Talk:List of left-wing publications in the United Kingdom

The News Line
The News Line is a printed daily newspaper sold in bookshops (e.g. Housmann's at Kings Cross London) and on the streets. Lookingintoart (talk) 16:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Left-wing
I think this article should be moved to List of Left-wing publications in the United Kingdom so it could include magazines (for example Socialist Review) aswell as newspapers. I also think Anarchist publications (like Freedom should be included aswell. If no one objects I'll move the article and make those additions. Saul Taylor 09:10, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC) Why should left be capitalized? If not moved to what Saul proposed, should be at List of socialist newspapers in the United Kingdom. --Jiang

I capitalised "Left" because List of Right-wing publications in the United Kingdom has "Right" capitalised but you're probably right that neither of them should be capitalised. I think the list should be renamed because I don't see why socialist magazines aswell as newspapers, and anarchist publications aswell should be excluded. Saul Taylor 08:21, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Seeing as no-one else wants to do it, I suppose I will if that's alright... Dafyddyoung 16:28, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How wide is left-wing? Should the Guardian and Mirror be included? I'm unconvinced - they're not consistently left-wing. I don't see any case for adding Private Eye. Warofdreams 14:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * What is "left wing" is a matter of perspective and opinion, which is a fundamental problem with this article. Ril's idea of labelling The Guardian,   The Mirror and The Independent as "centre-left" and all the others as "far left" doesn't solve this, unfortunately - it just makes the problem more complex.  For example are Tribune and The New Statesman really far left publications?  (Surely not).  Defining particular shades of pink and red to categorise people or publications into is bound to lead to difficulties, because things just aren't that simple.  No matter how conscientiously it is done, somebody is always going to disagree.  I think it is something we should try at avoid, if at all possible.  Maybe the answer is to re-name the article.  How about "List of avowedly socialist publications in the United Kingdom"?   It's not a very catchy title, I know, but at least the criterion for inclusion would be a solid, verifiable fact rather than a subjective judgement.  What does anybody think?  GrahamN 00:51, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Problem with list of socialist blaa... is that might be taken to exclude anarchist publications and I kind of feel they should go in the same list. How about list of left-wing radical publications... still to subjective? (Me fears maby)How about List of avowedly left-wing radical publications in the United Kingdom"? This could include say New Internationalist, which to me seems like it should be in there. However it is a bit of a mouthfull?--JK the unwise 17:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Clearly if The Guardian and The Independent do not belong on this list, and the right-wing list is inappropriaste too, a new classification is needed, especially as they will not be alone among publications which have an article on Wikipedia. I have taken the liberty to create the List of liberal publications in the United Kingdom. Obviously, certain journalists have contributed to publications in all three categories, so this can only be a pragmatic solution. Philip Cross 18:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Reopen discussion It seems painfully obvious that there needs to be a conversation about this page, given what I've just read about the deletion of the right-wing publications page, it is absurd to have one and not the other. My opinion is that both pages should stand, as the descriptions of right-wing and left-wing are ubiquitous and well understood in society, even if that difficulty is hard to articulate, and wikipedia should surely reflect the wider world even if your source rules are real strict. It doesnt seem too difficult, nor i think would it cause alarm to any wikipedia user, to precede the page with a statement saying how contentious these things are. Anyway to me, surely the main differences between the two political positions is in thier vision of a perfect society (or better yet what they see the role of a human as): the far right being rigidly hierarchical and traditional, the far left being fundementally nonhierarchical and international. There are obviously many other differences, but these would seem to me to be at least in some part determined by the above dichotomy. I also can't imagine anyone with a self-confessed political leaning would disagree with that statement, so even if one can't agree on any other common attribrutes of left and right wing then this difference will do. From there left wing and right wing publications can be fairly simply separated based upon the types of folk that read them and the editorial stances taken by them - so the Guardian correctly would be centre-left, the New Statesmen slightly further out, and then the Socialist, Communist and Anarchist publications on the 'far-left'. This also would help with right-wing publications, so The Times and The Telegraph can be placed in the centre-right, with more 'far right' newspapers/magazines like the Daily Mail and Vanguard and whatever the BNP's paper is called? So what do people think? I just think that you can either have a page on right-wing and a page on left-wing, or neither, but you can't just have one, and i'll happily go and make that page if theres any sort of consensus. Lewisly (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The Mail? far-right? That's blatantly ridiculous. It is a centre right newspaper. Stop posting with your own ideological hat on and be onjective Kentish 11:51, 28 Oct 2018 (GMT)

The Guardian
An editor continues to add The Guardian to this article. It is a liberal newspaper and has no connection with historical socialism or communism, unlike every other publication in the article. This subject has been discussed in the past - see above. I will therefore remove it. TFD (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Five years later and The Guardian is back, described as 'linked to the Labour Party'. No citation is given, nor can there be. It has no sympathy for socialism as ideology, policy or for socialist leaders such as Corbyn. I'm removing it. Pablo-747 (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see The Guardian's own Wikipedia page and discuss it on that talk page before changing anything, rather than taking a dictatorial approach of removing long standing edits before engaging in any discussion. The Guardian backed the Labour Party at the last general election (and has done so for most general elections). No, the newspaper is not widely regarded as socialist. The newspaper is widely regarded as centre-left, and I would say supportive of social-democracy. Helper201 (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The Guardian's own Wikipedia page identifies it as usually supporting the Liberals/Liberal Democrats, not Labour. While they did endorse Labour once under Tony Blair - so did The Sun. The Guardian has some left wing writers but is generally centrist. Listing it here would be as erroneous as listing The Independent or other centrist publications. Nixon Now (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It clearly states on The Guardian's Wikipedia page that the newspaper is centre-left, regardless of past party support, this has long been established over much discussion on the newspapers talk page. Also, The Guardian explicitly endorsed the Labour Party at the last two general elections (2015 and 2017), 2017 under Corbyn. Also, they are called the Liberal Democrats, not the "Liberals", please do not confuse UK politics with US politics, they are completely different and unrelated. Helper201 (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * They were called Liberals for 129 years of The Guardian's existence until 1988 when they merged with the SDP to become LibDems and the Guardian editorially supported the Liberal Party throughout which is probably why the consensus in this discussion is against inclusion of the Guardian in this list. "please do not confuse UK politics with US politics" - thanks but I'm not. If I did I might think liberalism and leftism is the same thing and try to add The Guardian to this list. Nixon Now (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The point is they aren't called The Liberals now, and haven't been for around 30 years. This page is for where the publication is NOW, not in the past. There is no consensus not to include The Guardian. As I haven't stated, and as you are ignoring, The Guardian is clearly labelled as centre-left on its own page and supported the Labour Party at the last two general elections. Helper201 (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * See this discussion. Status quo is no Guardian. You are the only one who disagrees. Nixon Now (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Two to one is not consensus. You are the one removing something which has long stood on this page and as stated centre-left is clearly evident on The Guardian's own page after long discussion and has been there a long time. Helper201 (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems that on or about 18 January 2018, Helper201 changed the intro of this article to add "centre left" to the definition and then added the Guardian newspaper to the list. That appears to be quite irregular. Nixon Now (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The vast majority of these publications have no citations provided here or on their own pages as to where on the left they stand. Therefore a more encompassing introduction was added to include the spectrum of the left. Many of these publications would largely be regarded as far-left, such as those supporting Trotskyism. Helper201 (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And you accused me of having an agenda? You unilaterally tried to redefine (and at one point rename) the article because for some reason you want the Guardian listed and then falsely claim that your edit is "consensus" because your changes weren't noticed for a month? Nixon Now (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Nice use of the passive voice by the way. *You* unilaterally added "centre left" without a discussion. Nixon Now (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I never said I had consensus, I said there was no consensus for removal of The Guardian, which as I have stated numerous times has had long discussion and consensus for being centre-left on its own page. The change to include the spectrum of the left is common sense due to what I have stated above. If you want to include all publications that only meet the specific category of left-wing you will either need to mass remove lots of articles on this page or the vast majority of the page will at least be dubious and debatable and the majority would be uncited. A small change of inclusion, not only to allow The Guardian, but also most of the other publications that have long been listed here is a far simpler and better solution than trying to find evidence that all the rest of the publications are specifically left-wing and debate the political position of all the other publications to meet some narrow criteria. Helper201 (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The Guardian may be centre left but this article is a list of left wing publications. You can't redefine the article just because you want to add The Guardian and then claim this article has long included The Guardian when it has not and did not until you unilaterally decided to add "centre left" a month ago. Nixon Now (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You really need to try and listen, please. I am not doing this just to include The Guardian. If you want the article to only be left-wing publications you will need to mass remove most publications from the page, as most don't fit into that specific political position. This way all the current publications can stay. Why would you not want the article to be inclusive to as many publications as possible? Helper201 (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want the article to be "inclusive of as many publications as possible" why not add conservative and centrist publications too? Nixon Now (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Because they are clearly not of the left. The Guardian is included because it is centre-LEFT. Helper201 (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * But it's not left wing and so doesn't belong in the article. It's that simple. Trying to sneak "centre left" into the article's Intro doesn't change that.Nixon Now (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes and neither are all the far-left publications, that's why it was expanded. Centre-left is part of the spectrum of the left, hence the "left" part. As I have said, if you wanted it to be only the left-wing you would need to remove most of what is here. Helper201 (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Could you please weigh in on both the inclusion of "centre left" in the article introduction and the inclusion of The Guardian in the list as per User:Helper201's changes to the article over the past month? Nixon Now (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * ,, , , , , if you could please give your thoughts on this it would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance if you decide to take part. Helper201 (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should change the scope of the article just so that we can group the Guardian with socialist and communist newspapers. "Center-left" is actually an ambiguous term which can mean the right of the Left (such as New Labour) or the position between the center and the Left (such as Liberals and the Guardian).  TFD (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In many cases it does not mean that. The Labour Party is both social democratic and democratic socialist and is regarded as centre-left. Most European social democratic parties are centre-left and social democracy is still largely regarded as a position of the left. The Lib Dems are labelled on their own page as centre to centre-left to clarify some of ambiguity you have mentioned, however in British media the party is almost always described and self described as centrist. The point is most publications here, such as many of the communist and Trotskyist publications, would largely be regarded as far-left. Its hypocritical to allow two positions on the left (left-wing and far-left) and not centre-left. Your argument is essentially that centre-left is not part of the left, which I and many others would fundamentally disagree with. Helper201 (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We do allow center-left, when it is defined as the part of the Left. The New Statesman and the Daily Mirror for example.  The Labour Party clearly identifies itself in its constitution as socialist and its leaders claim it is part of the Left.  The Liberal Democrats do no such thing.  While there has been a convergence of policy among the major parties in the UK, both their histories and underlying ideologies differ.  Liberalism and socialism are only the same thing if one happens to be a conservative or further right.  TFD (talk) 00:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You have given no evidence of where on the left the New Statesman or the Daily Mirror stand. Both are problematic for that very reason. While I personally agree they are on the left, this is still unevidenced and where on the left is undefined. The point about the Lib Dems is irrelevant, unless you are trying to insinuate an attachment between them and The Guardian, of which there is none. I am under no illusion of liberalism and socialism being the same, and for that matter social democracy is different from both also. Helper201 (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * With the Mirror, you're simply going by support for Labour, of which if you're going to go by that criteria (which really you shouldn't as you're using this to imply a political position, which is therefore essentially a WP:SYNTH argument) The Guardian should be included also. For - as I mentioned - The Guardian explicitly endorsed Labour at the last two UK general elections (2015 and 2017).
 * https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/01/guardian-view-britain-needs-new-direction-needs-labour
 * https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/ng-interactive/2017/jun/02/the-guardian-view-on-our-vote-its-labour
 * Helper201 (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The Guardian is a liberal newspaper that normally supports the liberal Liberal Democrats having begun in 1821 supporting the Liberal Party. The Mirror became a left-wing paper in the 1930s supporting Labour.  Note the two papers had very different views on unions and national health insurance and all the issues that then divided liberals and socialists in the UK.  While papers may change their endorsements, it is not the same as changing their underlying ideology.  So the Guardian may back Labour either when the Liberals/Liberal Democrats have no chance or when Labour polices are sufficiently centrist or liberal.  TFD (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please stop stating that 'The Guardian is a liberal newspaper' as if its fact, it is not (and as if it cannot span more than one ideology). I have provided clear evidence that it is centre-left (which is an element of the left, regardless of ideology). This has long been agreed on the newspapers own page, don't agree with me and argue it to be changed on The Guardian's own talk page and you'll see a consensus for centre-left. Where the paper was in the past is irrelevant, this page is about where the publication stands today, not yesterday, not last year, not a hundred years ago. Again, you are using a synth argument by saying The Mirror is left-wing purely through party endorsement. The newspaper has come out with front page headlines against Corbyn and the left of the Labour party (not to mention the fact the Labour Party itself is centre-left, not left-wing), so placing positions isn't as simple as you would make it out to be. The way you talk about this you really don't come across as someone actually from the UK who is aware of this by second nature. Please read up on the paper, it has many left-wing views and writers. Politics is as much about social policy as economic and socialism and communism are not the only two ideologies of the left. Also, Labour was the most left-wing the party had been in decades at the last general election and The Guardian endorsed it, it could quite easily have not endorsed anyone as some publications did not. Helper201 (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

This has strayed off topic so much its hard to believe. Its clear that many of these publications would be regarded as falling into the far-left (not left-wing, there's a difference) by most in the world of political science (Troksyist publications for example), yet Nixon and you seem to want to label them all as only left-wing (not to mention some having no evidence of where on the left they lye at all). Which is problem number 1. Problem 2 this that you cannot accept another element of the left, the centre-left because of some misguided views about it not really being of the left. I have seen absolutely no clear reasoning or evidence to support this view. So I really don't see your objection to clarifying the article to all three elements of the left in the introduction. It not only clears up the reason for the many long included far-left publications but also allows for centre-left ones too. Even the way the article is now is incorrect, regardless of the point about The Guardian. Helper201 (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * And why do you want to lump in the Guardian with a bunch of Trotskyist and Communist newspapers? Nixon Now (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Because its of the left and if you're going to include far-left publications it deserves to be in there just as much. I'm not here to shoehorn in The Guardian, I'm here to make the article make sense. The way it stands, it is fundamentally incorrect. I see no reason why you are against clarification and a very small level of expansion in order to make the page make sense. If you were to want to remove all the far-left publications and simply have the page actually be just left-wing publications I could see your reasoning, but as it stands it just looks hypocritical and as if you have some sort of bias. Helper201 (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * But you keep calling the Guardian "centre-left" rather than "left-wing" so you are implictly conceding that it is not a left-wing newspaper. You are making much of their recent endorsement of Labour but neglect the context that this was in the face of a Conservative-Lib Dem Coalition and a Tory-leaning Lib Dem leader. The Guardian's emphasis was defeating the Tories and given that the LibDems had veered towards the right under Nick Clegg that meant endorsing Labour not out of enthusiasm for Labour but by default to defeat the Tories. Nixon Now (talk) 02:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is centre-left, but as I outlined A. that's part of the left and more importantly B. most of the publications here are far-left, if you are going to include both other elements of the left then I see no reason for the other one of the three. The rest of what you said is purely your perspective and is original research without any evidence. Helper201 (talk) 02:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If you look at political parties on Wikipedia they are clearly distinguished on where on the political left they stand, such as the Labour Party being centre-left and the Green Party of England and Wales being left-wing, to call Labour left-wing or GPEW centre-left would be wrong, they are clearly distinguished for a reason. As such, to call all the publications listed here left-wing is also fundamentally wrong. Helper201 (talk) 02:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You're ignoring the point. You yourself call The Guardian "centre-left" rather than "left-wing". Why do you think they aren't "left-wing"? Nixon Now (talk) 02:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm ignoring nothing and trying to be as direct with you as possible (not to mention the timing of out edits aren't coinciding). They are centre-left, I have provided evidence for that. I'm not going to argue why or how, that is irrelevant. It is centre-left and as such have as much right to be here as that which is far-left and as such makes little sense why you include two parts of the left but not the other, yet are still alright to label the heading only left-wing publications despite there also being far-left publications. As I said on Wikipedia the three are differentiated for a reason. Helper201 (talk) 02:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * They are centre-left, according to you, not left-wing. I think we're done here. Nixon Now (talk) 02:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So you are against the title being changed to 'of the left' why? And as you keep IGNORING you can't justify the inclusion of all the FAR-LEFT publications (WHICH IS NOT LEFT-WING) and then not allow the centre-left. MANY OF THE LISTED PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT LEFT-WING, THEY ARE FAR-LEFT. Helper201 (talk) 02:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

We are talking about a term that has two distinct meanings. One is the right part of the Left and the other is a position between the center and the Left, which is not part of the Left. The Guardian is not left-wing because it is liberal. Liberalism and socialism are different ideologies. If you want to add the Guardian to a list, start a page about liberal media. What you call "far left" is actually part of the Left as well. TFD (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Centre-left is part of the left. Just look at all the centre-left social democratic parties across Europe, they are all regarded as being of the left. A party does not need to be socialist to be of the left. There are many parties which are social democratic, not socialist which are centre-left, which is a part of the left, the SPD in Germany for example. Social democracy is a key politcial ideology taken by most centre-left parties and is a key ideology of the left. The Labour Party for instance is centre-left, you would be very hard pushed to find someone argue they aren't a party of the left, as you would for most social democratic parties, even those without socialist policies. You don't need to be socialist to be of the left. As I said, political positions are about more than economic policy, whereas socialism is largely about economics. Yes far-left is part of the left, and so is the cente-left. It doesn't detract from the fact that left-wing and far-left are still different and on Wikipedia - as seen on political party pages - the two are clearly seperatly distinguished and as such should not be grouped as one, as has been done on this page. You say The Guardian is exclusively liberal as if its a fact, when its not. Helper201 (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You only need to view the page centre-left politics to see it proves you wrong. "Centre-left politics also referred to as moderate-left politics". "In Europe, the centre-left includes social democrats, social liberals, progressives and also some democratic socialists, greens and the Christian left". Helper201 (talk) 04:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You have an idiosyncratic view of politics. In Germany and Sweden, socialist call themselves "Social Democrats."  Marx and Lenin were members of the Social Democratic parties in their countries.  Normally the term "Social Democrat" is used as a pejorative against other socialists whom they consider not to be socialists, but it is not, as you believe, "completely different and unrelated."  I realize that you have a political categorization that puts the Guardian and Maoists into the same group.  I think it is because you believe that anyone to the left of UKIP is part of the same party.  But no reliable sources support your view.  Maybe we should talk about which media support the New World Order.  TFD (talk) 06:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You really have no idea about my political views. The way you represent me is nonsense and completely untrue. Your views on politics are also anecdotal and to a large degree simply wrong. Social democrat is in no way pejorative term, anyone with basic political knowledge knows that. I also never said social-democracy and socialism was "completely different and unrelated", you are clearly misquoting there. No I do not put The Guardian and Maoists in the same group, again, pure nonsense, they are both on the left, obviously in completely different ways and degrees. And in no way do I think anyone to the left of UKIP is the same group. And I have no belief in any new world order. I noticed you also conveniently ignored what I directly quoted as well, as you have with many points I have made, instead electing to smear me. Helper201 (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm responding to a request for comment from Helper201. I'm not sure what the inclusion criterion is for this page. It'd make sense to me for the criterion to be publications which are generally described in reliable sources as being left-wing. That way, it'd be a lot easier to argue disputed inclusions using reliable sources, rather than semantic discussions. Without an inclusion criterion like that, this is an article that has to rely on unverifiable original research, which I'm not sure is terribly useful to anybody. Ralbegen (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * That's the point Ralbegen, there is no agreed upon criteria. Publications like the Daily Mirror have no agreed upon position, they are simply here through a synthesis argument due to party political support. My argument that if all positions on the left are included the semantics become irrelevant where one can prove the publication lies on the left (centre-left, left-wing or far-left). As it stands the article groups all the publications incorrectly into one section of the left-wing, which is by Wikipedia standards regarded as only one position on the left, and not to be used as an all encompassing term for all the left. I am yet to hear any convincing argument why the article shouldn't be changed to 'list of left publications in the United Kingdom' or 'list of publications on the left in the United Kingdom'. As clearly outlined above, publications on the left or with left leanings do not need to be socialist, or anything to the left of that (to negate the argument given in the section below this one). Helper201 (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There are so many examples listed on this page of publications by groups such as New Communist Party of Britain, Revolutionary Communist Party (UK, 1944) etc which are far-left, not left-wing. And as I said Wikipedia clearly distinguishes between positions on the left, that's why there is a spectrum, its not simply, left-wing, centrist, right-wing. To label them all specifically left-wing is simply incorrect. Therefore why not just say 'of the left' or 'on the left' and if it can be cited to be centre-left, left-wing or far-left or published by a group or party which can be cited as being on any of those positions it meets the criteria. What's wrong with that? We would be going by cited evidence. And as outlined above centre-left is part of the left, regardless of that, it still helps with the distinguishing the far-left element of the problem. Helper201 (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Helper201 is correct. If 'left-wing' is a specific, not generic, category according to WP consensus, then most publications here would have to be removed as they are 'far left' i.e. the same criteria that excludes 'The Guardian' excludes 'The New Worker'. One solution would be to have separate pages for 'centre-left', and 'far left' publications, but although the latter is relatively easy to designate, the other 'left' categories are less so and the few remaining 'left-wing' entries may not warrant a separate page. Given that the page already has a multi-category character i.e. has long included 'left wing' and 'far-left', the most consistent and easiest solution is to rename the page 'List of Left publications', in which all three 'left' categories can co-exist. This is in no way an ideological decision which attempts to present The Guardian as more 'left-wing' than it actually is; but simply a logical conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krnkshft (talk • contribs) 16:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * This must be the first time I've ever heard someone claim "left wing" and "far left" are mutually exclusive terms. I believe the general consensus on and off Wikipedia is that far left is a subset of left wing. Nixon Now (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not claiming mutual exclusivity. I understood that the remit of WP is to use established sources and protocols, rather than arbitrary subjective judgments. The intro to the related article British Left clearly links to the separate pages for centre-left politics, left-wing politics and far-left politics. I don't disagree with you that 'far-left' is in another sense a subset of 'left-wing', but 'centre-left' is a subset in exactly the same way. In terms of how these categories are used on WP, 'centre-left' is part of the left. I personally see The Guardian as a liberal paper, but if sources establish it as centre-left, then so be it; that's how WP is supposed to work.Krnkshft (talk

The Guardian is a left wing paper. Stop thinking about party politics and apply non-prejudiced assessments. (talk) 11:53, 28 Oct 2018 (GMT)
 * Only if one considers anyone to the left of Attila the Hun to be left-wing. And so is the rest of the mainstream fakenews media. TFD (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The title mentions "left-wing" publications and the Guardian is clearly left of centre, irrespective of whether or not you apply the liberal tag. The nature of liberal policies are certainly not right wing either (nor at the political centre in the UK). It is interesting that a YouGov poll finds the Guardian very left wing - more so even that the Mirror.

Page name change or mass removal
A lot of the publications listed do not meet the title description. Many of these publications are either centre-left, such as The Observer, or are far-left, such as the The New Worker. Therefore a lot of these publications are not left-wing, but are on the left of the political spectrum. Either there needs to be a change of title that recognises these publications do not belong to one political position, or all those that do not meet the position of left-wing should be removed.

Perhaps the title could be changed to 'List of publications in the United Kingdom on the left'? Any other new title proposals or ways around this would be appreciated. Thanks. Helper201 (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The term "left" is generally used to refer to pro-socialist publications. Obviously the Observer does not belong, and will remove it.  But I do not see any other publications that are not left-wing.  The problem with dividing it into different types of left is that there are not clear dividing lines and different observers will draw lines differently.  TFD (talk) 03:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Political bias? Who added this list?
Why is there no "List of right wing publications in the United Kingdom" on Wikipedia...there's a list of leftwing ones! 86.166.172.65 (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Article in question: * Does not exist because nobody cares enough to spend the time and energy to make it *
 * Random anonymous editor: "iS tHiS PoLiTiCaL BiAs oN WiKiPeDiA?"
 * Centre Left Right ✉ 06:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It did exist but was deleted according to some of the talk history (see Left-wing topic above). Looking through the conversations there does seem to be an agenda.
 * The list of these so-called left wing publications should not exist without a list of so-called right wing publications.
 * And there should be a clear criteria for entry into the list. 147.147.203.78 (talk) 12:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)