Talk:The Age

AgeWatch
It is fair to have a link to a blog critical of The Age, as occurs on the Andrew Bolt page with the Boltwatch blog. Anonymous421 12:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * it's a not notable blog which has only existed since last month. Please stop entering it. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What is a "notable" blog and what isn't? Where are the rules determining this? Can you expand on this please? Otherwise it appears to me that you keep censoring it because of your own political affiliation. ---Befeleme 13:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

New article
I have written a new article so all this old Talk has been archived. Adam 05:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks good, an article of the size of the other one was going to remain in the political alignment quagmire. - Aaron Hill 15:50, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Does The Age still have the Green Guide on Thursdays?


 * Yes, it sure does. Swarve 01:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

The Age 1854
How many times has the original 17 Oct 1854 first edition of The Age been republished ie. as was done in 2004 to commemorate 150th aniversary?

It was reprinted in 1954 as well. My aunt had a copy in her papers which I inherited. I could scan it and put it here, but I don't know what its copyright status would be. Adam 03:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe newspapercover would apply. But since it was first printed in 1854, wouldn't any copyright be expired (ie, publicdomain)?--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Keith Sinclair
Anyone know whether the Keith Sinclair that was editor in the 50s was the same Keith Sinclair who was a noted NZ poet and historian. I mean, I really doubt it, but maybe someone knows. I've added (editor) to the name to prevent confusion for now--s_oteric 10:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Competitors
Added Sensis to The Age's list of competitors. The media at the time claimed that the sole reason Sensis/Telstra bought The Trading Post was to compete against Fairfax in classifieds.Amargosa 09:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Political allegiance
No Australian daily newspaper has a formal political allegiance. Any attempt to classify The Age, or any other newspaper, politically, is a matter of opinion, and thus contrary to policy. I will continue to delete such attempts. Adam 03:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well no, its not merely a matter of opinion. That a arguement you present and defend without evidence as though it was written in stone. You would agree that it is possible to categorise newspapers on their editorial political lines? In an oz context 'the age' would be seen as 'centre-left' 'moderate' 'centre' 'liberal' etc etc compared to other papers and also in an absolute sense.  Your attempt at silencing objective description could be categorised as censorship.  Its not a good way of conducting oneself. Other papers in wikipedia such as the times, the independent, le monde etc have political allegiance text entries. So why not the age?From the point of view of a reader say in Vladivostok who wants to know quickly what the outlook of the age is there is no other succinct way. Otherwise they have trudge through a lot of journalistic flimflam to a get only a vague view of the editorial allegiances of the age if they perservere. Lentisco 04:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Newspapers either have formal political loyalties or they don't. Le Monde is a self-proclaimed paper of the left, and its article should note that. The Times and The Independent do not - why do think it is called The Independent? No Australian daily paper has a formal political allegiance, and your muddled attempt to devise one for The Age - 'centre-left' 'moderate' 'centre' 'liberal' - which is it to be? - shows how hopelessly subjective is any attempt to do so. Preventing people inserting their juvenile opinions in articles is not "censorship" - it is what responsible editors are supposed to do. I have no political agenda here, I have also removed the characterisation of the Herald Sun as "conservative." Adam 04:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Really what so 'juvenile' about my opinions. I am agnostic about the actual label but I note your unreasoned and febrile response to anyone else actually trying to do so. To repeat: newspapers are able to be categorised politically in the real world and in wikipedia. Any attempt to stop this natural process is nothing less than censorship. I will fight for the maintenance of this categorization in wikipedia. As I previously noted 'the times', 'the independent', 'LA weekly', 'le monde' 'the herald sun' etc etc have all been uncontroversily categorised--so why not the age? Until Adam can provide a reasoned argument without resorting to peurile ad hominem attacks I will continue to revert. Lentisco 23:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Have reverted Adam's revert. My clear reasonable response is above. Fortunately Adam has provided for us, from his above response, some worthwhile possible labels for this newspaper. Thus:  'centre-left' 'moderate' 'centre' 'liberal'  Perhaps we can have sensible discussion and come to agreement. Personally, as I have stated before, I am completely agnostic about the actual label used (and thus open to argument). Lentisco 01:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * All these labels are totally subjective and based on personal opinion. What criteria are to be used to make this assignation? The views of the proprietor? Of the board? Of the editor? The content of editorials? The opinions of columnists and cartoonists? The alleged bias of news articles? Even to ask these questions is to see how ridiculous the whole suggestion is. If you ask the editor of The Age, he will say the paper is "independent," and so will the editor of every other daily paper in Australia. You have no evidence for the statement that The Age has a poltical alleigance, let alone to decide what it is, and your edits are therefore original research and contrary to policy. If you insert your opinions in this article one more time, I will report you to an Admin. I hope we are clear about this. Adam 10:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Lentisco, as this material is clearly contested, you must verify your edit with a cite from a reliable source. If you are unable to do so, you may not include it. Also, your opinions are irrelevant. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for personal opinions. We only report what we can verify with reliable sources. This is site policy, please follow it. Thanks, Sarah 11:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me note that I have no objection to a discussion within the body of the article about The Age's political views, with proper citations. My objection is solely to a line in an infobox stating as a fact that The Age, or any other paper, has a specific "political alliegance." Adam 09:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Does Adam allow 'the age' to have a political disposition? I believe that the infobox should include this. (which has been my argument all along.) Most other newspapers in wikipedialand have somesuch label. DiscussLentisco 23:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The heading 'Ownership' seems to be in the wrong place, not sure how to move it up two paragraphs... 58.169.68.163 11:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed reference to the paper influencing public opinion, for a number of reasons: Firstly, it is unclear how much letters actually influence, rather than reflect opinion. Unless this is explored, the statement is a possible distortion of what actually occurs. Secondly, there is mention that The Age "almost exclusively" publishes letters supporting the newspaper. One example is then given, which in itself is not supportive of the statement of exclusivity, and is also original research, and is not referenced via reliable sources. Finally, the mention of Orwellian censorship is a link to a blog which in itself is not a reputable source, and in this case, is a particularly contentious and opinionated blog. The fact that the phrase "some commentators" is used also strikes me as a use of weasel words I have also taken out some other supposed examples of The Age "influencing" public opinion, for the reason stated above, and some other links to blogs, which are not reputable sources.Boofalah36 04:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You say "... Firstly, it is unclear how much letters actually influence, rather than reflect opinion. Unless this is explored, the statement is a possible distortion of what actually occurs." - sorry, but this appears rather disingenuous: Of course letters do influence public opinion; how exactly do you wish to "explore" this? That 'The Age' publishes only those letters that suit its politics is obvious to anyone who bothers to read it for a few days - the examples that I have provided (and you deleted) were particularly telling. By deleting this information you are only betraying your own political bias and not doing any justice to the facts. And what does it mean "particularly contentious and opinionated blog" - does it mean any blog which does not reflect your own personal opinions? I am sorry, but I consider your censorship to be just as Orwellian as that of The Age. --Befeleme 13:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I am reverting this. The above comment provides no evidence that letters influence public opinion. It is not enough to state that of course they do. Provide some evidence that reading letters influences and alters people's opinions, and provide a study that the Age publishes only "letters that suit its politics". As an example of what I mean - it is possible that people only read letters that they agree with, and that letters reinforce people's opinions, rather than influence them. Alternative;y, there may be no effect at all, and people simply read letters as they find them interesting. i personally do not know, however it is a topic worthy of more than an unthinking "of course they influence people's opinions". This is an encyclopedia, and opinions are not allowed as sources. Also, blogs per se are very rarely acceptable sources at all. See Reliable sources for the nuts and bolts of this. I did not make the rules. Please follow them. Accusing me of Orwellian censorship is silly hyperbole, and you should probably read some George Orwell before accusing people of this.Boofalah36 03:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Guys, the passage in question, true or not, should only be included if supported by references, surely? Especially if it's potentially libel, perhaps Wikiepedia's policy on biography on living persons applies here... --Commking 05:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

I am not convinced that Gerald Henderson is an important enough figure to merit his views on The Age being given such prominence in the article. On the other hand, the fact that some conservatives argue that The Age is unbalanced and left-wing is worthy of mentioning. Hence, I have changed the paragraph to make the views of the individual less important that the general thrust of their argument. More references, and any counter arguments, would be useful.Boofalah36 00:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To suggest that reading letters may not influence a reader's opinion is disingenuous: Of course reading *anything* influences the reader's opinion - how can you even for a moment doubt something that is so self-evident and yet keep a straight face? Reading is a cognitive, information-receiving process. Such process *always* results in forming of an opinion - unless you're brain-dead. So what "proof" do you actually want? You are being totally unreasonable and obtuse here.


 * And my mentioning of Orwell was not entirely inappropriate, you are indeed being Orwellian here. Let me also tell you that I was actually born and spent the first half of my life in an oppressive totalitarian society. I don't have to "read some Orwell" as per your condescending suggestion - I actually *lived* it. I lived in a country where Orwell's books were banned. I read the Animal Farm in a faint carbon samizdat copy and retyped myself the whole book on an ancient typewriter (with as many carbon copies as I could squeeze in) for others. I don't think you can imagine that. So, unlike perhaps yourself, I can smell Orwellian tendencies (to suppress opposing opinion) miles away. Let me assure you that The Age is guilty of exactly that - and I consider this to be my duty to point this out.


 * In my view, you should not have deleted my comments (especially those that were accompanied by examples from The Age itself). You are also at fault for unnecessarily deleting my comment that The Age was campaigning for alleged terrorist David Hicks using his picture as a cute young boy - this is an undisputable fact and I have also duly documented this. I have also duly documented that The Age has deleted an all-important (but for The Age obviously inconvenient) graph from an article about alternative energy sources. None of this can be justifed by your tirades about having to "follow rules". Even if you disagreed, you should have erected a sign "More citation is needed" or "Accuracy is in dispute" - as is indeed common occurence in Wikipedia in such cases - but such a blatant brute-force deletion of my contribution is a genuine act of censorship and nothing else. -- Befeleme 14:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Without seeking to reignite past character disputes, I will contend that should The Age's political standing deserve either description or mention, as sought by Lentisco and Befeleme, that such description or mention be reserved to an acknowledged ideological preference presented by the editorship, and not the more subjective and misleading categorization of perceived "political allegiance" as currently employed therein. There are complex and disputed issues regarding the term 'political allegiance' - many of which are shaped and distorted by personal opinion and bias. Simply because a publication appears to endorse a certain policy does not necessarily imply an allegiance to a related political platform or position. Nor does the use of questionable references from what could be described as opinionated and subjective sources like Andrew Bolt reflect a justly academic or objective approach to identifying the features of an article's focus. Such plainly personal criticisms and hypotheses regarding the subject of an article are unhelpful to Wikipedia and its subscriber-base, allowing for related information to be influenced on the grounds of bias and individual positioning.

I have, to this end, removed from within the article references to the publication's political allegiance. It was, before this action, stated as being "Hard Left," without citation or description. This information is both misleading and inaccurate - especially as no proper citation exists for such an assertion.

Undoubtedly, further discussion is needed before this issue can be resolved. Whatever resolution is adopted should conform to the site policy of Wikipedia, and I ask that further changes to this section be discussed and sourced according to said policy. AJCampbell (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I notice that many entries on wikipaedia featuring newspapers, television media, there is a classification of their political leanings if not formal allegiance. The Age newspaper is most assuredly a left-wing, liberal newspaper. There is nothing wrong with this but that is its political leaning bias. It is not written, advertised policy at the Age for its paper to be left-wing but it nearly always favours the left-wing point of view in politics, economy, social issues, etc. Readers of Wikipedia have a right to know that this paper is very liberal and left-wing (a good thing many would say) so why hide it, especially when so many other newspapers/media on wikipedia are described as "conservative," "right-wing?" - Sacerdos92 BTW I will continue to inform readers of this paper's political leanings. There's nothing wrong with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sacerdos92 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well it needs to be discussed since there has been an on going dispute for sometime and WP:verifiable, reliable source(s) is needed not an opinion from someone or an editor. Bidgee (talk) 10:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have problems with both the terms left wing, and liberal. Left wing (and by extension, right wing) are ageing, nebulous terms, usually used as insults. The meaning is not clear at all. Because the more conservative major political party in Australia very inaccurately calls itself Liberal, that term too is dangerous in the Australian context. HiLo48 (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see why The Age escapes having "political alignment" when The Australian, The Daily Telegraph and The Times do. The only reasonable conclusion is an agenda against what may be considered right leaning papers and an attempt to paint left leaning papers as centrist untruthfully. Either all papers with a clear leaning (like The Age) should have it or none should. The term Liberal is highly accurate for the Liberal Party of Australia as in Australia, Britain and other non-American English speaking countries the term is generally used to describe freedom of speech, the individual, enterprise and so forth. It is only in the United States that Liberalism is a concept for the left of the political spectrum.Theworld2 (talk) 09:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * How do such labels help at all? If you look at the Wiki page and discussion for "left" in the political sense, you will see a lot of disagreement plus the, to me, ironic situation that one person is arguing that there is no variation in definition. If you can give us a clear definition of your label AND demonstrate, with references, that The Age deserves that label, I may be convinced. HiLo48 (talk) 09:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well hold on a minute. Firstly, who made you the decider? Secondly, who is "us"? It is common knowledge amongst educated Australians that The Age is left leaning, just as The Australian is right leaning. If its good enough for all the other newspapers to be labeled with a political leaning, why is it not for The Age? What makes it so special may I ask to earn an exemption? It is ludicrous to expect that everybody will be able to reach consensus on political definitions, one cannot label a person or an entity as being entirely in agreement with one academics' definition of an ideology. If you are looking for a 100% flawless ideological definition for The Age, you will not find it, unless of course you invent it out of thin air. Just because you might like to think that The Age is unbiased, does not make it so. Theworld2 (talk) 08:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Please ease up on the abrasive language and the personal comments. It's not how things are meant to be done here. I expressed my opinion. That's all.
 * I have problems with any judgemental term like left leaning, or right leaning, or overwhelming (I had a discussion on this last one elsewhere recently) in Wikipedia. I believe it's our job to report facts, eg. the position the paper has taken on a number of issues, and let the readers made their own judgements as to whether it's left or right wing or anarchist position. And one really has to be careful in one's interpretations. Did you know that since the 1960s The Age has recommended a Labor vote at a Federal election on only three occasions?
 * I would also argue against equivalent labels for other papers. HiLo48 (talk) 09:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You're making it into a personal issue, it is not. Just because you say it is not left leaning doesn't make it so. I'm unaware of that information, but if correct its probably because Labor has been largely unsuccessful in federal politics, being in power for roughly only one third of the Commonwealth Parliament's existence. Being left leaning in Australia is not synonymous with supporting the ALP. If you want to discuss facts, all media has bias, without exception, The Age is clearly not a right leaning paper, it cannot be in the centre, The Age is delivered to my home every day of the week, on any day I can open the paper up and the editorials and the majority of opinion pieces will have a left slant. There is a consensus amongst academics, politicians and The Age's readership on its leanings. Note I say 'leanings' I do not describe it as being dogmatically anything. Theworld2 (talk) 10:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. You made a personal comment with "Well hold on a minute. Firstly, who made you the decider?". I had said nothing personal about you. (Although that could be interpreted as changing a little in point 3. below.)
 * 2. I did not say The Age "is not left leaning".
 * 3. I made an effort to explain why I think labels such as left and right leaning are inappropriate in Wikipedia. You have responded with "The Age is left leaning". I'm sorry. You have totally missed and/or ignored my point. Please try to discuss, rather than repeat a political opinion that has nothing to do with the discussion I tried to have with you. That you keep telling us The Age is left leaning shows that in fact you want the article to match your point of view. That is DEFINITELY not what Wikipedia articles should do. You want a political slant. I want no slant.
 * 4. Please remember that this is a discussion about the article, not about The Age. HiLo48 (talk) 11:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You keep saying 'us' as if to imply there is a consensus in your favour. If you do not believe that The Age is not left leaning (i.e. centre left) then there should be no barrier to describing it as such other than your own political motives. It isn't my point of view, it is the point of view of an unignorably large consensus of educated Australians. Wikipedia is a place for informed factual information, what you want to do is censor anything you disagree with. To be in denial over the existence of bias and dogmatically insist that readers of the page should be ill-informed and given half truths is lunacy. I don't want a slant, I want the whole story, the article does not exist solely to flatter The Age. Also, perhaps you might like to rethink your fourth point. Theworld2 (talk) 12:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought I could help you learn something more about how Wikipedia works from what I wrote. Obviously I haven't succeeded yet. I'll take responsibility for that and keep trying.....
 * By "us" I mean "we Wikipedia editors". That actually includes you.
 * My opinion of any politician slant The Age may have is irrelevant to this discussion. In fact, I have never stated it. Every opinion I have expressed here also applies to the Wikipedia articles about The Australian, The Herald Sun and every other mainstream Australian newspaper.
 * A serious suggestion.... Have a look at the Wikipedia articles on left-wing and right-wing, plus their discussion pages. It's important that Wikipedia pages be consistent with one another.
 * Another serious suggestion...... Read what I post more carefully. I put a lot of effort into my choice of words here. Don't read into it things I haven't said.
 * Finally, what I've written here is my opinion of how the article should be written. You are free to disagree with that, but there's no point telling me that The Age is left wing. It's got nothing to do with my point. HiLo48 (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I am well aware of how Wikipedia "works", I've been using and contributing to it for many years now. You should be very careful using inclusive language, especially when you are only speaking for yourself. I don't need to look at those Wikipedia articles, I have a complete grasp of the concepts. Consistency is what I was aiming for, an overwhelming majority of entries about newspapers had a comment on political leaning and The Age was the exception not the rule.
 * You may have used a lot of effort choosing your words, however the manner in which you chose them does not have any bearing on what you actually said. This discussion is about the article, the article is about The Age. It's common sense and basic logic.
 * If your "point" has nothing to do with The Age's political allegiance and you say you have never stated anything to do with it, then you most definitely should not be commenting here as your input is counterproductive. Theworld2 (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(od) It seems that on Template:Infobox newspapers, the "Political" attribute changed to be optional after issues along similar lines with the NYT. The intent seemed to be to keep it for when newspapers are formally aligned with a political position, rather than have a general editorial bias, which seems in keeping with HiLo48's stance. In the case of The Age, it seems that the bias has changed over time, (always left, but to varying degrees), and this would warrant a dedicated section in the article discussing the paper's stance. (Gans and Leigh wrote a rather nice paper that pointed to a center-left bias for the Age in both news coverage and editorial/op-ed, which would be useful). But that doesn't entail a formal political allegiance, and the complexities of it can't be really summarised in the infobox. - Bilby (talk) 03:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to request that the political label be removed. This is a subjective label that does not represent the range of writing that is published in the paper. - NDCole (talk) 17:35, 08 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The-age.svg
Image:The-age.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Front page of The Age
For some reason the image of the front page of The Age was deleted, for reasons to do with fair use rationale. This seems strange to me, as every other newspaper on Wikipedia has an image of a front page. Can anybody who knows more upload one with a valid fair use rationale so it doesn't get deleted again? HorseloverFat 08:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Picture Caption
A rather poor reproduction (Image:TheAgeNov111975.jpg) of the Age's front page reporting the dismissal of Gough Whitlam is captioned as being from the edition of 11th November 1975. Since the dismissal took place on that day some time around midday (after the GG returned from a Remembrance Day Service) and since the Age so far as I know has never been an evening paper I suspect that is a mistake. The actual date is unclear but it is probably the day after. My edit reflects this ambiguity. Stroika (talk) 07:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Some Problems With Time
Before describing the paper's "modernisation" from 1942 onwards, the article has an unreferenced quote: "Walker described a newspaper which had fallen asleep in the embrace of the Liberal Party." In the Wikipedia article on the Liberal Party of Australia we are told "The formation of the party was formally announced in February 1945." Who is Walker? When did he really say that? Does it make sense chronologically?

We are also told that "By the 1980s a new competitor had appeared in Rupert Murdoch's national daily The Australian." The Australian began publication in 1964.

Both comments read like careless and sloppy journalism. HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Pravda on the Yarra
Pravda on the yarra is a much funnier and ruder tag than the guardian one, and has roughly the same number of google hits. So why is one acceptable and the other not? Greglocock (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Reference List
I have just added a section titled "Masthead". I have cited the information with a reference to a journal article. However the article doesn't show up in the reference list. Can anyone advise? NDCole (talk) 03:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The Age hacking scandal
User:Brandonfarris just added a new section with the above title, and I have reverted it as a caution. The sources are all competitors of The Age (particularly Murdoch media), and could(?) be suspected of trying to damage the paper's reputation. A lot of the "evidence" is about events expected(?) to happen in the future. It just doesn't seem solid sourcing to me, but I am happy to be convinced otherwise. HiLo48 (talk) 08:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That is a disgusting edit and I have reverted your deletion. The content was sourced to an RS, and is certainly notable. Greglocock (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that's the first time I've had an edit of mine described as disgusting. Interesting. It's obvious that you feel strongly on this matter. Any chance you could comment on the points I made? HiLo48 (talk) 08:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I meant disgusting as in an antithesis of what wiki is about. Your paranoid observation about the sources is daft. The paragraph was well written, sourced from RS, notable and so far as I can tell correct, with no speculation. So instead of leaving frankly comical if lame threats on my talk page why don't you usefully edit an article where your prejudices don't get in the way? Greglocock (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It's just silly to say that there was no speculation. "...expected to be interviewed by police" is precisely that. What has actually happened and what is going to happen all just seems so unclear. Accusing me of paranoia and prejudice, and making comical and lame posts doesn't help either. That's just heading down the personal attack path. Can you actually discuss what I wrote, rather than me? HiLo48 (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Further, re reliable sources, what is a reliable source in one context is not necessarily a reliable source in another. I (and many others) regard the Herald Sun as an excellent source for sports stories and results, but often quite an appalling one for political stories. This matter is something else. It's about its opposition. To be gentle, I have my doubts. The Australian is also from the Murdoch stable. I'm happier with the Crikey source for its independence. HiLo48 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

So, one year on and has anything happened or is this yet another storm in a teacup? If, as we might guess, nothing happened then perhaps this wasn't really a controversy at all? Greglocock (talk) 06:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The Age is a Tabloid newspaper
No it isn't. It is a small format newspaper but not a tabloid by content, which is far more important. So far as I can tell the content hasn't changed much even as its size and readership have shrunk, still the same dreary politically correct Melbourne centric gossip focussed on real estate and political wrangling. Whether a paper is a tabloid newspaper depends on content, not size, eg the News Of The World was a classic tabloid by content, yet it was a full size paper (at least when I was growing up). So stop it. Greglocock (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a subjective issue. Whether or not a newspaper engages in tabloid journalism, broadsheet journalism or whatever journalism is a matter for readers of that newspaper. It is not a fact that can be confidently stated by any rational thought. However, the size of the newspaper and what category that size is, is a fact that is quite simply indisputable. For that alone, it is perfectly fine and factual to state that The Age is a daily tabloid newspaper. I have made no mention at all about content, for that would be my opinion, and that is wrong to put on a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.166.226.105 (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not subjective. The Age is NOT tabloid in its journalist style. This is a blue sky issue. HiLo48 (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Further, if you're definitely only commenting on the paper's size, that needs to be made clear in your wording, precisely because of the two distinct meanings of the word. But I see no need for the size of the paper to be mentioned in the lead. It's covered well in the Infobox, where it's described as Compact. That links to "...a broadsheet-quality newspaper printed in a tabloid format", an excellent description of The Age. HiLo48 (talk) 01:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Berliner
Berliner format is 470x315. Tabloid is 430x280 approx. The copy of The Age that I retrieved from the bottom of the parrot cage (like many semi intelligent Victorians he gets a very cheap subscription) is 405x292. The Age is no Berliner. Yes that is OR, but of course I would expect Age readers to believe what they are told rather than actually finding out. Greglocock (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Political alignment - Centre- OR
The Guardian ref says it has moved to the right of its previous position. It does not specify by how much. It certainly does not say Centre. This is a stupid, misused, tag in the infobox anyway since Australian newspapers don't actually have a political alignment in the sense that it was meant to be used. For example the backing for parties in federal elections is not significantly different (statistically) between the main daily papers. If you can find a ref that explicitly identifies a political alignment for this comic then put the ref in. Greglocock (talk) 03:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on The Age. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150825042518/http://www.similarweb.com/country_category/australia/news_and_media to http://www.similarweb.com/country_category/australia/news_and_media
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110219150210/http://www.grocon.com.au/pdfs/melbourne/Media_House_completed.pdf to http://www.grocon.com.au/pdfs/melbourne/Media_House_completed.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070310212326/http://www.nondescriptpress.com/ to http://www.nondescriptpress.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120627062038/http://about.theage.com.au/ to http://about.theage.com.au/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100810175102/http://inside.theage.com.au/ to http://inside.theage.com.au/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)