Talk:The Guardian/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

HQ at London pictures

The article currently has these two images: Image:GuardianHQLondon0.jpg and Image:GuardianHQLondon1.jpg.

Seeing as both of these illustrate the same object from different perspectives, I suggest one of them be removed. Personally, I think the latter is better. Anyone agree? --RazorICE 12:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Substantially better. It actually illustrates the building - the other one just shows a set of doors, with nothing to differentiate them from the entrance of any other London office block. Shimgray | talk | 17:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Guardian01.jpg

Image:Guardian01.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 Wikipedia: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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Archives

There is no mention of the first part of the guardian/observer archives going online, it was accompanied by a special supplement in this Saturdays (3/11/07) guardian, the following Sundays observer, and the daily guardian for this following week (www.guardian.co.uk/archive) 82.11.193.187 20:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox "Political allegiance" again

User Oren.tal has just changed the stance from "centre left" to "left wing" with a cite to "Cybercast News Service which has a story "Left Wing UK Paper Pulls Bush Assassination Column", a pretty much non-story from 2004. I must say I was puzzled who this "Cybercast News Service" is, but examination of its homepage reveals it to be "A Division of the Media Research Center" with a link to www.mrc.org which declares the MRC to be "America's Media Watchdog" and "The Leader in Documenting, Exposing, and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias", and a cursory read of the homepage shows it to have, by British standards, a pretty rabidly right-wing position.

I consider it wholly inappropriate to rely on a foreign organisation to characterise a UK papers' political stance: by British standards nearly all US publications are firmly on the right of the political spectrum. Comparing political stances from a different country is unreliable. In the British political continuum the Guardian is firmly centre-left, therefore I am reverting the description. -- Arwel (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your thinking. --John 22:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This should be fleshed out in the "Stance" section of the article, with the infobox summarising that section, rather than tacking footnotes into the infobox. We've already got a decent MORI poll in there, and could do with sourcing that first sentence, but adding "The Conservative News Service refers to the Guardian as 'left-wing'" to the "Stance" section would obviously be very weak and biased beer. --McGeddon 23:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not loggin in.However if you consider something not reliable about British politic only because it is American source then what would you claim if someone will consider unreliable something about American politics only because it is British source.The claim that you must be British in order to understand British politics is a little ridicules.Anyway as you may see there is more then one source.On the other hand I have yet to see any source that claim it is central left.I think we should put the information according to the source we have.132.72.71.99 23:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mention "American", I'm just saying that a right-wing news service may be a biased source if we're trying to get an accurate summary of a left-wing newspaper. We've got a MORI poll in the "Stance" section that says the readership is split between Labour and Liberal Democrat voters - you're right that we need a reliable source to help us make the leap to summing that up as "centre left", but we need a source that talks specifically about the political allegiance of the newspaper. Some articles mentioning in passing that they consider the Guardian to be "left-wing" isn't very useful here. --McGeddon 09:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The comment about the American was for the other that invalidate sources because they are American (this is the most stupid argument I have ever heard).The readers can be even from the right wing side of the politic.Sometime people that belong to the left wing like to read right wing newspaper and the opposit.The fact is that it is widely conseidered as left wing and NOT as center left.Moreover it don't make the newspaper if it is center left than if it is left wing.anyway I have also like to the CNN (and one other reliable web site) and they are not right wing by any standart and they are one of the most reliable source.As for invalidate something because it has right wing agenda,I can tell you that it can also used for the other side,meaning to invalidate the Guardian because it is left wing.132.72.71.121 10:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a source to back up "widely considered as left wing", then please do so, but a single newspaper article referring to the Guardian as "left wing" does not do this. (Nor does a bunch of articles which you are asserting represents a wide consideration.) --McGeddon 10:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't tell you to suppply newspaper that say it is widely consider as central left but source that call it central left.CNN is an important and enough reliable.The fact is that the media refer to it as left wing and wikipedia should not reflect my or your opinion but the public opion.In the media the public opnion is reflected.Pay attention that I didn't say it is widely consider as left wing but only that it is left wing.I am aware it is all argueable for both side.It is not like saying oxygen has molar weight of 16 gram.The fact is that the media refer to it as left wing and that is enough refernce.Moreover the opposite opinion have yet to show any reference at all what so ever.So while you don't cite your cliam you demand extra citing from the opposite opinion.I for myself consider it as left wing and the fact that some time it has article that express right wing opinion don't make it to be central/central left.If the general attidue is left then the newspaper is left wing and not right or central.As for myself I don't realize why people try to call it central left when it is clear it is left.Anyway there are reliable sources that call it left wing.It is more than enough.132.72.70.14 12:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

And by the way I don't think there is anything wrong in beong left wing and I don't think being central left is in any way better then being left ,not do I think being right wing is better than left wing.132.72.70.14 12:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The paper supports the Liberal Democrats and this should be included in its political allegiance section of the infobox. See The Times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.222.94 (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

This party had declared allegiance to the Liberal Democrats and it should be stated so in the infobox. 94.10.114.108 (talk) 00:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This point is also being discussed at the bottom of the page, here. The paper has not "declared allegiance", it simply said that people should vote Lib Dem in the 2010 election, as much to promote electoral reform as anything else, while affirming that the paper was part of both the liberal and the labour tradition. It also said people should vote Labour in some marginals. In the previous election, it supported the Labour party. Keeping the allegiance note as "centre left" covers all this (even if the Libs are now in coalition with the Tories). There's no need to change it, and indeed it would make the content inaccurate in respect of the paper's stance in most recent elections. The infobox didn't say "Labour" before, when the paper was leaning more towards that party out of the two. The specific call in respect of the Lib Dems in 2010 is noted in the main body of the article. N-HH talk/edits 12:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian is left wing and NOT central left

This is only three source that regard the Guardian as left wing. http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C200410%5CPOL20041025a.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_14_57/ai_n15631102

http://newsbusters.org/node/11514

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/10/25/105353.shtml

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

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4730959/The-Guardian-Britain-s-leading.html

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.72.71.99 (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to see one source that regard it has central left. I think therefore it should be called left wing. It is enough source and we shouldn't invalidated something because it is American. 132.72.71.99 22:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your research, but please work on updating the "Stance" section, rather than cramming reference footnotes into the infobox. If it's true that the Guardian is accurately and widely regarded as "left-wing" rather than "centre left", we should have a sentence to that effect in the "Stance" section of the article, which can then be echoed in the infobox. --McGeddon 09:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I can not do everything and I totaly encourge other to do that.In any case the information in the infobox should still reflect the public opinion about this newspaper.Threfore it should be update there also.132.72.71.121 10:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Almost all (or all) of your sources are US-based (where "socialist" and "communist" are used as synonomous and the left of the political spectrum barely exists at all), and most of them are competing news organisations from the right of the political spectrum, so they are not good sources for a NPOV representation of the political stance of the Guardian. As I mentioned above, The Guardian is a British newspaper and in a British context it is a centre-left newspaper. (Central left is not a British political term.) Rachel Pearce 12:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Just like we don't invalidate British source when they refer to American politic we shouldn't invalidate american source when they refer to British politic.The last two source are not right wing source.Moreover you yourself admit that central left is not a recognised political term then why should wikipedai use in such term if it is not recognize.In such case it is orginal research.Wikipedia should use only in recognize political terms.132.72.70.14 12:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall any British sources being used to define American political stances. Centre-left is the term used in European politics. Central left, to which you keep referring simply does not exist. Words matter in Wikipedia. Rachel Pearce 00:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Rachel Pearce can you find source that define the Guardian as central left?It is very simple question.The source can be European but you must supply source.Everything in wikipedia should be cited."I don't recall any British sources being used to define American political stances."-I promise you that no one will agree to invalidate British source when it speak about America politic only because it is British.Moreover the claim that only British can understand British politic is a little ridiculs and unacceptable.132.72.70.52 16:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

132.72.70.52|132.72.70.52, if I may call you that, I repeat: There is no such term as central left in European politics. The Guardian is centre-left. I will look for references, but not from biased sources such as yours. If the Guardian is left wing, what is Tribune? What is the Socialist Worker? What is the Morning Star? What is the Independent even? These are all to the left of the Guardian. The problem with US sources is that everything to the left of centre is regarded as left wing in the US. Rachel Pearce 00:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

C.N.N. is not bias. and so is the other link.You need to find some thing that label it as central left.Until you supply such thing no point to contiinue the conversation.

Please sign your comments next time. Furthermore, to say CNN isn't bias is simply ridiculous. What you mean is that it fits your political ideals. Everything has bias. Furthermore please make sure you actually read people's reponses. You keep talking about 'central left'. The argument is that it is 'centre-left' which is completely different. Centre-left implies left of centre. Central left implies the centre of left, which is quite obviously further left. 82.17.136.199 (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Shorely the first thing to consider in this discussion is what method(s) are acceptable on wikipedia to define the political alliegance of a newspaper. The examples quoted all seem to be either a) from other newspapers, who are likely to have their own agenda or b) based on the voting intentions of guardian readers, which opens up an even bigger can of worms; ie: are labour voters in the UK left-wing? central-left? there's an awful lot of them. I'd hate to put them all in a box like that. Tony Benn and Tony Blair are both members of the labour party... what category of "political views" are those two going to be in? Michaeldrayson 15:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Storm in a teacup... just give the context, in Stance paragraph, that's what it's for. British political context should be the one in the infobox though. NB those refs suck ass, to use an Americanism - a Fortune blog and a garbled intro-only republication (most of it requires payment) of a National Review piece do not great sources make. Rd232 ^talk 20:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the guardian's definitely not left-wing. I even read in a guardian supplement a few months ago where it was analysing the state of the four "serious" papers, and it clearly said that the guardian, along with the Independent, was "left of centre". I've attempted to find that but couldn't, however it was on a wednesday in the Society supplement along-side ABC's figures. I can't remember the date, though, and I cannot find the source; however in the European context, it's definitely centre-left. Sneyton 21:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember that article, but in a 2004 Guardian article [1] the Guardian's features editor Ian Katz said "But it is no secret we are a centre-left newspaper and that our readers are likely to be pro-Kerry". In a 2008 Guardian article [2] Jackie Ashley talked about the newspaper's position in the political spectrum. The (American) book London for Dummies describes The Guardian as "left-of-center". --RS Ren (talk) 19:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Further to all this...I'm not sure about the latest edit reading: Until the founding of The Independent, The Guardian was the only 'serious' national daily newspaper in Britain not to support the Conservative Party. I suggest it implies a bit too much diehard Toryism among the others whereas in reality the Financial Times, for example, has not generally taken a party-political line, the News Chronicle (albeit gone by the time The Independent launched) was certainly not Conservative, and so on.

I think we need something like The Guardian was the only 'serious' national daily newspaper in Britain to consistently favour left-wing political positions, although I certainly agree that's a bit vague. Ideas? Barnabypage (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the existing form of words is not ideal. I changed it because I don't think the Guardian is strictly a left-wing newspaper in the same way that, say, The Morning Star is. However it is fairly consistently anti-Conservative, in a centre-left/liberal-left sort of way. I'll try and write something along those lines (only less waffly than that). MFlet1 (talk) 11:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It certainly is one of the most balanced and measured newspapers in the world in regard to its prose and general attitude. Some have even called it 'smug and boring' because it's so balanced and non-sensationalist. Maybe people regard it as left wing because the left rely more on science, statistics and reason than the right? I'll just put that out there. Autonova (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Autonova is economic illiterate. I just went to the Guardian front page and saw the phrase "far right" about 5 times. They have been consistently left wing on just about every issue. And this talk about science and facts is nonsense, I witnessed an article from a Guardian journalist stating that inflation wasn't that bad in the 70s and the IMF didn't bail us out. I also regularly see sensationalist nonsense from people like Naomi Klein that support rent controls and blame Friedman for Chile (even though it is the most prosperous country in South America). The telegraph is a much better reasoned newspaper than the Guardian which is utter trash. The icing on the cake is that they are in deficit/ debt denial. Is this really the actions of a paper that follows reason rather than ideology??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.238.122.141 (talk) 03:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

              Hear hear. The Guardian is and has always been a left wing paper. Whether it is hard left like the Mirror, or bat-shit-crazy left like the Socialist Worker, or Centre-left doesn't matter a whole lot, it is still left wing. If you call it left wing, it doesn't automatically imply extremism like that of the SWP. But it certainly isn't right wing is it? Like all socialists, they favour tax and ban, the question is to what extent do they push it on newspaper readers? The vast majority of which clearly want nothing to do with them. It is a newspaper for members of student unions and their leftist lecturers; socialists pretending to be high brow, but socialists nevertheless. --109.158.69.168 (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 

I think the above quote, with its assertions and stereotyping of what constitutes being 'left-wing' - and others too - is trying to shoehorn the article to reflect their own political agenda (sorry). I think the Guardian is centre-left and not left-wing in that it is moderate, distrustful of too much government intervention yet wishes to see a more equal and equitable society through the tax system and legislation, etc. But there should be a further distinction, and this is articulated in the introduction, that the Guardian's centre-left views are through the prism of liberalism. This is why I have edited the political allegiance section in the info-box to show "centre-left liberalism". The Guardian has always been a 'liberal' newspaper from the time of CP Scott onwards - only in the past forty to fifty years has it attempted to convey centre-left/leftist views through its liberalist tendencies. --Richj1209 (talk) 07:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I think even using the terms "center-left" in describing the newspaper's slant, then describing its readership as "mainstream" in the same sentence is ambiguous at best, and confusing for foreign visitors at worst. It's a disaster of a claim. Citation fucking needed. o0drogue0o 16:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

comparison with The Observer

See Talk:The_Observer#editorial_line. – Kaihsu (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Guardian readers "detached and alienated from noumenal concerns"

Do we really mean this, or has someone mischievously changed "normal" to "noumenal"? If anything IWHT the stereotypical Guardian reader was preooccupied with noumenal concerns. Barnabypage (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Rename Category:Guardian journalists

The category Category:Guardian journalists is slightly wrongly named in my opinion, as it contains both journalists and columnists. Other news sources call this category "... people", eg: Category:The Times people, Category:Wired magazine people. Should this be renamed to Category:Guardian people, or Category:The Guardian people (or something else)? --h2g2bob (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Support for Gulf War

Reading between the lines of the most recent edits, it would appear that the newspaper was opposed to precipitate military action immediately after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, but later supported action against Iraq once it was backed by the U.N. Could someone who has access to the primary sources confirm this and edit appropriately? Barnabypage (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Stereotypes?

Is it me, or do the stereotypes of a guardian reader seem a little too biased. It isnt consistent with any other newspaper wiki articles Mrjingjing (talk) 10:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is simply stating that the stereotype exists rather than making any claims about its truthfulness. And, as is pointed out in the paragraph in question, the Guardian itself has sometimes made light of this, e.g. in Posy Simmonds's cartoons. MFlet1 (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian and Complementary medicine

Linking the cessation of Edzard Ernst column with that of Emma Mitchell as a move away from covering alternative therapies, and contrasting that with the 'debunking' Bad Science column by Ben Goldacre leaves the impression that Ernst, the professor of complementary medicine at the Peninsula Medical School, advocates rather than (as he does) critiques alternative therapies. The wikipedia article on Ernst quotes the description 'the scourge of alternative medicine'. i have no idea why Ernst's column ceased, but it was certainnly not a move away from any favorable sort of coverage of complementary medicine.

Londonhypercube (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Origin of 'Grauniad'

The Wiki article refers to the origin of the nickname 'Grauniad' as being from the satirical magazine 'Private Eye'. This needs some elaboration. 'Private Eye' publishes cuttings of amusing typographical errors from many newspapers. If I recall correctly, in the 1970's one such cutting was from the 'Guardian', which had mis-spelt it's own name as 'Grauniad'. 'Private Eye' published this, and the name stuck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.143.105 (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is an urban legend. Grauniad was, AFAIK, coined by Private Eye, as it has coined many other disparaging nicknames for organisations and individuals. See eg Serious Farce Office. Disembrangler (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Most good references sources credit Private Eye with crediting the name. On the other hand, no source cites a particular issue of the paper where the title was misspelled. --Dannyno (talk) 09:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

anti-Semitism not well sourced

From this version I deleted the lines on Julie Burchill (JB) and anti-Semitism. The sources do not support the claim.
First: there has been a thourough discussion on this in 2006, sections: Guardian & Israel; Criticism section needed. The arguments and outcome are clear.
Second: having read the sources (JB), I see some major failing points (failing to maintain the claim): JB associates anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism in one loosely moment. Any accusation of anti-Semitism from anti-Zionism should be proven, not just interjected. From there she describes anti-Semitism/"Judeophobia" in general, not specific to The Guardian. She even mentions two newspapers, but not The Guardian. In 2006, in the Haaretz reference, she wrote she left TG for anti-Semitism. The statemnent is not supported with specifics, and does not line up with her November 2003 column (source), in which she also mentions, more clearly, two other reasons (readers, wad/money).
-DePiep (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The sources absolutely support the claim. She makes no bones about it -- did you read those sources? Perhaps you did not read the sources as carefully as you might have. And your belief that Burchill has not adequately proven her point is of no relevance here. She made it, and it's notable, as she once worked there and is notable in her own right. IronDuke 02:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

From the Julie Burchill article: "Burchill left The Guardian acrimoniously, saying in an interview that they had offered her a sofa in lieu of a pay rise.(ref) She claims to have left the newspaper in protest at what she saw as its "vile anti-Semitism".(ref)" Even if this contradiction and conflict of interest did not exist, using one writer's equation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism to support a much wider and stronger claim is a blatant breach of WP:NPOV. Disembrangler (talk) 10:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a contradiction or, at least, that's your interpretation. Others might disagree. Conflict of interest doesn't enter into it, not sure why you metioned that, maybe you could expand on that. And no "claims" are being supported, just outlined. A claim was made by someone who is in a reasonable position to claim it. We document that. Doesn't mean it's true, doesn't matter if it's true, only that she said it. IronDuke 15:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

(1) The conflict of interest / contradiction seems obvious: she left under a cloud, wanting more money than they were willing/able to give. Then she accused them of anti-semitism. The possibility of just "getting them back" seems obvious, especially for someone who thrives on controversy as she does. (2) of course it matters if it's true - the way that statement of what she said was being used implied that both her claims and the more general statement it was linked with were true, breaching WP:NPOV. (3) she's someone who's deliberately controversial, and given the circumstances, reporting her opinion at all is WP:UNDUE. Disembrangler (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

1) Left "under a cloud"? I was not aware of that... who says that she was? And that she had more than one reason for leaving is. I think, an extraordinarily easy concept to grasp. Also, your (possibly BLP-violating) speculations as to her motivations are immaterial. 2) I don't see how her statement implies anything more than her own opinion. And if you think "truth" matters, reread the first sentence of WP:V. Her opinion doens't have to be NPOV, just our quoting of it. 3) So no controversial people can be quoted on WP? Or is it that no disgruntled former employees may be quoted? IronDuke 16:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

1) Left under a cloud - paraphrasing/summarising from her interviews, yes. Two years later, an interviewer writes "She is still smarting from The Guardian having offered her a sofa by way of a pay rise" (the Times then doubled her salary). [3] She considered the pay offer an "insult". [4] "They were bastards." (because some allegedly hoped she'd lose the libel cases against her).[5] 2) "Her opinion doens't have to be NPOV, just our quoting of it." Yes, which is difficult to impossible, because the very fact of reporting it (particularly in the context of a discussion about whether the Guardian is anti-semitic/zionist/etc) is giving it a certain WP:UNDUE weight which her opinion doesn't merit. 3) "Julie Burchill, 45, habitually referred to as 'Britain's most notorious journalist' " [6] - it's just possible that what she has to say about a former employer she left in acrimonious circumstances and years later still "hates" is something we should be very careful about reporting, especially without fully explaining the entire background, which would surely take a large paragraph or two and be massively WP:UNDUE. Disembrangler (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

1) I’m not sure you’re quite understanding what “under a cloud” means. It would mean, in this case, that Burchill left because she was suspected of wrongdoing, not that the parting was bitter. None of your quotes support the idea that she had done anything wrong. I can provide a fuller illustration of what this phrase means if it’s still unclear. 2) I’m not sure what you mean here at all. Can you clarify? 3) We don’t have to report on the whole story of how and why she left – that’s exactly how this wiki doesn’t work. Her name is blue-linked, people who want more info can get it. If you wanted to add a brief descriptor, something along the lines of how acrimonious the split was, I’d be open to that. IronDuke 17:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

1) that's not what I meant by "under a cloud", so never mind. 2) Citing her opinion in the context of a discussion about whether the Guardian is anti-whatever clearly carries the implication that the opinion is relevant, and since there is no counter-balancing fact or opinion, this is unbalanced and not WP:NPOV. 3) When we cite a fact or opinion out of context, that can easily violate WP:NPOV; wikilinks don't change that. NPOV applies to each page individually. And again, given the full context would surely violate WP:UNDUE. Disembrangler (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't have to be counter-balancing opinion if it does not exist. If it does, find it and put it in. If you're really committed to this, I will even help you look. But if we don't find it, that doesn't mean her opinion isn't relevant. That would just be strange, wouldn't it? And her opinion isn't out of context -- but if it somehow was, we can add that she was not happy with the paper in general, as I said before. IronDuke 03:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

After I wrote, in the introducing text "having read the sources (JB) ..." IronDuke posted "-- did you read those sources?" in his very first line of reaction. That is very wp:uncivil. He is starting a personal attack from line 1. I sugegst and request a clear retraction by IronDuke. -DePiep (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

DePiep, I can see why that might bother you, but WP:AGF is policy for a reason. IronDuke might have read your comment in a hurry, or thought you might have read the sources in a hurry, or any number of other ways it may not have been meant badly. Let's focus on the issues. Disembrangler (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree, issues here. -DePiep (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Disembrangler is correct, I read too quickly. Have altered my post, apologies for the confusion, and thanks for the Good Faith. Would you mind replying to my last point? IronDuke 23:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If people could use talk to make their points, I think it would be good for the article. Recent edits have not been merely slanted, but led to a distorted picture of how the paper is actually viewed. IronDuke 15:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I reverted to the previous version, notably undoing your unnecessary and WP:UNDUE heading; but put back Dershowitz. Seems fine to me - the issue is well covered, without WP:UNDUE prominence. Rd232/Disembrangler ^talk 15:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Your reversion was a poor choice. You removed all mention of accusations against the Guardian of antisemitism which is bad editing--and disturbingly so. Please restore what you have deleted. I'm open to various ways of expressing these notable views, but ceratinly not to WP:Censoring them. IronDuke 21:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't be so melodramatic. The reversion cuts part of what Burchill says and the quote from some other guy I've never heard of. There are no serious accusations of anti-semitism separate from the Israel debate, and since it's well established in that paragraph that the Guardian is not anti-Israel, then the opinion of a couple of right-wing Zionists that the Guardian's news reporting and editorial critical of some of Israel's actions is "anti-semitic" clearly falls under WP:FRINGE. Rd232 ^talk 22:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for the melodrama: keeping Wikipedia free of guys you’ve “never heard of” is more than a full time task, though one I’m obviously pleased to be doing. That you think the Guardian is not anti-Israel is certainly interesting, but appears to be unsupported by anyone outside the paper itself. The sources we have that suggest the paper maybe antisemitic: Bawer, Burchill, and “many British Jews.” You appear to have heard of one of the persons mentioned, Burchill, who actually worked for the paper, but are unwilling to sully this page with what she actually believes. Can you say why that is? Also, if I tell you some facts about Mr. Bawer (is he a right wing Zionist?), do you think you could consent to having his views represented here? After all, he would then be a person you’d heard of. Then there are the “many British Jews.” Are their opinions so easily dismissible? IronDuke 01:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"That you think the Guardian is not anti-Israel is certainly interesting, but appears to be unsupported by anyone outside the paper itself. " - A source - Jerusalem Post - (which you added, I think) said the editor, Alan Rusbridger, "said that Israel is a "moral necessity" and reaffirmed The Guardian's position that it supports a two-state solution and is against any boycott of Israel."[7] Sounds a pretty definitive continuation of the paper's longstanding support for Zionism (qua existence of Israel). Rd232 ^talk 07:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It may sound that way to you, but it doesn't to me; I'm still failing to see where any source outside the paper calls it pro-Israel, or even neutral on Israel. IronDuke 15:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It supports the existence of Israel - this is clear and I think undisputed. Also in general the only people external to the paper interested in commenting on its Israel position are those with a right-wing Israeli axe to grind - those for whom "pro-Israel" means "pro-Likud, pro-settler", and who additionally want to declare anyone not "pro-Israel" on that definition as anti-semitic. Rd232 ^talk 07:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The idea that believing Israel has a right to exist is somehow synomous with being pro-Israel is... very odd. And Is there any reliable support outside your own opinion at all for your second contention? IronDuke 01:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps because this is a paper that has close to 200 years of history and the opinions of one employee during that entire time being given such coverage is a undo weight. In fact I think the editorial on "Operation Defensive Shield" is given too much weight, why would that be more important than any of the thousands of other editorials the paper has covered? Such information should be in a section on media coverage in the "Operation Defensive Shield" article, it is no more than a tiny blip in the history of the Guardian. Nableezy (talk) 02:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it has a rich past. No one person may have a notable opinion here, then, in the face of its 200 year history? Seriously, if John Edward Taylor has a counter-balancing opinion on Israel-Palestine, do feel free to include it. And what of the others who accuse the Guardian of antisemitism? How many individuals does it take, exactly, before the opinion becomes notable here? IronDuke 02:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You are a resourceful person ID, I am sure you can get some sources on his antisemitism. But more to the point, and forgive me if I am reading the diff incorrectly, but the things Rd232 removed were "For "many Brisitsh Jews," The Guardian's coverage, along with other papers reporting on Israel "is spiced with a tone of animosity, 'as to smell of anti-Semitism'" which is sourced to cited to this this JVL piece (orig quote:"Many British Jews are of the opinion that the press reporting on Israeli policy is spiced with a tone of animosity, “as to smell of anti-Semitism” as The Economist put it. In their opinion this is above all the case with the two quality papers, the Guardian and the Independent."). According to the JVL this paper supposedly comes from the E.U. Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia but the report was not released (they speculate as to the reason). I cannot find the Economist article, but I haven't looked to long, but for now we are relying on a report the agency which supposedly commissioned it did not release. The other thing he removed was "Bruce Bawer calls The Guardian "the British newspaper that can most reliably be counted on to slant stories against Israel and provide column space to anti-Semites..." cited to a book by Mr Bawer While Europe slept: how radical Islam is destroying the West from within, which apparently hasn't escaped accusations of overt racism. The source isnt terrible, but why are focusing on something that he mentions almost in passing in discussing that the UK's antisemitism manifests itself in the left more so than the right. He provides no justification for the statement, almost no reasoning at all. Why should this quote be included in the article? What does it add other than this persons unsubstantiated opinion? Nableezy (talk) 04:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I am indeed resourceful, Nab, and have in fact found some resources. Bawer, as you know, was nominated for a national Book Critics Circle Award. Yes, one person accused him of racism, which is 100% irrelevant, as again, I think you must know. Do you really think we should go around taking out sources from our articles when said sources have been accused of racism or various other isms?? Rhetorical question: I know that you do not. That’s just pure ad hominen. Bawer’s a good source, maybe not everyone’s cup of tea, but very well within WP guidelines. Your points about him not providing justification might be very well taken in a book you yourself wrote criticizing Bawer, but on a talk page they have zero impact. Bawer, for our purposes, is good source. You (and I) are not. Our criticism just doesn’t matter here, only that of reliable sources.

The JVL quote of the unreleased report; I don’t see why political pressure to suppress the report means that it isn’t true—do you have any basis for thinking the report might not be true? Then of course there’s Burchill, a former employee, accusing the paper of “vile antisemitism.” Why must that be stricken for the article? IronDuke 14:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Uhh, I said I didnt think the Bawer book was a bad source (the racism bit was tongue in cheek. I just think it is funny when somebody is calling another a racist while that person is being called a racist, thats just me tho), I just dont think that single line from the book where he is focused on a much larger issue and mentions the Guardian in passing needs to be in the article on the Guardian. Maybe in an article on the British left, though not sure if this opinion is backed by others so as not appear fringey. As far as the JVL source, no I do not have reason to believe it is inaccurate, but I likewise do not have reason to believe it was not released because of political pressure. The thing is we do not know, what we do know is that the EU center that commissioned it did not put their name behind it. I think it would be better if somebody, perhaps you as we have established you are very resourceful, could find the Economist article they quote and use that as a source. nableezy - 15:33 10.07.2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd be a bit careful about the "racism stuff." You have, if memory serves, an excellent sense of humor, but it's hard to convey tone on teh internets. What's at isue here isn't if it's a single line, it's whether the claim, that the Guardian is anti-semitic, is supported by reliable/notable sources. Bawer supports it. Does he write a book solely on that issue? No, but that doesn't mean his research/obsevrations haven't led him to conclude it is true. So we have Bawer, who as you say is a good source. We have Burchill (reliable/notable, yes?). Then we have the suppressed report. Perhaps my talents for resourcefulness have been exaggerated, as I could not find it in the Economist, but that may be their site's search engine problem. Where I did find it, though... wait for it... is in The Guardian itself. See here. I think three sources (four if you add the Dershowitz source, as he alludes to it, though does not use the exact words) that's more than enough to include the term. IronDuke 22:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

First part, noted and thank you for the advice (but cmon, that is kind of funny). Second, I would like to see some more sources on the Guardian's supposed antisemitism, preferably in sources that are actually focused on the Guardian, or even sources focused on antisemitism and devotes some actual coverage of the Guardian. If the Guardian truly can be "counted on to slant stories against Israel and provide column space to anti-Semites" it shouldnt be so hard to find a source that actually substantiates the charge. Third, you really should have made me find that Guardian piece, as it contains what the EU says was the reason for not releasing the report: "The EU said the report, dated February this year, was not published because it was insubstantial in its current state and lacking sufficient evidence", so I would say we shouldn't use the leaked report as a source (not saying we cannot use it at all) as the sponsors of the report have said it is not reliable. But it is good enough to back up the Economist wrote "as to smell of anti-semitism", though I would still like to see whether the Economist also carried the "many British Jews felt" or how they reported it, as the entire line is in the report that was apparently lacking in sufficient evidence and I cannot tell by how they quote the Economist what part is from the report itself and what is from the Economist beyond the "smell of anti-semitism". If the Economist did report this as a feeling of British Jews then I wouldn't be entirely opposed to a line like "the Economist reported that many British Jews perceived the Guardian's to be antagonistic to the point of carrying tones of antisemitism." But I would like to see how the Economist put it, will do some work looking around for the article. nableezy - 23:08 10.07.2009 (UTC)

Well, as to the first part, I can't see how he could be a racist, so the criticism just seems odd. Even if he were the phobiest Islamophobe who ever phobed, that ain't racism, unless Muslims somehow got designated a race without anyone telling me. I do have to give you a tip of that, though, for taking an assertion by a reliable source and suggesting, if it's true, that it shouldn't be to hard to get a reliable source to substantiate it. I can only heartily agree with you, and point to the very source in question. Yes, there was a dispute about the report. The sponsors balked at what the people who actually did the research found. We needn't speculate as to why, only that the report itself is stil considered significant. The Guardian itself, as well as the Economist, apparently, and the JVL all quote it. I understand -- and sympathize - with your qualms, but the report is still notable. And you still haven't spoken on Burchill. Have you no opinion on her opinion? IronDuke 22:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Julie Burchill, and at that, one throwaway comment in one column?! This is a joke right? I know Iron Duke that you like having an "Allegations of anti-semitism" section in every page on Wikipedia (see Urban Outfitters, Cynthia McKinney versions past) but to suggest that the Guardian is somehow only two steps removed from Der Sturmer is pushing it a bit, surely. WP:UNDUE is still (part of) a policy last time I looked. Find some serious piece of work that deals with this point in the way that you clearly wish it did, and maybe everyone can then discuss whether it should appear near the top of the page. Until then, no. --Nickhh (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

ps: I'm not sure that "Alan Dershowitz says .." is that WP-worthy either. If someone feels like removing that again, this article would probably be much improved as well. Or at least they could qualify "Harvard law professor" with "well-known polemicist " or somesuch —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickhh (talk • contribs)

Yes, Nick, of course it's a joke. (Do me a favor, though: don't tell Nableezy. I still got 'im going.) And as for Der Sturmer, why, Dershowitz himself makes that very comparison! I think you two would have a lot to talk about, no? IronDuke 22:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, there's been some concern that not enough sources have been brought to bear on this point. I cannot agree, but I have added some in any case. I know for some people no amount of sources can ever be enough. I hope there are enough open-minded people on this talk page who can accept an opinion that may not dovetail with their POV. IronDuke 04:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Seven Jewish Children is a controversial 8-minute play which the BBC was possibly going to broadcast, but then refused, so the Guardian put it on their website, saying "People will have different views but they should at least base their views on having seen it." [8]. The criticism of the Guardian hosting that video (and of the play) which you quote was published in the Guardian. And you cherry-pick a random blog quote. Desperate, desperate stuff. Rd232 ^talk 08:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks aside, can I take it you agree with the rest of the additions? IronDuke 14:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"Personal attacks"?? I described the edits. And obviously I don't agree. You're edits with things like this [9], violate WP:UNDUE. You're effectively trying to build a WP:COATRACK, and drag the entire I/P debate into this article. This is not helpful to readers. Rd232 ^talk 14:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course they're personal attacks. "Desperate" cannot describe the content of an edit, only the state of mind of the person making it. Can you say how the edits in question violate UNDUE? IronDuke 15:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well even the most innocuous comment has a personal attack implied somewhere if you dig deep enough. I didn't mean it as one, but it was a bit banterish phrasing. Still, WP:AGF is policy for a reason; sorry if I implied anything. Rd232 ^talk 16:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries--and I quite like banter, actually. But I must formally request that you make your comments wittier if you wish to so enagage. ;) IronDuke 16:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I notice now that there has been a deletion of notable, well-sourced material with the edit summary "heavily biased section." I don't know what that means, but I'm happy to include contrary views if people can find them. IronDuke 14:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, one more thing: I'm happy to conitnue this discussion, but I wonder if mediation wouldn't be a good next step here? Thoughts? IronDuke 15:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary, what we need is to take a step back and do some lateral thinking. Really, what you're trying to do is address here a small part of a broader topic, which either makes the fragment a contextless WP:COATRACK (exemplified by what you took from that Guardian leader - all the negative general stuff critical of various media is lumped onto the Guardian), or if we expand the discussion to explain all that then it'll be massively WP:UNDUE. So what we need is something like British media positions on Israel. We already have Israel lobby in the United Kingdom and Media and the Gaza War which will probably be linked somehow. There is Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict but that's both global and weirdly crap (in a very Wikipedia way) in its focus on lots and lots of detail (can't see the wood for the trees!) - let's try and avoid that. Anyway, with its own article (something like British media positions on Israel), there'll be space to put the whole thing in context (a) in terms of how the Guardian fits into the media as a whole on the issue and (b) in terms of the wider I/P debate. Make sense? Rd232 ^talk 16:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense as far as it goes. If you want to start that article, I'll be happy to contribute, though it seems like a bit of a toughie to me. But if you're rarin' to go, have at at it, just as long as it doesn't become a POV fork to remove material from this article -- and your idea, while not unsound, doesn't necessarily tell us what we should be doing here on this article. IronDuke 16:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It can hardly be a POV fork, it's a much broader topic. Rd232 ^talk 16:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it definitely can, if it's done to skew a different article by removing contentious info from it (or has that effect). IronDuke 16:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

IronDuke - your material may be sourced but much of it is taken out of context. You have included a Guardian editorial as one of your sources - the one with the Greville Janner quote - but neglected to mention that the editorial quotes Janner in order to refute the very point he is making and to point out that criticism of Israel is not tantamount to anti-Semitism. Unfortunately many of your quotes are from people who are convinced that these two things are in fact the same. Also, just because a (small) number of people are convinced that the Guardian is anti-Semitic does not make it worthy of being included at great length in the article. To use an analogy, a number of people think that the Apollo 11 moon landings were actually faked and filmed in a television studio, and no doubt you could find lots of quotes to that effect, but that wouldn't justify including a lengthy discussion of this in Wikipedia's article about Apollo 11, the reason being that you don't want to give undue weight to a viewpoint that hardly anyone agrees with and which is backed up by minimal (if any) evidence. I think the same applies here. MFlet1 (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - a good explanation of how WP:UNDUE applies here. Following that up, I think IronDuke might want to have a crack at British media positions on Israel, which has the scope for collaborative editing to lead somewhere useful, whereas here it runs into WP:UNDUE issues which require us to keep the section on it very short. Rd232 ^talk 16:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

“IronDuke - your material may be sourced but much of it is taken out of context.”

• Meaning what? Which quotes do not accurately reflect the views of the writer?

“You have included a Guardian editorial as one of your sources - the one with the Greville Janner quote - but neglected to mention that the editorial quotes Janner in order to refute the very point he is making and to point out that criticism of Israel is not tantamount to anti-Semitism.”

• No, I actually mention that very point just after. “The paper responded that being against the policies of Israel did not necessarily make them antisemitic.”

“Unfortunately many of your quotes are from people who are convinced that these two things are in fact the same.”

• Well, I think that’s just begging the question these folks are raising. When does criticism of Israel become antisemitic? Reasonable people may disagree.

“[A] number of people think that the Apollo 11 moon landings were actually faked and filmed in a television studio, and no doubt you could find lots of quotes to that effect, but that wouldn't justify including a lengthy discussion of this in Wikipedia's article about Apollo 11, the reason being that you don't want to give undue weight to a viewpoint that hardly anyone agrees with and which is backed up by minimal (if any) evidence. I think the same applies here.”

• I think that’s an excellent analogy, let’s run with it. There are indeed a number of people who think the moon landings were faked, but there is an overwhelming, simply massive consensus that they were in fact real. In order for your analogy to hold, there must also be an overwhelming, massive consensus that there isn’t a particle of truth to the accusation that the Guardian is antisemitic. I see no such consensus, and I have looked for people to defend the Guardian on this point, and written in such defenses where I found/noticed them. Happy to have more defense, if people can dig them up. But the point, of course, is that the reliable sources saying that the Guardian is antisemitic vastly outweigh the defenders which seem, mainly, to consist of the Guardian itself. So deleting that claim in toto, which has been done over and over again, is itself a huge violation of WP:UNDUE: that the Guardian is sometimes antizionist and/or antisemitic has been established by a wide range of people. IronDuke 16:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

this argument seems a stretch. are you claiming that the Guardian's antisemitism has been "established" by the fact that the mainstream usually ignores those allegations instead of refuting them? that doesn't sit right. think of this: if someone says 2*2=5, and no one (except 5 himself) rushes to deny the veracity of that and to defend 5 from accusations that 2*2 equals it, does that somehow prove that 2*2 really does equal 5? i would think it more likely that the rest of the odd numbers believed it such a ridiculous accusation that they didn't give it any attention, and neither should the hypothetical article on the number 5. untwirl(talk) 18:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're taking something that's deductively obvious (2 + 2 = 4) then suggesting it parallels something that is (to you) inductively obvious (The Guardian is not antisemitic). So I can't like your analogy there, as WP allows us to edit without having to prove with RS's that 2 + 2 = 4, but not whether or not a person or organization is antisemitic. However, taking Mflet's fake moon landing analogy, yes: we would write that many have suggested the landing is fake, though Neil Armstrong strongly disagrees. The end. Unless... we have other sources which dispute it. Believe me when I tell you that the subject of The Guardian and antisemitism is not thought ridiculous by those who have knowledge of it -- on both sides of the debate. But even if it was, WP is not about truth, it's about verifiabilty. Which I have shown, in spades. We can quibble about which sources to use, what order, how to frame TG's refutation, how much space to give the whole subject: valid questions all. But there can be no question that the accusation exists, and is notable, and should appear in this article in some form. IronDuke 20:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not seeing a lot of movement here. I've been told there aren't enough sources, and now am told there are too many. Is there some magic number people would like to see? I am open to suggestion. IronDuke 20:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I started this, and having read the sequence here: the section now called "Israel" is not worth saving. Even some Dershowith is introduced here to save some POV-point -- that says enough. There is no specific Guardian-anti-Semitic point left. -DePiep (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You did indeed start this section, naming it "anti-Semitism not well-sourced." Even at the time you wrote that, it was wrong, of course. But now many more sources have been added, which neither you nor anyone else have addressed. Further, the parts about Israel would still stand, as antizionism and antisemitism are not (always) the same thing. Removing the section you just did, without prior discussion, was a terrifically bad edit: please don't do anything like that again. IronDuke 02:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

ID - you've repeatedly changed the article without any prior discussion and regardless of what other users think, so don't know whether you have cause to criticise others on this.

The thing that bothers me about all this is that most of the UK media is, in my opinion, strongly biased in favour of Israel. How about if I add a long section to the article about, say, The Times detailing all the occasions on which they have displayed possible anti-Palestinian bias? Don't like that idea? Thought not.

The Guardian is not anti-Israel and still less anti-semitic, but is one of the few outlets willing to give a voice to the Palestinian side of the debate. This is the real agenda behind this debate, i.e. that any suggestion that Palestinians may have some just grievances is immediately condemned as anti-semitic by Israel's supporters. MFlet1 (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

First off, Mflet, I’d like to thank you for showing some flexibility here in your edit. Accusations of antizionism and antisemitism are notable and deserve a place here. That said, the rest of your post is, interestingly, completely wrong -- really, every last little bit of it. “you've repeatedly changed the article without any prior discussion and regardless of what other users think.” No, I’ve repeatedly asked for input, and been met with silence. It is only after I make an edit that users suddenly appears to 1) Revert then 2) Offer their opinions. “How about if I add a long section to the article about, say, The Times detailing all the occasions on which they have displayed possible anti-Palestinian bias? Don't like that idea? Thought not.” Well, that’s troubling. I had hoped that my thoughts were shielded from you, but you appear to have developed some sort of device (a ray, perhaps?) for discerning them. Or not. You want to edit the Times to say it’s anti-Palestinian? Be. My. Guest. I hope you use good sources, but that’s your own affair. The rest of your post is a soapbox -- and one unsupported by any external evidence other than Guardian sources, I might add. Still, it’s your opinion, and you are welcome to it. Thanks again for editing in a way that takes into accounts viewpoints other than your own. (That is not ironic, BTW: I mean it.) IronDuke 22:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, dear. I seem to have made an error -- the edits I'm thinking of were made by Nableezy, not Mflet. So, erm, thanks, Nableezy, for your flexibility. Much appreciated. IronDuke 22:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, since you are feeling so appreciative, I would suggest removing the following paragraph from the article:

In 2008, the editor of The Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, apologised for an editorial in the paper in 2002 concerning "Operation Defensive Shield", which stated that "Israel's actions in Jenin were every bit as repellent as Osama Bin Laden's attack on New York on September 11." Rusbridger described the statement as a "misjudgment", and went on to agree that his paper must be accountable, and that Israel is a "moral necessity".

I dont think we need to document individual events here, what should be included is allegations about the Guardian itself, not about one specific article. Why should we cover this article more than hundreds of thousands of articles the Guardian has printed in the past? Sources that actually speak to the Guardian as carrying an anti-Israel bias or being antisemitic, but one article doesnt merit the coverage it currently is getting. nableezy - 23:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so agreed. IronDuke 20:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

new edits

-compare: Despite its early support for the Zionist movement, and continuing support for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,The Guardian has sometimes been perceived as being critical of Israeli government policy. In December 2003 journalist Julie Burchill cited this as one of the reasons she left the paper for The Times. Additionally, in 2006 the paper was accused by Jerusalem Post columnist Alan Dershowitz of being biased against Israel. However The Guardian's foreign editor, Harriet Sherwood, has stated that the paper aims to cover all viewpoints in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On 6 June 2007, the paper commemorated the 40th anniversary of the Six Day War by giving equal space to the Israeli and Palestinian prime ministers to explain their views on the conflict and its legacy.

+ In December 2003 journalist Julie Burchill cited this as one of the reasons she left the paper for The Times. Additionally, in 2006 the paper was accused by Jerusalem Post columnist Alan Dershowitz of being biased against Israel. However The Guardian's foreign editor, Harriet Sherwood, has stated that the paper aims to cover all viewpoints in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On 6 June 2007, the paper commemorated the 40th anniversary of the Six Day War by giving equal space to the Israeli and Palestinian prime ministers to explain their views on the conflict and its legacy.

It is obviously much less pov in the second instance. the first sentence was pure synth and weasely to boot! and dershowitz accused someone of being biased against israel? is this really notable? untwirl(talk) 03:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC) edit: i just noticed that what burchill said was left out on the second version. i suggest a direct quote: "striking bias against Israel." untwirl(talk) 03:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

the economist

the sentence that purports to be a quote of the economist is actually from a document at the jewish virtual library. the page claims to be an unreleased report (with this disclaimer at the top of the page:)

"DISCLAIMER: This report was not released by the European Union, presumably because it points out significant Muslim involvement in European anti-Semitism."

the 'report' presents only the "smell of antisemitism" as a direct quote from the economist, but provides no information about when this was published. if that quote is to be used, it needs to link to the actual article in the economist, not to a partisan website without attribution.untwirl(talk) 06:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The Guardian also coverd the same report. You may feel free to source it to them, if you believe they are a reliable a source. IronDuke 22:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

how about using the economist, if we're quoting them? untwirl(talk) 02:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Feel free. IronDuke 20:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)