Talk:The Guardian/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Guardian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on The Guardian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on The Guardian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Stylised Name

I think entire article should be migrated to stylised (the guardian) with small letters. Just like their official website and Wikipedia's beIN article for instance. In Allah We Trust (talk) 11:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. This may be how it's stylized in the masthead but in the rest of the paper - and when it's referred to elsewhere in the media - it's usually printed simply as "The Guardian". MFlet1 (talk) 12:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Yup. I'm with MFlet. DBaK (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I also think it is a bad idea. Mezigue (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Pass Notes

Pass Notes currently doesn't cite any sources secondary to The Guardian—if it doesn't have any, its content should be merged into the main article or simply redirected. czar 04:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree: merge. Zin92 (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
So far, editors have seen no reason to even mention Pass Notes in this article. I don't think merging does any good to this article. I'd rather see Pass Notes in AfD, if there really aren't any independent sources. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Guardian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

News from the Continent

Has anyone heard something about "Operation Kaninchenjagd" (Operation rabbit hunting) in Main-Kinzig-Kreis? --Fb8cont (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Genuine question

Is the page issues bar a joke or genuine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.238.156 (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Tag - perhaps an exceptional case?

I'm sure I can't be the first to suggest this, but given we're talking about the Guardian, perhaps the tag could be changed with "may" replaced by "will always" so that it reads: "This article will always require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemo183 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Traingate trivia

I've twice had to remove this trivia:

In September 2016, Private Eye revealed that a Guardian story from August 16 on "Traingate" was written by a former Socialist Workers Party member who joined the Labour Party once Jeremy Corbyn became Labour leader. The journalist also had a conflict of interest with the individual who filmed Corbyn on the floor of an allegedly-overcrowded train, something the Guardian did not mention in its reporting.[1] Paul Chadwich, the global readers editor for the Guardian, later stated that the story was published too quickly, with aspects of the story not being corroborated by third-party sources prior to reporting. The story proved to be an embarrassment for Corbyn and the Guardian.[2] The story was originally submitted to BuzzFeed News, who rejected the article because its author had "attached a load of conditions around the words and he wanted it written his way", according to BuzzFeed UK editor-in-chief Janine Gibson.[3]

It doesn't seem to me to add any long-term encyclopedic value to the article, but I raise it here in case anyone wants to make the case for including it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I noticed the start of a would-be edit war on my watchlist, thanks for bringing it to the talk page for the unsigned user. Although I see the episode as of sufficient notoriety (besides The Times, Politico, Business Insider, and Yahoo also reported on it) I think the paragraph does not clearly explain what happened, does not cite its references properly (there are links available to them but they are not provided) and has some errors ("the Guardian", etc). If the author provides a better (possibly more concise) version of it I believe it's worthy of addition. On its current form though it should not be added IMO. Saturnalia0 (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Street of Shame: Tale of Two Anthonys". Private Eye (1426). Pressdram Ltd. September 2016. p. 6.
  2. ^ Brown, David (October 8, 2016). "Guardian got 'traingate' story wrong". The Times.
  3. ^ Kanter, Jake (October 18, 2016). "BuzzFeed's UK editor just summed up why the website rejected the Jeremy Corbyn 'traingate' story". Business Insider.

Support For Stalin

I noticed the article fails to make any mention of the newspapers support for Stalin, isn't that rather unusual? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.152.116 (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Role in Panama Papers

The unattributed quote in the intro says

"In 2016, it led the investigation into the Panama Papers, exposing the then British Prime Minister David Cameron's links to offshore bank accounts."

However it was the Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) which received the initial leak, and led the investigation, according to the Wiki page on the topic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers

Tsop (talk) 13:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on The Guardian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

First paragraph under sub-heading Post War

The tone is polemical rather than dispassionate. The reference used to substantiate the claim about loathing Bevan is to a leader article published before the election in 1951' "Time for change". At this point the Second Atlee government was seriously divided over NHS charges. The paper may have felt the government could not continue. Between 1945 and 1951 the Guardian may or may not have loathed Bevan but the reference does nothing to support the claim. The second point about the NHS and the claimed fear that it would "eliminate selective elimination". This is an accurate quote from Austerity Britain but a search of the Guardian digital archive does not find that phrase used between 1/Jan/1945 and 31/Dec/51. Neither do congenitally and deformed appear in the same paragraph in the same time range. I would delete the paragraph. DavidLynch (talk) 10:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The phrase "eliminate selective elimination" appears in the Guardian digital archive precisely where Austerity Britain says it does: Jul 5, 1948; p. 4. The paragraph should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.240.127.83 (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on The Guardian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

"Tabloid" in opening sentence

Another editor is edit-warring in order to insert the word "tabloid" - a reference to its new physical size - in the opening sentence. This is unnecessary - I've suggested that, if a reference in the opening section is needed, it could be in the third paragraph - and it will confuse readers who do not necessarily differentiate between "tabloid journalism" and tabloid (newspaper format). Not all newspapers mention their current physical format in the opening sentence (see i (newspaper)), and in any case the article discusses the newspaper's history, its website, etc. etc., to which its physical format is unconnected. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC) PS: I've now split the opening sentence so that, at least, we no longer imply that it has always been in tabloid format. But, the mention in the opening sentence is still unnecessary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Possible Hacked Search discription of this Wiki page.

Reads:-

"The Guardian - Wikipedia The Guardian is a far-left, anti-Semitic hate site and British daily newspaper, known from 1821 until 1959 as the Manchester Guardian. Along with its ... [Search domain en.wikipedia.org] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian" 

This was Using Duck Duck Go. 28-11-17  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.70.67.56 (talk) 11:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
It seems that this reflects some mischievous editing on the 24th November, rapidly reverted on the day. Klbrain (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Whoops - an explanation of my edit and a heads-up about someone else's.

It's been ages since I last edited Wikipedia and I am way out of practice. I undid a revision (this one [1] ) in such a way that I didn't get the opportunity to put an explanation in the edit summary. Had I been able I would have said the reason for the reversion was that the previous editor put a reference at the end of the first sentence that linked to news of no sales improvement after the paper's recent rebranding. There may well be a place for that news but I can't see how it is best placed as a source merely to confirm that The Guardian is a British newspaper. Anyway, I apologise, nonetheless, to the editor I reverted for doing so in an ungentlemanly manner.

Onlookers may also wish to be informed that another recent edit has changed the info box to declare the paper is "left wing", whereas it previously said "centre-left". I'm too timid to change that one but others may well feel differently. --bodnotbod (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it must be an age thing. I'm probably too old for my own good but I can remember when they dropped the 'Manchester', in fact I can remember a whole lot further than that, and pre-Margaret Thatcher The Guardian was distinctly, and uniquely, centre. It was the paper of the Liberal party, although the party and the paper seem to be the only ones who hadn't noticed this fact. To find today's generations in dispute about whether it's left-wing or centre-left perplexes me. The Daily Worker/Morning Star is left wing, and The Guardian is some way to right of that publication. --Deke42 (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Chronology of History Sub-Sections

As it currently stands, the history section is divided into the following sub-sections:

  • 1821-1972
  • 1972 - 2000
  • 2000 - Present Day

Is it possible to explain the rationale for this periodisation. It seems strange that the year 1959, when the paper changed from The Manchester Guardian to The Guardian, isn't given more prominence. Any comments/thoughts would be very welcome! Jono1011 (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure than anything much else changed with the paper at that point, but I do agree, splitting the history at that point would make sense. --Deke42 (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Guardian going blue again

The Guardian has gone blue again, a darker blue this time. Navy blue if you will. No official statement yet, like the one in January for example.

Blue Wiki (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Guardian is not far left!

Someone modified the article to claim a far left bias. This is not correct. 

  The Guardian media bias rating is Lean Left.
  The Guardian is believed to have a lean left bias, in accordance with a features editor's assertion in 2004 that "it is no secret we are a centre-left newspaper." The Guardian was founded in 1821 to promote liberal interests during a turbulent time characterized by massive worker movements and growing anti-Corn Laws campaigns. It maintained its role as the voice of the left despite facing several financial hurdles over the years. By the 1970s and 1980s, a period of polarized politics in Great Britain, The Guardian’s opinion pages helped spawn the center-left SDP party. https://www.allsides.com/news-source/guardian  

   Analysis / Bias Throughout its history, The Guardian has always been a left-wing publication as they have stated in various articles. In review, story selection favors the left, but is generally factual. They utilize emotionally loaded headlines such as “The cashless society is a con – and big finance is behind it” and “Trump back-pedals on Russian meddling remarks after outcry”.  The Guardian typically utilizes credible sources such as thoughtco.com, gov.UK, HuffPost, independent.co.uk, and the Miami Herald.  A factual search reveals that the Guardian has a clean fact check record. Overall, we rate The Guardian Left-Center biased based on story selection that favors the left and High for factual reporting. (5/18/2016) Updated 7/19/2018 https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/

Peter K Burian (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Someone has fixed that in the article already. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Manafort and Assange

Glenn Greenwald criticises what looks to be flat out propaganda: [2] Jimmy Wales chimed in as well. Luke Harding is the journo, same guy who pushes the official version of the Skripal affair. Shtove (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Greenwald says a lot of things. His cranky fringe views don't belong on Wikipedia unless covered by and deemed notable by secondary RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I have become more skeptical, and downright suspicious, of Greenwald. Sometimes I wonder if he's been compromised. Assange went to the dark side a long time ago. It's sad. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Both these comments are simply biased. What is sad is that current affairs articles on wikipedia are wholly reliant on sources that use journalists like Luke Harding and themes and narratives seeded by bought-and-paid-for thinktanks. Shtove

The Guardian is the UK's most left-wing newspaper

How on earth has The Guardian been classified as centre-left in the info-box, when many sources actually refer to it as far-left. However I think the vast majority of reliable sources classify The Guardian as Left-wing and we should change it to Left-wing in the info-box. There are no sources describing it as centrist in its political leanings. I will make this change and provide a few sources unless anyone objects to doing so and provides some solid reliable sources and reasoning?Merphee (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Can you provide reliable sources? This the UK we're talking about, not Nazi Germany. Sumanuil (talk) 06:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely I can and will, for the Guardian being left-wing not far-left wing that is. I have no intention of changing the info-box to far left-wing How many reliable sources do you want to add to the info-box to support the change is the only question. As you probably know, there are lots and lots. Before I do though, what on earth do you mean by your Nazi Germany statement. Seriously?Merphee (talk) 07:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
That was also a serious question as to how many reliable sources you or other editors think we need? We can't have 50 or 100 which would be quite easily referenced. Maybe 3? Just for an entree, the second paragraph of the lead with 3 accompanying sources states, "The newspaper's reputation as a platform for liberal and left-wing editorial has led to the use of the "Guardian reader" and "Guardianista" as often (but not always) pejorative epithets for those of left-leaning or politically correct tendencies". Let me know about the number of sources you want Sumanuil or any other editor. I don't plan to just ram the edit into the article without discussion here on the talk page first like some editors arrogantly try to do on other media publication type articles.Merphee (talk) 07:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

If you want to claim that the Guardian is "left-wing", I think you have to provide some evidence. A "reputation" of being "left-wing" doesn't cut it, when that "reputation" is little more than the biased view of right-wing opponents. It doesn't help your cause that if you follow the links you are relying on you'll see that the only mention of The Guardian in the article "What the papers say" is a juvenile comment made by The Sun. Perhaps you could start by defining "left-wing", or by citing a credible source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.243.124 (talk) 13:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Is this IP Sumanuil? I think that this 'subjective section of the infobox is not needed to be honest. Our articles on US mainstream newspapers do not include a political alignment in the infobox and my inclination is to delete it from the infobox. Definitions of left wing, right wing mean very little across country borders and for our readers. Meanings in the UK are different to the US for instance. Another reason it should be deleted entirely IMO. However you saying "the biased view of right-wing opponents" as a reliable source doesn't cut it, I disagree. Reliable sources are reliable sources. And our personal opinions as to what newspapers are biased is in the minds of the beholder and at any rate are completely irrelevant here at Wikipedia. Policy is obviously the only thing that is important. I will add a few sources stating that The Guardian has a left-wing political alignment. Interested in your thoughts on my suggestion to delete this from the infobox? 04:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)Merphee (talk)
Hi Merphee. I think that we should retain Political Alignment in the infobox for consistency with the Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, Daily Express, Daily Mirror and Times articles. Will you still be documenting “reliable sources” here on the talk page for review? Thanks Zin92 (talk) 07:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Anti Israel

As The Guardians gives editorial space to terrotists like Omar Barghouti, Press TV's George Galloway and other terrorism apologists and the majority of it's article are negative toward Israel. That should be mentioned.96.67.10.107 (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

infobox data political =

I removed the terms for political in the infobox altogether. If it can not adequately condense the cited content to a widely accepted term then why try. This solution is what happens at other newspapers, the one adopted recently when discussion became long and tedious, the time and focus is better spent on verifiable facts and attribution. cygnis insignis 08:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: In future, follow WP:BRD when making changes. Endymion.12 (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
How am I not, following BRD, in removing a contentious and uncited label. A comment out is not a reference, and reference to some unfinable discussion long ago is not how we build things here. The assertion is currently restored with a citation to the primary source. The edit box is yet another battleground for noisy editing, a response to characterisation of my contribution is preferred. cygnis insignis 17:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
You failed to follow WP:BRD when you removed the same content without first seeking consensus on the talk page no less than 5 times in the last three weeks. Had you actually read the BRD article you would have discovered precisely how you failed to follow BRD. Endymion.12 (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I opened the discussion, no one responded, except you, with assertions that do nothing to address the concerns raised. I'm following a process of boldly added without a citation, reverted as plausibly contentious, and opened for discussion on the talk, not whatever you imagine the process should be by a reading of that text, rather the core process of content creation and verifiability using solutions. What is your problem? cygnis insignis 18:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
@Cygnis insignis: You made a bold change, your changes were then reverted, and it is now for you to gain a consensus in favour of your changes. Endymion.12 (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Goodness, the way you characterise my contributions, I hope you are across what happened. I'm not fighting some personal crusade, this has become the solution in comparable articles with dispute on the matter. We add facts from reliable sources, the better the sentence or paragraph on an organisations political leaning or position the less objectionable it is. There was no fact, or citation, just CommentOut stating 'don't change this without going to the talk first'. I changed 'change' to 'add' and removed it. The contributors undoing that, and adding some claim or another, did so without an edit summary, until a day or so ago, now it has a claim from the someone at the primary source and topic of the article said about them collectively [which is a silly thing to print really]. The infobox makes simple and verifiable assertions, this is not simple and it is misleading to state anything. Many articles on news media opt for no statement in the infobox, instead adding the claims as sentences with attribution. Spiked claim to be Marxist, I'll go and see what the infobox says now. cygnis insignis 17:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Endymion.12: Totally agree with Cygnis insignis on this one and the suggestion to remove the political alignment from the info-box and for the solid reasons provided. Also the current centre-left alignment has not a single reliable source which clearly states The Guardian is a centre-left publication. You really need to engage here Endymion.12 otherwise we need to remove this from the infobox. Merphee (talk) 09:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Left-wing

The guardian is a left-wing publication. I changed this in the infobox which erroneously stated "centre-left" I cannot find any reliable sources defining the Guardian as centre-left. We need to be entirely guided by what the reliable sources say only. Not what we want the reliable sources to say. Merphee (talk) 00:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Endymion.12: You reverted my change to left-wing, but have not engaged here on the talk page. The sources in the infobox say "left-wing" not centre-left. Left leaning is not centre-left, it is left-wing. I have been asking you for several days now to provide a reliable source which clearly states the guardian is a centre-left politically aligned newspaper. If you haven't got one don't revert my edit again without discussing here. We go by what the reliable sources say. That's it. Not what you want it to say based on your own point of view Endymion.12. Merphee (talk) 09:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Centre-left: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/16/uselections2004.usa2.
Left-centre: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/
Re the BBC source, sorry but I don't consider left-leaning to be one-and-the-same as left-wing; it's tending to the left without being full-on left. If they'd have meant left or left-wing, they'd have said so.
Oppose left-wing. Zin92 (talk) 09:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
@Zin92:/mediabiasfactcheck.com has been consistently dismissed as a reliable source on various noticeboards over the years. And we obviously cannot use The Guardian itself as a reliable source about itself and from 15 years ago no less. Have you actually got a quality reliable source from the past 5 years which clearly states the Guardian is centre-left? The 2019 source in the info box clearly states it is left-wing. I will present some recent reliable sources which clearly state it is left-wing. The other source in the info box saying "left leaning" is from 10 years ago. Definition of left leaning from online dictionaries (not your personal opinion Zin92) states left-wing. Merphee (talk) 10:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
@Merphee: I have added several high-quality references. "Left-wing" on Wikipedia refers to more radical tendencies, whereas The Guardian is moderate politically (centre-left). "Left-wing" in a British/European context is taken on Wikipedia to generally refer to publications with affinities to historical socialism/Marxism (per extensive discussion at Talk:List of left-wing publications in the United Kingdom). Can you please now find something better to do than edit-war over the political alignment of newspapers. Endymion.12 (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
@Endymion.12: Hey dude keep it CONTENT related not personal and civil as per policy okay. Now, where are your reliable sources? Where? Right now in the info-box we have 3 high quality, very recent independent reliable sources all clearly stating The guardian is a "left-wing" newspaper, not stating it is centre-left. Leaving it as centre-left is NOT what the reliable sources tell us and the alignment obviously needs to be changed to "left-wing" to reflect what the reliable sources say. So, where the hell are your sources dude? As far as radical as you put it that is far-left politics, not left-wing, which is what the reliable sources tell us the Guardian newspapers political alignment is. Again I feel I must repeat. we go by what the reliable sources tell us Endymion.12. Nothing else. Your subjective point of view means nothing here at Wikipedia and if editors push their POV then that's against policy. So where are your reliable sources? Merphee (talk) 12:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
@Endymion.12:None of these outdated (10-20 year old) sources you just added (while disconcertingly deleting my recent reliable sources which state it is a "left wing" newspaper ) say The Guardian is Centre-left??? Not sure if you're taking the piss here Endymion.12 and wasting my time or that you just don't understand how Wikipedia works. So can you point out exactly where they say that The Guardian is a centre-left newspaper in case I missed it in any of the following abstract irrelevant sources you've added to the infobox political alignment? Merphee (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
@Merphee: "out of date": What are you trying to claim exactly? That The Guardian has become more left-wing since 2011/2005/2004?
You may not be aware, but the abstract is a brief summary of the article, not the article itself. Since you don't have access to these articles, The Guardian is described as centre-left in the Redden article on p.825: "The broadsheet sources analysed for the UK include: ... The Guardian (centre-left) (Jones et al. 2007; McNair 2009)"; in the Robison article on p.383: "The newspapers analysed included most of the British daily and Sunday broadsheets: ... the Guardian (centre-left)"; in the Pimlott article on p.194: "The Guardian, The Observer, and The Independent, all papers whose editorial lines were centrist or centre-left"; and in the Madood chapter on p.48: "The late Hugo Young, the leading liberal columnist of the centre–left newspaper the Guardian".
The YouGov article does not refer to The Guardian as a "left-wing" newspaper, but rather describes it as "Britain’s most left-wing newspaper", which is not the same thing. I have therefore removed it as redundant (per WP:REFBOMB, you also failed to format it properly). You ignored my explanation above as to why "left-wing" is an inappropriate description, so I won't waste any more time trying to reason with you. Endymion.12 (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
@Endymion.12: I restored the recent, reliable, independent source you incorrectly and aggressively deleted for no valid reason and then WP:REFBOMBed the infobox with a bunch of ANCIENT, irrelevant 15-20 year old references which are no longer of any value to the rapidly changing and political alignment of a newspaper today (in 2019). Yes, of course I am saying articles from 15 to 20 years ago do not reflect the current editorial/political alignment. Again, for the last time Have you got ANY reliable sources within the last few years or even the last 5 years that the Guardian is "centre-left"? Obviously you have none. Otherwise you wouldn't be clutching at 20 year old references you googled. Any recent reliable sources at all Endymion.12 that place a label on The Guardian as "centre-left? Any? At all? Merphee (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

A couple of comments - stop edit warring the pair of you. And secondly, while not exactly lame, it's certainly limping a bit. DuncanHill (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@Endymion.12: As I stated and you ignored I totally agree with Cygnis insignis on their excellent suggestion to simply remove political alignment from the infobox and for the solid reasons they provided and many others have provided on numerous Wiki noticeboards discussing the use of a single unitary label in the infobox of newspapers. You are the only one who is arguing, without providing any valid reasons at all, that political alignment in the infobox should be retained. I will therefore delete the political alignment from the infobox as per consensus on the talk page. If you disagree and want to provide solid reasons why you disagree and want to retain the political alignment in the infobox and go against consensus here please engage. Currently though consensus is clearly to delete the unitary, subjective political alignment data point from the lead which causes endless such disputes which are highly disruptive.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Merphee (talk • contribs) 22:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment this is not the first time there has been a dispute between "center-left" and "left-wing" (or the like) on article pages. I think a lot of this is a grammatical dispute; it's clear to me that the Guardian is liberal in the American Politics sense, but that they aren't blatantly ideological. Do @Merphee and Endymion.12: agree with me on this? power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Editor Cygnis insignis started a discussion above on this talk page under the heading infobox data political = It appears that consensus has been established to avoid all further disputes to simply remove the political alignment subjective, unitary data point from the info box. Based on this consensus I removed it, as Cygnis insignis had also done but Endymion.12 reverted. While @Endymion.12: edit warred with editor Cygnis insignis in their discussion Endymion.12 provided no argument to retain the political alignment in the infobox. All of our articles on USA newsspapers have deleted this highly contentious, edit war provoking, subjective label from their infoboxes. Doing so, makes this circular perpetual discussion redundant and we can all move on. It was a bold edit. So if anyone reverts my bold edit, please commence civil discussion and provide solid reasons as to why we need the political alignment in the infobox at all. Merphee (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 
Discussion on reverts.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@DuncanHill: Having made two reverts in total on this page, I have not been engaged in an edit war. The political alignment of the newspaper also happens to be significant, so I would appreciate you being less trivial. Smug "a plague on both your houses" comments are not helpful.Endymion.12 (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
@Merphee: That's your fourth revert in 24 hours, please revert. I would tread carefully if I were you, given that you were blocked for precisely the same thing very recently. Endymion.12 (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Endyminion, no need to ping me, thank you. You have done more than the two straight reverts, as you also removed a reference you didn't like. Edit-warring isn't confined to straight reverts. As for "trivial", I was trying to get this damn page off the top of my watchlist using humour instead of threats of blocks. DuncanHill (talk) 23:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
And "A plague on both your houses"? I didn't say that. Implying that people have said things they didn't is not helpful. DuncanHill (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Still two, by my count. My initial revert of Merphee's POV-warring (for which he was blocked in March) two days ago, and my removal of the redundant reference today, unless you also want to count the edit conflict earlier. Endymion.12 (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
One, Two, and the removal of the ref. One editor alone cannot edit war. It takes a minimum of two. Now you might want a huge long thread of arguing over whether or not you were edit-warring, I'd rather people did something like supply the refs needed for over three years, or fix the broken external links, actually useful stuff like that. But you pays your money and you takes your choice I suppose. DuncanHill (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I resisted the temptation to put Champagne socialist in there, tried to fix a couple of things, and endorsed Merphee's edit for the excellent reasons they quoted, so giving myself a pat on the back. Good luck everyone cygnis insignis 00:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Fine, I revert three times in 5 days and Merphee reverts four times in 24 hours, I suppose we both need admonishment. Merphee has now spuriously claimed a "consensus" to remove a parameter with the claim that I'm the only person opposing a suggestion made in January which hasn't been discussed since. How is this not a straightforward case of tendentious editing? Why should I be accused of edit-warring for resisting it? (the above comment usefully reinforces my point) Endymion.12 (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I really cannot be bothered with this any more. I didn't have the slightest intention of stirring up this kind of hornet's (or perhaps mare's) nest, rather to try to encourage a little less heatedness. Page and talk page off my watchlist. I'll not post here again, nor shall I see any reply here. Cheerio. DuncanHill (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@Endymion.12: please refrain from making this personal and attacking other editors. I have sided with Editor Cygnis insignis who started a discussion above on this talk page under the heading infobox data political = Consensus has been established and will help avoid all further disputes relating to this issue by simply removing the political alignment from the info box as all our articles on USA and other country newspapers already do. If you disagree with consensus instead of focusing on editors and constantly edit warring and making personal attacks and disparaging remarks please focus only on content and provide solid reasons based on policy why you disagree with the consensus that Cygnis insignis has led. Their reasomning seems very sound and well based to me. So far you have provided no reasons whatsoever just focus on other editors and making things personal. Merphee (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I undid the inclusion, for the reasons outlined. cygnis insignis 13:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@Cygnis insignis: There is clearly a dispute ongoing, which means that you shouldn't restore the non-stable version, regardless of how convincing you find your own arguments. Please revert, and follow policy/WP:BRD when making changes, as I warned you to in January. For the record, I don't agree that we should modify the parameter to accommodate POV-pushers. "Centre-left" is a more than adequate summary, supported with abundant high-quality references. Endymion.12 (talk) 13:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
And you are? cygnis insignis 13:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@Cygnis insignis: I shouldn't worry, you don't mean anything to me either. Just follow BRD. I've explained myself sufficiently elsewhere in this discussion, and you're not entitled to make reversions during a dispute if I fail to do so to your satisfaction. Endymion.12 (talk) 13:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Three words, a sentence fragment, the reaction was going to be telling. And you are … doing what, accusing me and exempting your own actions. And you are … someone given special dispensation to restore contentious infobox items when others have objected. And you are … bluffing. cygnis insignis 13:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
It was a frankly bizarre thing to come out with, and I'm not going to indulge any silly mind games. I've actually bothered to find academic references to support the parameter. I don't have any "special dispensation", the parameter has been on the page for years, and as the longstanding (sourced) version, should remain on the page until you obtain a consensus for removing it. Caving into POV-warriors who believe The Guardian to be left-wing/far-left publication by removing a clearly useful infobox parameter does not strike me as a good resolution. Endymion.12 (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@Endymion.12: Please drop it now Endymion. I totally agree with Cygnis insignis on this. I've politely asked you to provide reasons as to why we should keep this ridiculous subjective political alignment in the infobox when all of our articles on USA and other countries newspapers do not include it. It creates so much needless conflict. Just discuss political alignment within the body of the article. You are the only one here pushing your point of view against consensus to remove it and maintain consistency across our newspaper articles. Also I've asked you multiple times to focus only on content please and stop the disrespect and personal attacks against other editors as you've constantly done on this talk page with anyone that disagrees with you. Your multiple reverts against consensus is also becoming quite disruptive and considered edit warring. Please just Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Merphee (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Two people agreeing on something in the course of less than 24 hours does not represent a WP:CONSENSUS (please read this). Spuriously claiming a "consensus" to force your preferred changes through doesn't reflect well on you. There is no time-limit here, and other users may wish to contribute. I'm not going to reply here until there is further input, because this currently isn't productive. (By the way, next time you want to retaliate against an edit-warring notice, perhaps you might like to use the Template:Uw-3rr template, rather than copy-and-paste the text from your own talk page as you did here). Endymion.12 (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
You are giving instructions on how to retaliate, that is sporting of you /s cygnis insignis 14:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

There has been no new discussion here about the issue under discussion. Therefore I fully back Cygnis insignis very well based edit to remove this political alignment from the infobox as we have done in all of our articles on USA and Australian newspapers. Merphee (talk) 04:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The comment 'not caving in to pov warriors' presents an obstacle to resolution. cygnis insignis 08:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Your friend User:Merphee has been pov-pushing on this page since December last year, attempting to characterise The Guardian as "far-left" and "left-wing" (I'm not sure what this edit summary is supposed to reference). I disagree that the "political position" isn't something that can be adequately summarised in the infobox, or that endless content disputes initiated by pov-pushers, such as your friend User:Merphee, are a good basis for removing content. Any "resolution" doesn't necessarily have to involve me eventually agreeing with you, by the way. Endymion.12 (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Hey Endymion.12, I suggest you keep your pathetic allegations to yourself before you get reported to ANI. Stop focusing on other editors. Content only, do you comprehend. As far as POV pushing, wow, you take the cake dude. Editors like you make me laugh. Stop pushing your point of view and using 15 or 20 year old sources in doing so. Merphee (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I'll happily go to ANI with this if needs be—your actions on this page and elsewhere speak for themselves. Endymion.12 (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I suggest you stop changing other editor's comments like you did at your little RfC. It is against policy and will get yourself blocked pretty soon. Please go away now, you're embarrassing yourself. lol. Merphee (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I corrected your !vote so that it specified one of the three options, stop being so hysterical. Endymion.12 (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
@Captainllama: That's not Merphee's version, it's the version Merphee has been attempting to remove since December. Endymion.12 (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)​
You might discuss tactics with the user, try to avoid one of you getting blocked; that would not be a good outcome. cygnis insignis 16:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Guardian/Archive_4&oldid=1027123939"