opinion of Julie Burchill is of no relevance here. And if the Guardian itself is not a reliable reference then what is exactly? Lancsalot 20:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

She may well have done, but there was no evidence in the quote you cited that she had. She complained that the paper was anti-Israel or anti-Zionist, inasmuch as you can see what she is trying to say from her muddy writing. It was inaccurate of you to spin that into saying she had accused the paper of being anti-Semitic. Your first sentence was pure POV, entirely unsupported by the quote. --Guinnog 20:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. All the Grauniad is doing is publishing some stories which are critical of the present Israeli government. If criticising the Israeli government makes you anti-semitic, then it seems to me that the UN is probably first up to the plate. To accept this idea requires that first of all you believe that the Israeli government and Israel are indistinguishable (thus: no American can be opposed to the PATRIOT act, because the US and the US Government are indistinguishable); and second, that any condemnation must be based on racist grounds, rather than on the rather obvious fact that Israel is not exactly a good neighbour. Just zis Guy you know? 20:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

She goes on to say that anti-zionism is no different to anti-semitism. Here's another article from a different author (an Oxford academic) which says exactly the same thing [8]. More criticism to support the 1st sentence here [9] [10] (many more on the same site). There is a huge amount of criticism of the paper's reporting on Israel and it should be mentioned in the article. Lancsalot 20:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

'She goes on to say that anti-zionism is no different to anti-semitism.' No she doesn't. At least not in the reference you provided. I don't think any of your other three provide particularly good verifiable evidence for the sort of POV you seem to want to put into the article either. Sorry. --Guinnog 21:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but there is such a thing as POV by omission. This is like having no mention of anti-semitism on the Der Sturmer article. The whole article generally reads like an advert for the paper. Until this is resolved, the NPOV tag will have to go back. Lancsalot 22:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

That NPOV tag is entirely inappropriate. This article isn't about Israel, it's about The Guardian, and although the paper tends to take a critical view of Israel's foreign policy that's hardly a defining aspect of the paper for anyone without Strong Views on Israel. The article already states that The Guardian is known for a liberal-to-left stance on politics, which tends to go with the same turf. Your previous addition to the article mentioning 'anti-semitism' wasn't helpful either. The Guardian's stance on Israel's foreign policy is in line with left-wing politics inside Israel as well as outside and has nothing to do with Jewish people generally or anti-semiticism (or anti-Zionism either for that matter). Compare The Guardian's coverage with statements by Jewish and Israeli politicians also associated with the left (Yossi Beilin and Yael Dayan spring to mind). I've removed the tag and lets please discuss a sensible addition to the article if you feel it's lacking instead of slapping it with a NPOV badge ~ Veledan • Talk 22:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. The Guardian is not neutral, the article is neutral. The article neutrally describes the Guardian's lack of neutrality. I think. Just zis Guy you know? 14:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) LOL. Der Sturmer, eh? Have you ever heard of Godwin's Law? If there is a consensus for the addition of a NPOV tag, fine. I don't think there is at the moment, and your arguments seem unlikely to sway any neutrals who might be reading. Do you see why what you wanted to put here was very poor and intellectually dishonest?

1. Julie Burchill is not considered by most people, even those who like her, as an enyclopedic or reliable source. She says things to shock; arguably her tenure at the Guardian was good for the paper for that reason.
2. Regardless, Julie Burchill did not state in the reference you gave that she left because the Guardian was anti-Semitic. Neither did she say that anti-Zionism was the same as anti-Semitism, as you seem to think. Read it again, maybe. The crucial bit is "... I don't swallow the modern liberal line that anti-Zionism is entirely different from anti-semitism; the first good, the other bad". She is being ambiguous, maybe deliberately, but this is a bit different from what you claimed above.
3. Whatever you think Julie Burchill might have meant in her ambiguous swan-song that you quoted, or what your pro-Israel propaganda sites you also referred to may think, criticism of Israel definitely does not equate to anti-Semitism. I'll let you take the tag down yourself. This isn't a POV dispute. --Guinnog 22:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

As I stated above, I fundamentally agree. I have no problem noting that the paper is critical of current Israeli foreign policy as a sidenote but as far as I can tell it is neither a defining characteristic of the paper nor a significant one in the context of its 185-year history. Given the paper's past support fort the existence of the State of Israel it is equally plausible to consider that the editors view themselves as a "critical friend" in this instance. Just zis Guy you know? 10:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out that the paper is also critical of the foreign policy of plenty of other countries, too. --Daduzi ^talk 11:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

See that Edit link? ;-) Seriously, if we can include a convincing section on how the Guardian's politics map against the current global political agenda that will improve the article's value to non-British readers. Just zis Guy you know? 14:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm with you on this one. I was trying to say (though evidently not making myself clear) that it seems a tad incongrous to mention the paper's attitude towards Israel on its own, as if that's the only country worthy of note. I could only really see it fitting in if there was a more comprehensive section on the paper's international coverage, it sticks out like a sore thumb in the history section. --Daduzi ^talk 15:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The only other country which gets significant criticism from the paper is of course America. This would be much better discussed in a proper criticism section. Lancsalot 16:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish. --Guinnog 16:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

And Zimbabwe and Saudi Arabia and North Korea and Myanmar and Sudan and... well, you get the point. --Daduzi ^talk 17:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well you've just listed some of the worst human rights abusers on the planet. But compare the coverage they get compared to, say, Guantanamo Bay, and well, you get the point. Lancsalot 17:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean Guantanamo Bay detainment camp? They're hardly going out on a limb by criticising that. The only point I am taking from your contributions is that I am beginning to suspect you of making a WP:POINT here. Whatever POV you are trying to push, I'm determined not to let it ruin a good and fair article. And, no, a criticism section would be a terrible idea. Any criticism we include should be integrated into the article. --Guinnog 17:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The point I am making is that the paper is well known for its anti-American, anti-Israel bias. The fact that the article currently does not state this is a major weakness. Lancsalot 17:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

We're not getting anywhere here. The Guardian's left-of-centre editorial position is clearly described in the article; all newspapers have such a thing. You may take it that your opinion, to the effect that the paper has somehow been unfair in its coverage of Israel, has been noted. If you have any reputable reference that bears this out (by that I mean not Julie Burchill or a pro-Israel pressure group), feel free to share it with us. If these are your best shots, as I suspect, we may consider this conversation to be over.

Personally, I think the paper took far more risks given the nature of its readership by criticising Zimbabwe and the Sudan, as noted by Daduzi above. That was brave. But there you go, that's just my opinion. --Guinnog 17:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a couple of points: criticsm of the current regime of a country does not necessarily equal bias against that country, it would have been much harder to accuse the Guardian of anti-American bias during the Clinton years, for instance. Secondly, if the paper is well known for such a bias then finding reliable, non-partisan sources on the issue should be relatively trivial. In any case, I still don't understand exactly what it is that makes Israel so special that criticism of its government warrants mention while the Guardian's consistent criticism of other regimes does not. --Daduzi ^talk 21:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I always find these shouts of "anti-American" rather lame, especially living and working in America with Americans -- very patriotic Americans who are far more critical of their government than the Guardian is. You are a traditional counties advocate, meaning you disagree with the policies of the current UK government. I therefore find you guilty of being anti-British. Joe D (t) 22:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Just so. As I said before, it looks like the dispute is with the Guardian's editorial POV, not the article's. Perhaps we should NPOV tag the Daily Mail article :-) Just zis Guy you know? 22:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

My dispute is with the fact that the article as it stands does not reflect the editorial POV. The Daily Mail article has a lengthy criticism section which this article does not have. Criticisms of the Guardian can be found primarily on blogs, many of which which are highly notable eg. Melanie Phillips, Charles Johnson. You are not going to find them on the BBC, which is itself rabidly anti-Israel. Lancsalot 23:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of the criticism in the Daily Fail article should be deleted as unsourced and bad writing. I've added citation tags and if no-one can come up with citations into the fire it goes. - FrancisTyers · 23:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

And just because one article is poor, shouldn't mean this one should emulate that. Well done Francis, I had a look and thought the same but was too lazy to do what you have done. --Guinnog 23:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the criticism section in Daily ail sucks. Most criticism sections do. I am working the content into the main article. Just zis Guy you know? 13:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm in full agreement with Joe D, Daduzi, Guinnog et al above on the general issue here. However I do think it would make sense to note, within the history section, the shifts in the Guardian's view of Israel; at the moment we note that it was an early supporter and leave it at that, which is misleading. Several rounds ago I put in the following, which was swiftly lopped out:

The paper remained a supporter of Israel, broadly speaking, until after the Yom Kippur war of 1967 (though it was notably critical of the British and French action in the Suez crisis of 1956 and of the collusion with Israel that it involved). Since 1967, the paper has more often been critical of actions by Israel, a stance that frequently leads to controversy in its Letters column; in the extreme the paper is attacked by those who interpret all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism, and on the other hand it is frequently defended by Jewish readers who themselves find Israel's actions offensive.

I'm not particularly wedded to this form of words (and maybe going on about the content of the Letters column is inappropriate), but I think that something that summarises the history would be helpful. As to the question, "Why just give the paper's stance on Israel, not on every other country of the world?", it is reasonable to argue that the Israel/Palestine issue has been one of the most persistent roots of world conflict in the past 60 years - though I agree that in a longer perspective one could also make a case for talking about the paper's stance on Ireland, East Timor, etc seglea 23:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

One can so argue, but Wikipedia should not. Blogs are cheap. (And you omit that minor player in the last 60 years, the Soviet Union.) Anybody for a Template saying "this paper has been criticized in its Letters to the Editor column"? Septentrionalis 00:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think what has changed is not the Guardian's stance, which is still as far as I can tell supportive of the right of Israel to exist as a separate state, but Israel's own public image. Since the Six Days War and Yom Kippur War there has been a fairly steady stream of criticism of Israel's actions, and occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip are still held to be illegal acts by the UN, so criticism of this and the actions taken to maintain occupation would seem to be reasonable. The problems only come if you are intent on pretending that Israel is completely blamless in the current conflict; sure, there have been attacks on Israel, but as the Lebanese interviewed on the BBC last night point out, this has not happend in a vacuum, and although a couple of dozen Israelis have died in this particular battle the Palestinian death toll is reckoned at over a thousand, mostly civilians, plus substantial destruction of property. For some, I guess, it's completely black and white. I don't see the Guardian portraying it as such, though, although some sources do seem to - but they are mostly pro-Israel, so clearly that's NPOV ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 11:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've never seen the Guardian argue against Israel's right to exist, merely criticise the actions of their government, among many other governments as listed above. Burchill trolled (rather enjoyably in a way) the readership by using it as a reason she left, although ISTR money was a factor in her decision too. A couple of junk propaganda sites are all I can see that endorse the idea that the paper has an anti-Israel agenda. I'm sure we could find a Zimbabwe government website stating the paper is against them for criticising their "land reform" policy, but I'd be just as opposed to including that in the article. --Guinnog 11:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"it is reasonable to argue that the Israel/Palestine issue has been one of the most persistent roots of world conflict in the past 60 years" it might be reasonable (though one could argue the case for Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Taiwan, Kashmir, Northern Ireland and a whole host of other places on the same basis), but pulling that out as a factor to determine inclusion is still a POV judgement. Why is being a source of conflict a factor that determines the relevance of mentioning a newspaper's stance towards a country but not being a massively populous country (India), a major economic power (Japan, Germany), a former superpower (the Soviet Union), a potential future superpower (China), a major regional power (Brazil, South Africa) or the largest oil producer on the planet (Saudi Arabia)? Why is the Guardian's stance on Israel inherently more important than its stance on the European Union or the United Nations? I'm not necessarily opposed to incorporation of the Guardian's stance on Israel into the article, but it needs to be put into the context both of the paper's foreign coverage as a whole and of its coverage of Israel over during the paper's existence. To single out criticism of the current Israeli administration alone as being worthy of mention is to make so many POV judgements it's untrue, and so the onus is on those who wish to include the information to ensure that it is placed within its proper context. --Daduzi ^talk 14:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Colour edition

Today The Guardian is the only British national newspaper to publish in full colour (although this is not the case in Northern Ireland)

This is not clear. Is there a black-and-white Irish edition of the Guardian, or there some Northern Irish national newspaper? Septentrionalis 20:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd read it as meaning that the Guardian is not published in full colour in N. Ireland. -- Arwel (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's right: [11] Henry^Flower 21:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Melanie Philips

Lancsalot added: Political commentator Melanie Phillips has also been critical of the The Guardian's stance on Israel, describing the paper's "Comment is Free" website as an "anti-Jewish hate-fest" - ref - Melanie Phillips, 23 March 2006. "Some of my best friends are Zionists….".

Two problems: first, the comments in question are not editorial comments of the Guardian so not really a criticism of the Guardian as such; second, the source is a blog written by a right-wing journalist. Just zis Guy you know? 10:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

How predictable. Melanie Phillips is a highly respected journalist, voted one of the top 100 British intellectuals [12]. The Mail article is full of left-wing criticism, but here we have a cabal of Guardianistas determined to silence any criticism of their beloved paper. Lancsalot 11:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As has been pointed out above, any NPOV problems which might exist with the Mail article are irrelevant to this article. Melanie Phillips did not describe the paper's "Comment is Free" web site as an "anti-Jewish hate-fest" - she said the web site facilitated an anti-Jewish hate-fest, i.e. in comments by readers. This may be a valid criticism of the web site, but it doesn't really say anything about "The Guardian's stance on Israel", i.e. the newspaper's editorial line or reporting on this issue. --Ryano 11:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please try to assume good faith. I can't speak for anybody else, but I am certainly not a "Guardianista". I just want this article to be balanced and verifiable. Your comments about the other article would be better addressed to Talk:Daily Mail, or else just be WP:BOLD and edit that article towards NPOV, rather than making this one worse. Thanks --Guinnog 11:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Guardian controversy

The Jerusalem post article by Dershowitz appears to be no longer available. Could someone please provide another online reference or at least a brief 1 or 2 sentence excerpt in the footnotes. Thanks.--CSTAR 16:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I will try to get one. Elizmr 20:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Subdivision of the history section

The history section had got long and rambling, with format issues intercutting with policy alignments. I have sorted the two out into separate sections. This seems to me to be an improvement, because you can now see the pattern in each of the two strands - but what do other editors think? seglea 20:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Lucy Mangan

Shouldn't journalist Lucy Mangan be mentioned on this page? She is a columnist and appears practically daily in the G2 section of the Guardian.

9/11

Worth a mention that the Guardian was the only news web site that was up and running throughout 9/11? - all the others crashed under the weight of traffic.

Theodore Dalrymple/Social Affairs Unit

I disagree with this deletion. The Social Affairs Unit website qualifies as a blog merely by technical standards, as it allows comments - so does e.g. Times Online. Though the article's author uses a pseudonym, he has revealed his identity: a prominent writer, physician, and psychiatrist. Besides, there's a board of trustees and an advisory council whose members are all academics, quite a number of them prominent ones, mostly working in fields related to the unit's activities. This should provide proper evaluation and quality control. WP:EL leaves room for interpretation intentionally, this clearly applies here. --tickle me 02:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair point. I'd like to agree a consensus here before including it in the article. Is that ok? As you say, it's a marginal case... --Guinnog 04:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't use it as a reliable source, but it's probably ok as an external link. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Not much participation here. I'd like to see some convincing arguments against the points I made, else I'll readd the link. --tickle me 13:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

No, you have to get a positive consensus to include it. --Guinnog 18:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist Asset

Is it unacceptable to include in the article a statement that the Guardian, in its monolithic opposition to the U.S., is an asset to Islamic terrorists and provides positive encouragement to them in their efforts?Lestrade 18:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Yes. --Guinnog 18:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Definitely over the top. I could see justification for a mention of the Guardian's general antipathy toward the U.S., but even that would open the article to POV issues that we probably don't want to deal with. Raymond Arritt 18:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't want to deal with issues such as whether the Guardian's words encourage Islamic terrorists to persevere in their endeavors. Not important. Too POV and subjective. Besides, who would believe it?Lestrade 18:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

And why should they? It would be original research and fail WP:V to boot. The only way it could merit inclusion would be if we had say a reputable organisation or individual making this charge. If this is the case, bring it back here and we can talk about it some more. Otherwise, no, it would be inappropriate. --Guinnog 18:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Have removed section "Critics of The Guardian as being bias [sic]"

I'm not saying you can't mention the allegations that the Guardian is biased against Israel, merely that you should make it clear they are allegations and not unchallenged fact. Also you don't need to add dozens of external links in support of this point. MFlet1 12:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It is good to add as much as possible link that support a claim.You shouldn't have removed that section.132.72.71.211 21:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Hard Left

Anyone who looks objectively at the Guardian can blatantly see how Communist it is!

You should probably brush up on what communism actually is. Mrf-rouk 18:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with this, the Guardian seems to be on the same level as other far-left figures like Arthur Scargill or Tony Benn. --87.127.54.17 15:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the Guardian is quite fond of Tony Benn, as everyone seems to be (though read columnist Simon Hoggart on the subject) but editorially it wouldn't be political close to him or Scargill. --Dannyno 17:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The Guardian certainly isn't hard left. As for Tony Benn, the paper did a podcast with him not too long ago and then in its editorial comment wrote a piece titled, "In Praise of...Tony Benn" with one line starting "his politics may be out of date..." so they are not as fond of the left as some make out. The editorial stance is liberal, perhaps soft-left at the most. They have been at times critical of Chavez and mocked John McDonnell's quest to become Labour leader. Wouldn't a left-wing outlet be a tad more supportive? They even called on David Milliband to stand - this, a man who has voted the opposite way to which many of The Guardian's journalists would've liked to see him vote, on particular issues. (i.e. Iraq war).

So in summary, although it has some soft-left and centre-left journalists, the editorial stance is quite liberal, sometimes nudging leftwards, sometimes even nudging rightwards.

Unless you find source that call it central left no reason to consider the Guardian as such.After all many don't agree with you and the fact that sometime it nudging rightwards don't make it to be central left.The attitude is left.Anyway there are enough source that consider this as left wing and I have yet to find one that call it central left.

And in English please?

While we're about it, can you find any sources not from the far right that would describe the Guardian as far left? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.100.97 (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)