Talk:The Guardian/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

The Guardian and the Confederacy and slavery

This can certainly be included but not in that pov version. Or with an MA thesis as a source. See for instance this source.[1]

"In 1856 the Guardian used this exchange with Henning to explain where it stood on antislavery. If asked whether it was abolitionist, it said, the answer would be no, for abolition was not the best way to deal with slavery. Abolition had had the effect of "increasing the weight and riveting more firmly the fetters of the slaves, and [had] deferred their emancipation for at least a quarter of a century." However, the paper insisted that its opposition to abolition did not mean that it was any less opposed to slavery; any inference that it defended slavery was "gratuitous slander." "The Guardian, as we have seen, nevertheless played a key role in events leading to the formation of the Upper Canada Anti-Slavery Society (ucas) in 1837."

As for the Manchester cotton workers, " The Guardian had conceded that the meeting had been organized independently by the workingmen of Manchester— it described the men who had signed the advertisement on its front page as “two working men”— but warned the workers of the city that they were entering on a dangerous course since a meeting in favor of the Union might easily bring on a reaction in the form of meetings in behalf of the Confederacy. Therefore,it counseled “that there should be no commencement of the series.’"

"Sudden, too, according to the Guardian, was the whole idea of giving voice to the sentiments of the Manchester workingmen on the issues involved in the American war. Up to that point, according to the Guardian , there had been only a desire "to maintain a rigid abstinence from political action in harmony with the attitude taken by the Government.” Now all this was changed, and it would be “shouted far and wide” that the workingmen of Manchester, at a public meeting presided over by the mayor, had “unanimously voted . . . sympathy with the North in an Address to President Lincoln.” The paper’s only consolation lay in the fact that the way had been opened for “counter- demonstrations.”

"Finally, the Guardian made it clear that nothing said at the meeting or in the Address to Lincoln had caused it to alter its attitude on the war. It could not share the meeting’s enthusiasm for the acts against slavery already taken by Lincoln: "We have it from Mr. Lincoln’s own lips and pen that he does not desire to abolish slavery except as a means of extraction from the difficulties of his government and that he would willingly maintain it, if for no other reason than for the . accomplishment of his political ends.” (How anyone could make anything out of this utterance is difficult to understand.) As for the people of the North, the Guardian knew that, except for a small party of abolitionists, they were "so far from having any antipathy to slavery that they consider it the natural condition of the negro, and are well content to profit by it.” So if the workers of Manchester wished to continue to delude themselves in the belief that the war was tending toward freedom for the blacks, that was their privilege. But they could not logically complain if those who knew the real truth of what was at stake in the American war would organize their own demonstrations to enlighten the public."

The Spectator article is correct in saying that The Guardian backed the south. But that was because The Guardian though that would help the anti-slavery cause. See this 1861 article for the Guardian's actual view.[2]

"To the South the bonds of the union have been as burdensome as the fetters to the negro, whom the South has kept in hopeless bondage; and if the sentiments of the educated and higher classes of Southern society could find expression, we should be frankly told that in the emancipation of the South from dependence on the North, in the creation of diversity of employment for Southern capitalists and for the masses, and in the saving that would arise from direct Southern intercourse with Liverpool, Southampton and Havre, the day would not be distant when slavery itself would cease.

"When the war of the revolution severed the connection between England and the colonies, Massachusetts and New York were the South Carolina and Georgia of the time; and as the colonists began to supply themselves with manufactured articles England had before supplied, slavery in New England gradually expired. Why should the South be prevented from freeing itself from slavery? And why should not the monopoly which the Northern states seek to fasten on the South be broken down? The question of secession is one of humanity, and of freedom of trade." Doug Weller talk 14:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller You appear, and correct me if I'm wrong, to be taking the Guardian to be an objective source on its own history. In his biography of the Manchester Guardian, David Ayerst noted: ‘The Guardian was indeed convinced that the majority of Northerners, so far from having any antipathy to slavery, considered [slavery] to be the natural condition of the N****’ Robincard (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I've cited an 1861 Guardian article, that's a perfect source for its attitude in 1861. And yes, the Guardian didn't believe that the Union was that keen to end slavery, an opinion shared by numerous historians. I've been trying to use sources from the period.Doug Weller talk 15:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller - The Master thesis is well-cited and the author awarded a postgraduate degree for his research.

Having a lot of citations, which it does, doesn't make a Master's thesis a reliable source. Feel free to ask at [[WP:RSN|the reliable sources noticeboard. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a very dark part of the Guardian's history. I expect resistance to any substantial reference to this issue. Reaper7 (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

{[ref talk}}

Reaper7 it is making it into the mainstream press over the past two days, albeit tabloids such as the Mail and the Sun. I have a book called the The Manchester Guardian - Biography of a Newspaper, I will try to put together a neutral section that at least brings the founders slave-owning past to the public knowledge, especially in this time when we are all soul-searching about our pasts. 86.172.202.14 (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you not think that the Mail/Sun's interest in this issue has more to do with their long-standing grudge against the Guardian for its left/liberal political stance (regardless of what was written in editorials 150+ years ago) than with any genuine interest in addressing the history of slavery? MFlet1 (talk) 10:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

MFlet1 That could be the case, but it doesn't make the fact true or not true 86.172.202.14 (talk) 09:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

MFlet1 The point I was making is that these kinds of stories start at the fringe in blogs , then the tabloids, then the main newspapers as they are fact-checked, the Spectator is reputable, although biased and have now covered the issues86.172.202.14 (talk) 09:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to have missed the fun! Wasn't watching this article, and when alerted to it researched improvements from scratch, having forgotten to look at this talk page. Think it now gives reasonable coverage to the topic, obviously improvements based on good sources will be welcome. . . dave souza, talk 21:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

This is an interesting piece on the Guardian announcement that they will investigate their own links to slavery. Sums up the damning evidence against them and where the battlelines will be drawn. Reaper7 (talk) 10:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Guido Fawkes is a selfpublished source associated with unpleasant Staines, and not a reliable source for anything.[3] Which pretty much sums it up. . . . dave souza, talk 12:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::Thanks Dave. Sorry folks if I don't rewrite my post. "The Guardian must fall"?[4] Now who would want to destroy the Guardian? Oh, it's Guido, who is " proud that his heritage is rooted in a history of toiling to end the despotic rule of oppressive leaders" or in other words, right-wing blogger Paul Staines and his website Guido Fawkes (website). A true champion of BLM I'm sure. I see he says the Guardian has "£1 billion in reserves in the bank, has no excuse not to follow suit. Will the paper apologise and pay up?" That's nonsense of course, that sum is the Scott Trust Limited endowment fund. Doug Weller talk 13:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Actually I think the very extended coverage of slavery issues is very clearly WP:UNDUE given that the article says next to nothing on other political issues of the decades around the Civil War period. Without having read all the back issues, I'm quite certain the paper expended far more ink on issues such as Ireland, British and Imperial social conditions and so on. Almost all of this should be hived off to a more appropriate article. Johnbod (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The Graun clearly thinks it an interesting part of its history, as it's published articles about that (in 2011 and 2015) as well as featuring many archived articles about it. The topic predates the US civil war. It features in David Ayerst (1971). The Manchester Guardian: Biography of a Newspaper. Cornell University Press. pp. 154–155. ISBN 978-0-8014-0642-3 – if someone's got good access to that, it would give a better indication of how much prominence to various topics. The slavery issue is fascinating due to its complexities, if necessary the coverage could be tightened up but it shouldn't be over-simplified. . . dave souza, talk 15:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Or more added on the issues the paper was actually more concerned with. To read the article now you would think that the paper began as some sort of specialist publcation on slavery and the Civil War. It's very misleading. Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Antisemitism and bias in Israeli-Palestinian conflict

In the section about "Antisemitism and bias in Israeli-Palestinian conflict," the Guardian's response is worded in a way that would lead the reader to believe that the Guardian had failed to acknowledge Israel's unilateral move of its capital in 1980. In fact, Israel had moved its capital unilaterally in December 1949 to Jerusalem. The 1980 act incorrectly referenced by the Guardian extended the area of the capital to include the eastern parts of the city and several unincorporated villages. Tel Aviv had only been Israel's capital for a total of 18 months since its founding. The Guardian's misinformation is far more glaring in light of these facts that ought to be noted within the article. 83.130.89.98 (talk) 13:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Left-wing?

That's from one opinion by Amie Tsang, a business reporter.[5]. It's centre-left, but I think "left-wing" leaves readers with a mistaken impression. The Australian, also a source, is a right-wing newspaper and Wayback only shows a paywall so I can't tell if it's an opinion piece, the author, etc. In any case, I don't think we should use it. BBC source says left-leaning, which is fine. But it's 2009. YouGov is about perception. Doug Weller talk 19:52, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, Agreed. We should revert to the pre-"left wing" version. I can see a few other sources saying "centre-left" ([6], [7]), and virtually no one saying "left-wing" outright except that one NYT piece and right-wing tabloids like Express, The Sun, Daily Mail, etc. As a side note, it's perhaps worth cutting down the many, many refs for "centre-left" to a few more selective ones. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, I can't find the article in The Australian anywhere, but it's called "Cuttlefish of the Left extend tentacles on climate truth", so I'd be very surprised if it weren't an opinion piece. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I support. Revert that please.--Renat (talk) 20:07, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:IS

A rather astonishing amount of this article is based on citations to The Guardian itself. I've been trying to add some independent sources; any additional help would be much appreciated. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The_Guardian#Criticism_and_controversy

Given that Alssa1 has added a new subsection to this section today, perhaps it's a good time to talk about whether any or all of the contents of this section are WP:UNDUE or not. A quick glance at the sourcing reveals quite a lot of primary-only coverage (e.g., citing editorials in The Guardian, instead of commentary about them), which raises a red flag in my eyes. In addition, it's WP:NPOV-problematic to have a criticism section at all (which is why I added {{criticism section}} a few weeks ago). As I see it, we have two options: delete material or integrate it into The_Guardian#Since_2000. Fwiw, of the three sections, the "Antisemitism and bias in Israeli-Palestinian conflict" looks the weakest to me from a sourcing perspective. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I don't follow what the justification for making claims about WP:UNDUE. Almost every Newspaper in the UK has a criticism section which follows a similar line to the one about the Guardian. Alssa1 (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

In my view, it's undue to have a section containing purely negative coverage of a newspaper (or, indeed, of anything else), since it unduly draws the reader's attention to negative information as opposed to positive or neutral information. Plus, such sections are inevitably selective, so the structure of the article guides readers to selectively consider certain negative statements. See WP:CSECTION. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes. You are right, AleatoryPonderings.--Renat (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

To quote WP:CSECTION#"Criticism"_section: "A section dedicated to negative material is sometimes appropriate...". It seems to be that the Wiki community has determined that on a number of other newspaper pages that a criticism/controversy section is more or less appropriate. Therefore it would seem unreasonable to leave the Guardian as one of the few prominent newspapers that lacks a controversy section, particularly when the contents of the controversy section are relevant and have worthwhile encyclopedic value. Alssa1 (talk) 11:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

No one has said there should not be criticisms in the article. The fact that other articles do something does not mean this one should. See the essay Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Doug Weller talk 13:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I have quickly addressed my concerns by this edit. I haven't changed anything but the names of sections (and, apparently, ordering of citation params—visual editor does some odd stuff). If there is interest, we can continue to discuss whether any or all of the content now in The_Guardian#Since_2000 is WP:UNDUE or not. But my initial concerns with the article structure are now addressed. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is not a guideline or a policy so while it's interesting, it's not an argument to dismiss consistency on wikipedia out of hand. As is stated in that particular essay: "This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who has made a reference to how something is done somewhere else." Alssa1 (talk) 11:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Alssa1: which is why I was careful to call it an essay and not a guideline or policy. Your implication that I hurled it against me suggests a lack of good faith, which is disappointing. It is a fact that we can have different ways of doing things in different articles on the same topic, and in my opinion saying another article does it is never a sufficient reason. Doug Weller talk 11:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Then my apologies for misinterpreting what you have said somewhat. However, the entirety of my position is not based on what has been done elsewhere, that is merely an ancillary point to the main thrust of my position. Namely that there is an encyclopedic value in listing some controversies surrounding a particular newspaper/source, and when a 'controversies' section appears on other media outlets it suggests that media sources that don't have a 'controversies' section are beyond reproach. Furthermore, given the fact that the Guardian is used as a reliable source for Wikipedia, I believe it is certainly worthwhile for people to easily see the issues surrounding the source when and where possible. Alssa1 (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that there is encyclopedic value in reporting on controversies, but I disagree that they should be reported in a "criticism" or "controversy" section. This adds undue weight to the controversies—after all, isn't the positive information just as useful to readers trying to evaluate the source? It's better to report negative or controversial alongside neutral or positive information per WP:NPOV. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

According to the essay, the recommended path is to use a section title such as "Reception", "Reviews", "Responses", "Reactions", "Critiques", and "Assessments". Positive, negative and other reactions can all be included in that section. This means that the text introduced by Alssa1 can be included there along with any other assessments. Burrobert (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that a single "Reception" etc section is appropriate for a newspaper with a 200+ year history. The existing chronological scheme—to capture information about historical incidents, positive, negative, and neutral—seems preferable to a consolidated "Reception" section that would run the gamut between the early 19th century and the 21st century. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Right-ho. In that case, leave things as they are. Burrobert (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2021

Please change https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Guardian&action=edit&section=23 to "https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jan/29/guardian-to-ban-advertising-from-fossil-fuel-firms-climate-crisis". Another case of incorrect copy-and-pasting. Regards, 223.17.177.154 (talk) 04:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done - see Special:Diff/1006122423. Thanks! Best, DanCherek (talk) 04:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2021

The paper's readership is generally on the mainstream left of British political opinion,[10][11] and its reputation as a platform for social liberal and left-wing editorial has led to the use of "Guardian reader" and "Guardianista" as often-pejorative epithets for those of left-leaning or "politically correct"[3] tendencies.[12][13]

to

The paper's readership is generally on the mainstream left of British political opinion,[10][11] and its reputation as a platform for social liberal and left-wing editorial has led to the use of "Guardian reader" and "Guardianista" as often-pejorative epithets for those of left-leaning.[12][13] Distroyers (talk) 04:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

This was very badly sourced, Department of the Official Report (Hansard), House of Commons, Westminster (19 November 2001). "Hansard 374:54 19 November 2001". Publications.parliament.uk. Retrieved 28 July 2009.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) is a quote from one MP, Kevin Hughes (politician), and "What the papers say". BBC News. 17 October 2005. Archived from the original on 8 June 2020. Retrieved 18 February 2009. is a quote frlm The Sun, so primary sources of unreliable opinion. Have changed it to "and the term "Guardian reader" is used to imply a stereotype of liberal, left-wing or "politically correct" views.[3] " . . dave souza, talk 06:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: Text adjusted by Dave souza. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Didn't realise at first that it was also in the body text, so have trimmed that. . dave souza, talk 15:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2022

It is a tabloid and not a newspaper of record. Sources used to assert this were either missed or presented insurmountable conflicts of interest. 5.151.137.61 (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Publisher vs. Parent?

The infobox lists Guardian Media Group (GMG) as the publisher for The Guardian. Whilst they are the parent company, https://www.theguardian.com/ lists "Guardian News & Media Limited" at the bottom in the copyright tag. A quick look on Companies House indicates that Guardian News & Media Limited is owned by Guardian News & Media (Holding) Limited, which in turn is owned by GMG (and then the Scott Trust).

On the face of it, it seems like The Guardian is published by "Guardian News and Media Limited", who in turn are owned by GMG.

I have the following questions:

• Should "Publisher" be listed as "Guardian News & Media Limited" (GMG is additionally listed as "Owner")?

Although this is a minor point in itself, there are currently at least two confusingly similar redirects - Guardian News and Media Ltd. points to The Guardian whilst Guardian News and Media points to Guardian Media Group. I can't see a good reason for this split. So the questions then is:

• Should the redirect Guardian News and Media Ltd. point at GMG, not back to The Guardian?
• or should Guardian News and Media point at The Guardian, not at GMG?

Clearly the Limited company does not require it's own article or anything, and we are not concerned about legal instruments/intermediaries such as the "(Holding) Ltd" company but we seem to have two very similar redirects going to different places. I don't know which is correct, but it would be helpful if this could be tidied up so as to avoid confusion and make it clearer what should be used as "Publisher=" in {{cite}} tags Hemmers (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Paper circulation is no longer a relevent figure

The only relevant figure nowadays in online readership. It's almost absurd that the physical paper circulation is in the infobox rather than daily or weekly online readership.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 04:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2022

Requesting an edit to clarify that the Guardian newspaper belongs to the political hard/far-left as a newspaper of record in the UK. 24.228.128.195 (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• The lead correctly says "The paper's readership is generally on the mainstream left of British political opinion". Is there anything lower down about "political hard/far-left" (which would be wrong)? Johnbod (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

British Republicanism?

This is listed under 'political alignment' and should probably be removed. Anyone who has been reading their coverage of the Queen's death and the opinion pieces on the subject would get the opposite impression. 109.153.115.140 (talk) 09:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Done, not specifically because of their coverage of the Queens death but because a tangential mention in a single opinion piece is insufficient support for the claim. Captainllama (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Victim of Cyberattack

Paper's offices have been closed for a month due to cyberattack. Doesn't seem to have affected coverage/day to day activities, but perhaps worth mentioning? [8] Sawitontwitter (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

For a start have been closed is wrong, as according to the article the closure started on Dec. 20. But is your source a reliable one?--Brian Josephson (talk) 09:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, the Guardian itself finally admitted same yesterday after penning an article wherein the newspaper described the incident as “a highly-sophisticated cyber-attack”. Guardian victim of ransomware attack Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2023

(modified with new source reference below)

At the end of the first paragraph of the "Early years" subsection add:

"In March 2023, an academic review commissioned by the Scott Trust determined that John Edward Taylor and nine of his eleven backers had links to the Atlantic slave trade through their interests in Manchester's textile industry."

 Not done for now: The source you provide is self-published. It's likely Trust published this on his own platform of some sort. If you can find something like this, it will be a suitable source. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 13:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Replaced original Guardian source with BBC article. At the end of the first paragraph of the "Early years" subsection now add:

"In March 2023, an academic review commissioned by the Scott Trust determined that John Edward Taylor and nine of his eleven backers had links to the Atlantic slave trade through their interests in Manchester's textile industry."

68.189.242.116 (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Actualcpscm (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Citation 20 is a self-citation

The Guardian is the source for itself in this citation. Therefore the citation should be removed, no? Fronter99 (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Citation 20 is a Reuters article.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

So sorry. I meant citation 22. Fronter99 (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any reason to doubt the veracity of the claim? In the same sentence it links to The Press Awards, which also verifies the material.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

To expand a bit, the point of limiting the use of sources to cite material about themselves is to avoid anything too self-serving, such as "The Guardian is the most beloved of British publications", sourced to The Guardian. In this case, the sentence simply states that the publication has won "x" number of [insert a specific notable award here], the last one in year "x".-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you. Fronter99 (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Ownership - Scott Trust Limited is not the same as the Scott Trust

The owner is the Scott Trust Limited - the Scott Trust was wound up in 2008. The term "Scott Trust" is used throughout the article to refer to both enteties when they are demonstrably seperate, as there was a change from Scott Trust to Scott Trust Limited shouldn't the longer form be used for all referencees post 2008? The trust was not converted into the limited company, the former ceased to exist and the latter was created. "The Guardian is part of the Guardian Media Group, owned by the Scott Trust Limited. The trust was created in 1936 to "secure the financial and editorial..." This line from the first paragraph references the limited company then refers to the defunct Scott Trust as if it still owned the paper. UxbridgeEditor (talk) 11:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Is Center-Left Appropriate?

I actually signed up after many years to star this specific discussion: how is "center-left" used to describe this news paper? Of the three cites listed after that description, two have titles which clash with the "center" part of that term. Phrased another way, if the guardian is "center-left", what qualifies as "left wing"? Amschind (talk) 07:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The Daily Mirror, Morning Star (British newspaper) and The News Line. So plenty. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: I'm afraid that's OR. The sources unanimously agree that the Guardian is a firm left-wing, rather than centre-left publication. If your logic were to be applied to all newspapers, the Telegraph would be described as a centre-right newspaper; instead, it is rightly described as conservative. Also, speaking about OR, as far as I know, the position of the Guardian on every political topic (anti-capitalism, pro-social justice, pro-social constructionism, etc) aligns with the left-wing, with none aligning with centrism or the right-wing, so I'm not sure how it could possibly be described as centrist. Rhosnes (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Right, I completely agree. My contention is that The Guardian should be classified as a left wing rather than center-left publication. I was merely putting forth a possible explanation as to why it is currently listed as center-left. Amschind (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not WP:OR in the context of the page because there are dozens of sources stating that it is center-left - I was just explaining why some sources vary. Check the sources before claiming OR. Within the three citations for this, there are a total of 18 sources. I've randomly checked a few. Centre-left is supported. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: Okay, let's go through the sources cited in the infobox one by one.

• NYT: "Britain's Left-Wing News Paper".
• BBC: "Left-leaning", but it also calls Daily Mail "right-leaning", even though Daily Mail is unanimously agreed to be firmly right-wing; it is clear ─ not least from the title of the article ─ that "leaning" is used synonymously with "wing" in the article.
• YouGov: "Britain’s most left-wing newspaper", with 46% viewing it as "firmly or very left wing" to only 25% viewing it as "slightly left of centre".
• E-prints Bournemouth (the next source that is accessible or relevant): "left of centre", but it also calls the Sun "right of centre", even though it is unanimously agreed to be firmly right-wing; again, it is clear that this article uses "of centre" synonymously with "wing".
• QUT: "centre-left".
• Sancho Guinda: "traditionally centre-left".
• Collins: "left-wing".

Unfortunately, I couldn't access many of the paywalled papers, but this is all that I was able to access. So what do we have? 3 sources describing it as "left-wing"; 2 sources describing it as "left-leaning", but both also calling clearly right-wing sources "right-leaning"; and only 2 sources describing as "centre-left" (with one of them only calling it "traditionally centre-left", without technically commenting on its current status). Moreover, the only actual statistics were provided by YouGov, which clearly demonstrates the sentiment of readers is that it is firmly left-wing, not centre-left.

Also, note that the cited sources were likely hand-picked to support the view that the Guardian is centre-left, since as we can see from the YouGov poll, this view is rather uncommon. The fact that even these hand-picked sources still describe the Guardian as left-wing more than centre-left should be pretty convincing evidence that it is, in fact, not centre-left. Rhosnes (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

So, to go through your bullets one by one:

• NYT is paywalled for me, so I can only see the lead, which typically isn't used for nuanced analysis. Fair enough if the body of the article supports this too but I'd question how useful a US media analysis is of left-right spectrum in Europe.
• BBC "left leaning". This does not support left wing vs centre left. If you're leaning left, you aren't left. Your comment re the Daily Mail and the writer used the terms is OR.
• YouGov. You misquoted the source, it does not say firmly left wing, but fairly left wing. If I was to say that 55% found that it was slightly or fairly left wing, this gives a different perspective.
• Payling (not in your list but accessible and I mentioned it in my edit summary): Supports centre left
• Varju & Yuval-Davis (E-prints Bournemouth in your list): As you said, supports centre left. Comment re the Sun and how the writer uses the term is OR.
• Flew (QUT in your list) As you say, supports centre left
• Sancho Guinda: As you say, supports centre left.
• Collins: I question why this here at all, the political alignment of the paper's readership <> the political alignment of the paper itself. I would suggest that this is removed.

Let's leave aside that you have ignored the content of the sources you can't access yourself (not unreasonably, but let's not pretend that you've made an exhaustive study in the RS coverage here). Even sticking with what's above we have 5 sources that explicitly endorse centre left, one that endorses slightly or fairly left wing, one US article lead (I'm prepared to be corrected here) and one source referring to the stereotypical readership. I'm comfortable with centre left.Scribolt (talk) 06:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

"I'd question how useful a US media analysis is of left-right spectrum in Europe". NYT is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. NYT characterises the Guardian as part of "Britain's left-wing". There isn't much room for discussion here; if I wanted to, I could come up with reasons why each of the sources below is less likely to reliable, but that would be unproductive.

"If you're leaning left, you aren't left. Your comment re the Daily Mail and the writer used the terms is OR". I'm not sure how you can accuse me of OR right after making an obviously false claim unsupported by sources and not see the irony. Anyway, no, the standard interpretation of "left-leaning" is "anywhere left of centre"; you can clearly see that this is how it's used by BBC since it refers to Daily Mail as right-leaning. However, even if you disagree, you can't just pretend that your OR is more authoritative than mine and claim that this BBC article somehow supports the hypothesis that the Guardian is centre-left. The best you can do here if you're arguing in good faith is contend that this article supports neither your nor my hypothesis; and that's the view that I assumed in my summary of the sources' claims, anyway.

"You misquoted the source, it does not say firmly left wing, but fairly left wing". Swipe-typo, sorry. Anyway, "fairly left-wing" here is listed as a category to the left of "slightly left-wing". If "slightly left-wing" is understood to be roughly equivalent to "centre-left", then "fairly left-wing" would be left of centre-left. You can, of course, be pedantic and claim that both "fairly left-wing" and "centre-left" ─ or even "very left-wing" ─ all refer to the centre-left, but that would simply be arguing in bad faith. If we are being reasonable (WP:BLUESKY), the only plausible interpretation is that "fairly left-wing" does not encompass the centre-left.

"Payling: supports centre left". I'm not so sure. It implicitly calls the Guardian's Mark Kermode centre-left. However, it's hard to tell from the source whether a further implication that the Guardian as a whole is centre-left was intended. Given that your standards for OR avoidance are so high, I think you'll agree with me that it's fair to say Payling does not explicitly support centre-left.

"As you said, supports centre left". No, I didn't say that. It supports "left of centre", which could be anywhere from centre-left to hard-left. Also, my comment re: the Sun is a factual observation, not OR. Anyway, overall, the source supports neither "centre-left" nor "left-wing".

"As you say, supports centre left". Technically, the source describes the Guardian as "traditionally centre-left", making no comment on whether it still is. If I wanted to be pedantic, I'd claim that your assertion that it supports centre-left is OR; however, I'm here to build an understanding ─ not win a debate ─ so I won't do that.

"I question why this is here at all". Fair enough, Collins supports neither centre-left nor left-wing.

"Even sticking with what's above we have 5 sources that explicitly endorse centre left". I'm not sure how you counted that. Even using your summary of the sources, you'd only have 4 that explicitly endorse centre-left. Moreover, one of your summaries (Varju & Yuval Davis) was simply inaccurate, and one was OR. So ─ and I'm trying to be as fair as possible ─ only 2 sources actually support centre-left. 3 (Payling, Varju & Yuval Davis, BBC) are ambiguous, while 2 ─ including the only primary source of all of them ─ support left-wing. At the very least, the sources are inconclusive. And at most, "centre-left" is a subset of "left-wing", so just changing "centre-left" to "left-wing" should address all of the issues. Rhosnes (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to make another detailed rebuttal to this, apart from to note you're correct that Varju & Yuval Davis does not explicitly support for either term (apologies), that Payling is clearly not referring to Kermode as centre-left but to the publication ("Pride struck a chord with most reviewers in the centre-left press.") and I do not reach the same conclusions that you did as to the result of the YouGov poll (reasonable or not).

You have not convinced me that even in the sub set of available sources mentioned above the Guardian is generally categorized as a left wing publication, which is a lower bar than you would need to reach in order to overturn the RfC in 2019. You would need to demonstrate that across the available spectrum of RS's, left wing term that best describes the Guardian. It is unlikely that there has been a shift in RS coverage in the last few years, but feel free to do the research.

Lastly, and this is why I voted primarily for the removal of the parameter entirely and would do so again, the usage of this terminology, as we've seen above, is not particularly consistent or in my opinion even meaningful. Some would use left wing to describe everything left of centre, as you do above. This would mean left wing equally describes the Guardian and the Communist Review. Others might use it to describe it as part of the spectrum itself (slightly left wing, left wing, very left wing). This is why it is better for the reader, providing that it is an accurate reflection of the sources, to inform them that Guardian is closer to the centre than the far left, rather than using a term without that information. If we must have the parameter, it's best to use it to provide the greatest sourced level of detail. Scribolt (talk) 13:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

It should also be noted that "centre-left" was resolved on in 2019 in an RFC, so this is not a local consensus, but a community consensus. Re: the sources above, I agree with Scribolt that centre-left and associated euphemisms such as 'left-leaning' and 'left-of-centre' far outweigh the firm declarations of "left-wing". On a pure personal opinion level, the Guardian is frankly just far too bourgeoisie and focused on the fetishes of the middle class to be a true "left-wing" platform. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your personal opinion. I was actually in favour of removing the parameter from the info-box in that RfC as none of the sources are great and it's a very subjective descriptor any way. But if we must have it, it's better to have what seems to have the most support in the sources we can find.Scribolt (talk) 06:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I certainly agree that those are also left leaning papers. Do you mean to suggest that their existence makes the Guardian a "center-left" publication? Amschind (talk) 08:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

"Center-left" is a part of "left-wing", just as "far-left" is. I assumed your question was what was more left than the Guardian. The three papers above are all rooted in Labour affiliation or socialist interests. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Also see List of left-wing publications in the United Kingdom for the full medley. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the inclusion of the Guardian on that list. Are we perhaps using communism/socialism as the metric to gauge political spectrum? If so, is that oriented towards the host country of any particular publication or a broader standard? I.e. an Iranian publication, by the standards of that country might be very "right wing" in a Western European nation but quite "left wing" in its own nation? Amschind (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Most countries have had both Marxist/staunchly socialist parties as well as ultranationalist parties at some point, so I wouldn't worry too much about relativism causing problems between countries. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The paper’s firm support for Blairism and reluctant support, at best, for Corbynism should put this debate to bed Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Bias

The magazine isn't center-left. It's left wing. The article is completely biased. Media bias checkers consider it to be a left-wing magazine Ruhrob (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. Both cited sources term the Guardian "left-wing" rather than "centre-left". I've corrected the description. Certes (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

If you don't even know it's a newspaper, not a magazine, I wonder if you have the familiarity with the subject needed to discuss the nuances of its political polarity, but anyway, please see this thread. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

We should at least remove the citations from the term "centre-left", as those sources exclusively use the term "left-wing" to describe the Guardian. One of them does use the term "centre-left", but it's in a separate sentence from the Guardian mention and doesn't seem to refer to the Guardian. The current text wrongly implies that the NYT etc. describe the Guardian as centre-left. Certes (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The paper’s firm support for Blairism and reluctant support, at best, for Corbynism should put this debate to bed Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)