Talk:The Australian/Archive 3

Financial viability
Currently, the article says “From its inception the paper struggled for financial viability and ran at a loss for several decades.[4]”. The paper began in 1964, the citation (which is a deadlink and the archive consists of 3 words, none of which address the topic) is allegedly from 2008. I cannot see how the claim of several decades of loss-making makes any sense. I’d like to remove this unless someone can find a source that can be more explicit about extent of the loss making. Kerry (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Not sure why its not working- was good a couple of weeks back when I checked it. Works on my laptop, but not on the IPad...weird. It's a PDF of the entire preface to the book. Its also availiable via google books.
 * pg x
 * "The 25 year time frame adopted for the study is important for several reasons, not least because of the newspapers protracted struggle for financial viability. That the Australian ran at a loss for several decades is not widely known and justifies a longer time frame than that of the remarkable volteface during the 1975 political crisis." later in Chapter one..it says "struggled financially for almost two decades before turning the corner in the mid 80's" pg 1 and there is a bit about actual figures on pg 10.  I've been working a bit on the refs and the history- still digging up sources though. Curdle (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m using an iPad so I guess you saw what I saw. I’m glad to know there was more to the source than 3 words! I think struggling for two decades sounds plausible, so maybe revise it to that for the moment since you have a source. Kerry (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Crikey.com quote
I recently tried to include the full quote from Crikey.com stating that "''it has been in sympathy with the agenda of federal governments of both colours". "Under editor Paul Kelly it helped define Paul Keating’s “big picture”. During the Howard years it has provided both turf and fuel for the culture warriors of the Right''". By including the full quote I believe we are giving readers a neutral point of view.

However editor Pinkbeast immediately deleted the middle sentence about Paul Keating who is an Australian Labor Party Prime Minister and only included the sentence about John Howard a Coalition Party PM. So the biased and totally skewed section then read, "''it has been in sympathy with the agenda of federal governments of both colours". During the Howard years it has provided both turf and fuel for the culture warriors of the Right''" This is the version that remains in the article unchallenged.

Pinkbeast, as you know you actually omitted the middle sentence which gave meaning to Crikey's statement that "it has been in sympathy with the agenda of federal governments of both colours" By you choosing to delete only the sentence in the middle "Under editor Paul Kelly it helped define Paul Keating’s “big picture” you completely skewed the point the source was making and have misrepresented the reliable source. Once again, for clarity, this was the critical sentence in the middle, illustrating a fair and balanced or in other words centrist approach to The Australian's reporting, that the source Crikey.com was making.

On that basis have I got permission please from the 4 editors Onetwothreeip, Hughesdarren Curdle and Pinkbeast to simply include the full quote rather than just the cherry picked bit that once again gives undue weight to The Australian being right-wing? Hope that request is clearly stated. I would appreciate a direct response to this content question please as I do believe there has been a Tag team operating here. I very much hope I am wrong. Merphee (talk) 07:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing has changed; what you are trying to do is crowbar in something about the situation in 1995, which is not a good guide to the newspaper in 2018. (The source itself, dating from 2007, isn't great there either, but then you picked it...)
 * As detailed above the article doesn't support, in any way, the assertion you're trying to make that it's centrist (or "centre-right" when you forget what you wrote beforehand).
 * You never actually try to address any of these objections, just spit up your conspiracy theory again - "every other editor disagrees with me, they must be working together!". As such, you should hardly be surprised to find those objections are unchanged. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Please stop being so uncivil and focus only on content. And no, on this particular edit it is only you that disagrees with me. No conspiracy theory. We just disagree that's all. It happens at Wikipedia and we work toward a resolution. Now why then have you still included the quote from Crikey in the article. The quote was from Crikey's 2007 source and is historical. Are you willing to remove the other bit then as a compromise and a resolution?


 * The full quote from the Crikey 2007 source is "it has been in sympathy with the agenda of federal governments of both colours". "Under editor Paul Kelly it helped define Paul Keating’s “big picture”. During the Howard years it has provided both turf and fuel for the culture warriors of the Right" You have left the full quote in but removed the Paul Keating bit which is misrepresenting the source, so it now reads, "In 2007 Crikey stated that "it has been in sympathy with the agenda of federal governments of both colours, and hence had provided both turf and fuel for the culture warriors of the Right during the Howard years".[]


 * Perhaps we could use proper dispute resolution instead as I suggest a couple of days ago? It is quite an important point and this is an important article about Australia's largest Newspaper. The Australian is centre-right and you are trying to make it seem like a right wing newspaper to our readers, which is not what the sources say. However I strongly believe we need independent Dispute resolution to resolve this if you are not willing to compromise at all? I think it is best to seek dispute resolution rather than continue to argue over this edit and go around in circles. We can even leave your preferred version in the article while we do so if you like. be Would that be okay with you Pinkbeast? Merphee (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Onetwothreeip and Pinkbeast. Would you like to participate in the independent Dispute resolution process I am going to initiate to help us resolve our issues in a civil manner focussing only on content? This has been suggested at the recent case at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents which is now closed. This process shouldn't take too long. The proposed edit for resolution would be the one I'm suggesting in this section and is aiming to fix the problem of bias that I have clearly pointed out above. There has been no good reasons provided to reject my proposed edit and other editors apart from Pinkbeast have not commented on this specific edit to date.
 * I'm also wondering what other editors think about us removing this subjective and controversial section altogether as another proposed resolution? Seems to have caused a lot of unnecessary debate and I cannot see how it is helpful for our readers as it is largely based on quotes from individual commentators on both sides (left and right wing) rather than any objective research on the topic. Merphee (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * There is no single dispute resolution process. What you keep linking is a summary of all possible means to resolve disputes. I've already said you can take it to RfC if you wish. It's clear you're the one outnumbered here, so you're the one with anything to gain from bringing other people into this dispute. I think I speak for the rest of the consensus here when I say that you should stop telling us about dispute resolution and just start getting on with it if that's what you want to do, you don't need us to start that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow. Obviously onetwothreeip you still cannot just focus on content. And you just wish to continue the hostility. The edit I am proposing is new. I've said that multiple times but you keep ignoring this fact and saying there is consensus against it. No one else has commented on it. I will choose an appropriate form of dispute resolution. What are your thoughts on just getting rid of this subjective section entirely? And we can all move on. How does this biased skewed and subjective section benefit our readers? Merphee (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The quote about Paul Keating is not useful and doesn't help describe the newspaper. You're the only one in support of this edit, and unless that changes, that proposal won't appear on the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Once again, you have not addressed any of my points regarding the quote, just followed what Pinbeast said. This is why we need independent dispute resolution which I will initiate. For the record, only you and Pinkbeast are objecting to it no one else has commented. Please don't misrepresent the facts. Anyway a resolution should not take too long if we focus on content only onetwothreeip and keep things civil through dispute resolution. Leaving the Crikey source in the article in its current wording is breaching policy. No need for us to discuss anything further on this point and waste any space on this page doing so. Merphee (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Pinkbeast. You do not have consensus. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not how consensus works. Especially when you are both identically minded. It's not as simple as 2 against one. You should know that. Merphee (talk) 05:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And as a general reminder, consensus is not the product of single minded persistence on a minor potential improvement over an extended period of time. At some point the discussion becomes disruptive or obstructive, yet there is other, quieter, ways of engaging the community. cygnis insignis 10:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Cygnis insignis, duly noted. And a very good point and have learnt a lot from this and hope to improve my editing. I'm never too arrogant to accept feedback and advice from genuine editors. I have backed off completely and was simply waiting for the recent ANI case to close. I do not wish to take up any more space here on the talk page and will in future use "other, quieter, ways of engaging the community" like you suggested. I can see that this dispute here between myself and several like-minded editors has been disruptive. However we all need to accept collective blame for any disruption and move on. Having said that, The Australian is Australia's largest newspaper and the section of the article in dispute does still need to be resolved. Merphee (talk) 06:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , it is very good of you to take my comment in the vein it was intended and I recognise where I too was not especially helpful in seeking resolution. Giving coverage to these things is a slippery business, if it appears balanced to some then others will see that as exceptions to an absolute political position on a spectrum rather than the realpolitik of creating stories and spin as they attempt to retain readership. The subjectivity on others views can be presented fairly, but those facts are more likely to stray from the plainer summation of factual information and become a timesink for contributors. cygnis insignis 06:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Infobox political alignment
Rather than leaving long comments in the article space can we have a conversation here please? are all the involved editors that are making edits on political alignment since the page has been unblocked. Hughesdarren (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This newspaper is known for its political views, not merely bias. Any decent encyclopaedic article about the newspaper would reflect that. "Centre-right" was what Merphee pleaded for the article to describe the newspaper as, after initially being described as generally right wing, though not "extreme right" or "far right" as Merphee has claimed. After that it was agreed that the newspaper would be described as both centre-right and right wing, as other things are. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * There has been an extensive discussion as you both are fully aware over at Australian Wikipedians' notice board. Many very experienced well respected editors made some excellent points as you both know. So why are you going against this now? Why go against what was decided? And it has nothing to do with our previous interactions about other issues here onetwothreeip. So please don't rehash that. It's really not helpful. The Drover's Wife summarised other editor's perspectives particularly well I thought in her comments here. . Do you both disagree with the consensus established over there? Do you disagree with the The Drover's Wife's excellent summation? By the way Onetwothreeip, you even stated you didn't care about the infobox and did not really participate in the active discussion that was had over the issue. So why now? Very importantly, we also have no such political alignment in any of our Australian or indeed USA article infoboxes on major newspaper publications. Would you both please respond specifically to these questions relating entirely and only to the previous discussion under The Australian at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board the end of December 2018. Merphee (talk) 08:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And Hughesdarren why did you not ping all of the editors who took their precious time discussing this precise issue over at Australian Wikipedians' notice board rather than a couple of editors (onetwothreeip and Reginaldarnold) who support your point of view? That would seem neutral. The majority editors formed consensus not to include political alignment in any of our articles on Australian newspapers. In my opinion that is Canvassing. I think all involved editors in the previous discussion should be pinged. Would you like to do that please? Merphee (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As I explained above, these were the editors who had contributed since the page was unblocked. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Merphee, hello again. What is the correlation between: the amount of discussion you generate and perpetuate and the actual, desirable, and pretty much uncontestable content that appears in mainspace as a result. Content is not created by debate. cygnis insignis 13:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what discussion you're talking about, or to which of my comments you are referring to. You are claiming I was aware of a discussion that I did not participate in? I'm not sure what you're asking me, so I ask you to ask your questions again but clearer. It was proper that the infobox reflected the political views of the newspaper, as it is a strong theme of the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * remove My firm preference is that the infobox field for 'political alignment' should not be used, it is not the business of wikipedia to assign that as a bare declaration not matter how much special pleading takes place. The more discussion that is unrelated to our methods of improving content, the more certain that it is a bad idea. cygnis insignis 13:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm in favour of making the description as broad as possible, i.e. "centre-right to right wing". I don't see why we can do that for political parties but not newspapers, and we describe the newspaper as that throughout the article anyway. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "and become a timesink for contributors. cygnis insignis 06:54, 31 January 2019 " & cygnis insignis 08:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC) …


 * remove I also strongly oppose it's re-inclusion. There were also at least 6 other editors who supported removing 'political alignment' in the infobox from all of our articles on Australian newspaper. Onetwothreeip don't you remember? The consensus was established inthe discussion you started at Australian Wikipedians' notice board in December 2018 titled The Australian. Regardless of you remembering your own discussion onetwothreeip, a clear consensus has already been established on all articles on Australian newspapers, not just The Australian. The Drover's Wife summed it up in her excellent comment here. . Adding it to the infobox of this one article is disruptive and goes against consensus and does not improve our articles. Merphee (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Merphee, the whole discussion was about confirming that The Australian has a broadly right wing agenda, despite edits and comments you've made. It was not about an infobox or an infobox parameter, and it is puzzling why you think what The Drover's Wife had said there is relevant to your argument. All this about the infobox is really not important, I would prefer it being there but others may disagree. What's important is that the political orientation of the newspaper be reflected in the article. I think we should keep that in the infobox but seriously let's not make a mountain of a molehill. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This edit is extremely curious, replacing "Centre-right to right wing" with "Centre-right" (abusing the minor edit facility).
 * It is curious both because the only time the added cite actually says "centre-right" is a quote from the editor of the paper (hardly an unbiased observer) and because the edit summary links to Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board where, who made this edit, argues strongly that it is "right-wing", then comes here and removes it.
 * I feel both that "Centre-right to right wing" is justified and that it can stay in the infobox. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

While there will always be disagreement on the the wording for "alignment", the fact that we show News Corp as the owner tells most informed media observers an awful lot about what its political alignment will be. HiLo48 (talk) 03:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can rely on a reader's preconceptions of News Corp Australia, particularly non-Australian readers. To avoid the issue of working out exactly which flavour of right wing the newspaper has, we can simply say "centre-right to right wing", which I think is an objective view supported by reliable sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * TBH I was hoping Reginaldarnold would shed some light on why they first argued it was "right-wing" then removed that expression, but I'm happy with the change you have made. Pinkbeast (talk) 04:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The whole point here is that there has been a consensus on not including political alignment in the infobox of any of our articles on Australian newspapers. We need consistency with articles. We need to focus on improving our articles for our readers. All of our articles on Australian newspapers have not got the political alignment in the infobox. Neither have any of our articles on USA newspapers. This discussion involved many experienced and well respected editors each providing strong reasons for their conclusions. Consensus was then reached. We can't just insert a political alignment in the infobox for one article on one newspaper while all of our other articles on newspapers do not have this in the infobox. This is the specific point we are talking about. The Drover's Wife commented here in relation to this precise point. . Can editors address this point I have made please. Merphee (talk) 06:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is clearly an attempt as hiding behind someone else's credibility. No, there was no consensus made there about infobox parameters, and the discussion was not mainly about infobox parameters either. The Australian has among the strongest political alignment of Australian newspapers, so it's no surprise that this article would have that in the infobox while other newspapers wouldn't. I think you would be best advised to adhere to this point, by The Drover's Wife. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * These comments by The Drover's Wife this point, were obviously saying if you want to go against the consensus of us not having political alignment in the infobox of any of our articles on Australian newspapers go ahead and open a new discussion elsewhere, but on the extensive discussion on the Australian Wikipedians' notice board in December/January consensus certainly was established. Can you please answer to the points I've raised on content onetwothreeip. All of our other articles on Australian and USA newspapers do not include political alignment in the infobox. We are aiming for consistency in our articles. I will add all of the other editors who overwhelmingly supported the proposal to drop the political alignment from infoboxes to clearly show the consensus and their reasons. We can't ignore consensus onetwothreeip. That discussion formed the consensus as it was an improvement to the project. This now includes Cygnis insignis very well reasoned (as usual) comments on why they also support not including political alignment in the infobox. Merphee (talk) 07:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've already made my points, including why some newspapers would have a political alignment expressly listed and others may not. Consensus is not whatever you want it to be. You can ask me questions if you want me to clarify something further. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If your position is that we can't rely on readers, to gather facts and make up their minds or bolster their pov, to place the readership/journalists/columists/editors/megalomaniac complex under their own labelling, classification, boxification and political-spectrographs, that is, if they have them? We must instead contest or affirm a position before the reader begins reading, with an unstable label that triggers something and says nothing? Would you care to discuss what you think the the purpose of this page, this site, is? cygnis insignis 08:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have another question, that is, what benefit is there to our readers in including this in the infobox when it was decided by about 8 to 3 editors on the Australian Wikipedians' notice board not to include political alignment in any of our articles on Australian newspapers and consistent with our articles on USA newspapers which also do not include this in the infobox? It's also going to cause so much unnecessary conflict over an issue already dealt with by consensus. On that basis and unless there can be some sound reasoning and benefits to our readers produced here, I think it is very disruptive move placing this back into this one article's infobox. Merphee (talk) 11:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not my position. I think the purpose of the article is to provide encyclopaedic information about the subject.
 * Merphee, you are lying. That discussion was not about the infobox and what to include in the infobox, the discussion was about characterising the newspaper's political views throughout the article. There is no such consensus there about the infobox, and it only goes to show how ridiculous that idea is when you say that the consensus on the Australian Wikipedians' notice board created a consensus for articles about American newspapers. It's clear that you oppose summarising the political views of the newspaper in the infobox, but please stop lying about previous discussions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems fairly supportable to mention the political bias of the newspaper in the article, as we do for many of our articles on media. I'd prefer to see it explained in the lede rather than the infobox, but both are fine. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't include it in the infobox of any articles on any USA newspapers and now no Australian newspapers either. That's the whole point here. A consensus was established not to. Merphee (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering what you do in this situation as I sure as f... don't want any more drama over something done and dusted or get into an edit war over it. Cygnis insignis do you know what the best way forward is to resolve this. The issue here is not whether the Australian is centre right or The Age or SMH is centre left it is solely whether a newspaper's supposed political alignment should be included in the info box on any article? Merphee (talk) 12:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I removed the infobox field mentioned above, and that accords with my position above. This is not a close to the discussion, a new consensus is possible for: 1. inclusion of the parameter that must have 2. an incontestable summation of the content. Just doing 1. is also possible, with the community's consent to have this goad another series of contentious changes and interminable discussion. cygnis insignis 13:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's clear that this talk page is preferring that some sort of political orientation description be retained in the infobox. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Referring back to the extensive conversation held at all support the very wise revert Cygnis insignis made yesterday which I fully support too. Onetwothreeip can you please just Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass now. Merphee (talk) 04:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It astounds me that you of all people can claim that anyone besides yourself is beating a dead horse. The consensus is clearly not on your side here, all you've linked are people's comments at the Australian Wikipedians' noticeboard. This talk page section is not on your side. Are you telling me this because earlier I told you not to make a mountain out of a molehill? I suggest you take your own advice. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have as much of the personal insults as I can take from you onetwothreeip. Your incivility, assumptions of bad faith need to stop. And I have warned you countless times. Merphee (talk) 10:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It may be worth having a break from editing the page if it makes you this emotional. I notice that you have reverted my attempted compromise without any talk page comment - this kind of hasty action is pretty uncool. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth, I suggest keeping your emotions in check please and focus on content, not the contributor. Now as far as your bold edit in the lede, I reverted it, now let's discuss it without your insults. Also the discussion thread should be at the base of the page as it is confusing for editors. Merphee (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree users are occasionally overstating each point and contribution with some colourful language, but others like "very wise revert" are only slightly exaggerated. cygnis insignis 06:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Seeing as the consternation seems to relate to having it in the infobox as opposed to the information being included, I've added it to the lede. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As I see that as effectively the same thing, is there any chance you might not casually create another point of consternation and undo that? cygnis insignis 10:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it's effectively the same thing. wrote We don't include it in the infobox of any articles on any USA newspapers and now no Australian newspapers either. That's the whole point here. A consensus was established not to. - we actually do include political orientation in a number of articles about newspapers etc. in the lede, which is where I'd recommend political orientation be placed. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * PeterTheFourth, I totally agree with Cygnis insignis. And I definitely believe it is effectively the same thing. Now if we can have a civil discussion over your suggestion firstly could you please provide examples of your statement above "we actually do include political orientation in a number of articles about newspapers etc. in the lede". It's best we deal with these content issues objectively in my opinion at least. Merphee (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, here's some examples.
 * ...is a far-right syndicated American news, opinion and commentary website...
 * ...is an American far-right news and opinion website
 * ...is a far-right American conspiracy theory and fake news website...
 * ...is an American far-right media website founded by former Breitbart News employees.
 * The magazine employs a liberal political stance.
 * Would you like more? PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Many more publications have this information in the infobox, including:
 * *...Conservative]
 * *...Euroscepticism, Right-wing populism, Conservative
 * *... Conservative
 * *... Conservative
 * *...Labour
 * *...Centre-Left
 * *...Conservative, Centre-right
 * *...Classical liberalism, Social liberalism, Economic liberalism, Radical centrism
 * *...Globalism, Economic liberalism
 * *...Centre-left Hughesdarren (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What would be helpful is if you could provide some examples of any mainstream newspapers in Australia or the USA not far right extremist publications like the ones you have listed or far left wing publications for that matter. I mean articles on newspapers that mums and dads of Australia read in Australia and the USA like the Australian, The Age, the SMH and so on and equivalents on USA newspapers. We need to compare like for like. Merphee (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And why not UK papers as provided above? Where the political orientation is in the infobox? Hughesdarren (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Because on our newspapers consensus was gained to not include them. Merphee (talk) 12:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And really the UK articles should also follow the lead of all of the USA articles as Wikipedia is based mainly on United States direction. If anything the UK articles should not include these in the infobox either. Some really strong reasons were provided by the editors at the extensive conversation held at Australian Wikipedians' notice board in December 2018 this comment and this one    and this one  and this one  Merphee (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't you think consistency across our like for like articles is important? That's what my understanding is at least of the direction and approach Wikipedia is trying to take for the benefit of our readers. Merphee (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do think consistency is important which is why I'm pointing out that nearly all the UK papers have this information in the infobox. Hughesdarren (talk) 13:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You appear to be shifting the goal posts - earlier it was 'no media have their political leanings in the lede, so we can't have it' - now it appears to be 'some media don't have their political leanings in the lede, so we can't have it' which is far less persuasive. And, y'know, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We'd need an actual reason to exclude it rather than just pointing to articles where no political leanings are included. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * After having checked out several US publications it appears that the assumption that none of these have political alignment in the infobox is also false. After a quick search it appears at least some do:
 * *...Liberal
 * *...Centre-left, populist
 * *...Centre-right, populist Hughesdarren (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth I did not say that all! What? Where did I just say 'no media have their political leanings in the lede, so we can't have it' - now it appears to be 'some media don't have their political leanings in the lede, so we can't have it' Could you provide quotations otherwise please don't provide words I didn't say and distort our discussion. I will wait for your answer? Thank you. Merphee (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that discretionary sanctions are active on discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * NinjaRobotPirate could you please provide some direction here. My only point has been that my understanding was consensus was developed whereby no political alignment, left, right or upside down would be included in the infobox of our articles on mainstream newspapers. Many experienced editors provided some sound reasons for this.  I just think we go with all articles or no articles for the benefit of our readers. Is there any direction on this matter you could provide? Some very good reasons were provided. I also think its an improvement.  Australian Wikipedians' notice board in December 2018                                                                                                                                                         :To help reach resolution here what do you suggest please, particularly given there are discretionary sanctions in place for discussions regarding infoboxes? I just want a resolution to this one issue of consensus. If there was no consensus then how can we set up a vote to resolve this issue and have consistency across our like for like articles and for reader's benefit? Any direction would be welcome and would be helpful to a resolution. Merphee (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to set up a vote, see WP:RFC. WP:DR lists other options. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If your only point is that they are not allowed in infoboxes, why did you instantly revert this information being added in the lede? PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks NinjaRobotPirate. My understanding is that we agreed on no political alignment in any infoboxes on our articles on Australian mainstream articles to avoid long drawn out discussions like this one and for the benefit of readers and for consistency across like for like articles. PeterTheFourth have you got that quote as yet please? I don't appreciate being misrepresented as blatantly as you did. That is not helpful and creates unnecessary hostility. Let's work toward a civil resolution.Thank you. Merphee (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well you clearly understood incorrectly. Nowhere here is there any such consensus. Actually more people are indicating they support including this in the infobox. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No I have not misunderstood onetwothreeip. You seem to have. What the consensus established at the extensive discussion on the topic of not including political alignment in any of our articles on Australian newspapers (obviously this includes The Australian) was not to include it in the infobox. Please see Australian Wikipedians' notice board in December 2018 and The Drover's Wife's most recent comment  So why are you going against that consensus on this article? The Australian is in fact a mainstream Australian newspaper is it not. Could you reply to that specific question? Merphee (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A quick run through the discussion yields edits such as this which urges case by case and this which suggests if there was any consensus it is quite meaningless.  Hughesdarren (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What is the question you want me to answer? Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No I do not agree with that at all Hughesdarren.Merphee (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Attempts to paint The Australian as right-wing w/out sources
It's becoming quite frustrating to see constant attempts to make The Australian out to be some right-wing publication which is not what the reliable sources say. A recent attempt by onetwothreeip to delete a section of the article which had been there for 8 years and showed The Australian awarding ALP and Australian Green's politicians awards was an example of this. Another example was onetwothreeip putting right-wing into the infobox. However no actual reliable sources have been presented here to support such extreme claims. We obviously need to separate personal points of view from what the reliable sources actually say. If an editor wants to say The Australian is a right wing publication we need quality reliable sources which actually say, The Australian is a right-wing newspaper. Merphee (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * onetwothreeip I reverted the same edit by onetwothreeip who again attempted to paint The Australian as right-wing in the info box without any quality sources which call it a right wing. Please refer to other articles like the Age and SMH which have reliable sources in the infobox. I see this as provoking an edit war. We need to use quality reliable sources onetwothreeip, not your personal point of view. Please engage here on the talk page if you would like to provide the reliable sources which say The Australian is a right-wing publication. I am more than happy discussing it with you in a civil manner instead of you trying to ram your extreme edit into the article with no reliable source.Merphee (talk) 11:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

, mediabiasfactcheck. has it as "right-center bias". In my estimation the site already has a right of centre bias, comparable papers that incontrovertibly 'right-wing' have a similar rating and they must have raised some flags to get this placement. Is that adequate? cygnis insignis 22:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC) I see that this has been interpreted as saying otherwise above. Choose a right or left of center paper in your opinion, or well defined as such, and see what they say. cygnis insignis 22:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Merphee already took "Media Bias Fact Check" to Reliable sources/Noticeboard and it was strongly rejected by the community for being self-published and unreliable. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Onetwothreeip have you got any good quality reliable sources that say The Australian is some extremist right-wing newspaper like you want Wikipedia to label it as. It is simply not an extremist newspaper based on what the reliable sources tell us.Merphee (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Centrist or possibly centre-right, is all The Australian newspaper is. It is Australia's biggest newspaper read by mums and dads around the country. It is NOT some radical extremist right-wing newspaper like onetwothreeip is trying for some reason to paint it as and with no quality reliable sources. Is centre-right good enough onetwothreeip?Merphee (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You're the only one talking about extremist. You are constructing a strawman. It is centre-right to right wing. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's Merphee's main dodge here. If we say The Australian is "right-wing", that's somehow practically equivalent to saying it's far-right; but anything Merphee doesn't like can be labelled as "left-wing" without any cite at all. Pinkbeast (talk) 08:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * " It is Australia's biggest newspaper read by mums and dads around the country. " That demands a reliable source. HiLo48 (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

RFC proposed to be held at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians'notice board
To help us resolve this issue relating to political alignment in infoboxes, as per NinjaRobotPirate's suggestion and if anyone had any issue with the majority of editors who supported a removal of political alignment in the infobox of all Australian articles on our mainstream newspapers I will open a WP:RFC at Australian Wikipedians' notice board. I will ping all of the involved editors, without exception, who took part during the last extensive discussion on the topic. Hoping this will provide a final resolution covering all of our articles on mainstream newspapers in Australia, in a neutral and objective manner and be based on solid reasons why or why not a political alignment should be included in their infoboxes. I ask please that while this RFC takes place no editors revert Cygnis insignis's edit whereby they restored the status quo of the previous two months on this article. I welcome any input in the wording of the RFC and wish only to work collaboratively with other editors so we may achieve a broad consensus covering all of our articles which will also reduce further disruption to the project and any conflict between editors. Merphee (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is wise to notify all the participants from that. It would probably be best to create a new section there that notifies editors that you would like more people to discuss it here. There is no point in making a consensus for all articles about newspapers, or even only about Australian newspapers. There are many different newspapers and some are appropriately labelled with political orientation while others are not. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This seems the only objective and neutral way forward and notifying all of the previous editors involved in that previous discussion at Australian Wikipedians' notice board including you and Hughesdarren is only fair. There were few who disagreed with the consensus, as you both know, and far more who agreed that the political alignment in the infobox and for very good reasons be removed in all of our articles on Australian newspapers. We are aiming for consistency in our articles. Would you like to be involved in the wording of the RFC onetwothreeip? We can all work together if you like. Also we can cast the net wider in addition to all of those who previously participated. That's why I have made a notification on this talk page. I will make a similar notification on each of our articles on our mainstream newspapers too. Any suggestions how we can make the RFC even wider and more encompassing? Merphee (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That wasn't a discussion about the infobox though. It was mentioned by some people, especially yourself, but it wasn't the focus of the discussion. I said earlier this shouldn't be a big deal but if you insist on making this a big deal then it would be better just to make a post there. Notifying specific people can lead to the appearance of canvassing if there are a lot of people and some may be forgotten or omitted. The greater concern I have is your inclination to erase any indication of the newspaper's politician orientation throughout the article. It's also important that how we use the infobox on this article does not bind us on how we use it on other articles about newspapers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What I am trying to do is establish some objective rules on 'like for like' articles, to avoid endless arguments over subjective points of view. Wastes everyone's time and creates unnecessary conflict. The topic of infoboxes and political alignment became the whole topic of discussion on the Australian Wikipedians' notice board and took over entirely your vain attempts to bring something forward that had no real basis it turned out. Lots of editors expressed their credible points of view and it became a discussion of real value and consensus was formed. I just facilitated it. Notifying all people involved in the discussion, including you and Hughesdarren, not just some and then casting the net wider through the strategies I've outlined still will be the aim of the RFC and my wording will certainly be not including the infoboxes for all of our articles on Australian newspapers and see what the community vote for. Merphee (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think your assurances that you will also notify me among others is as gracious as you think, given that I am already aware of this matter. You're the one looking to have these arguments, this doesn't really interest me. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with being gracious it's about being even handed and fair and neutral and getting everyone's opinion on this matter, given you have been so very very loud in your belief there was no previous consensus at Australian Wikipedians' notice boardwhich there was obviously was. Interesting how now you don't want a proper RFC but only want to do your own thing. Well that's not how Wikipedia works. Anyhow I'm done discussing this with you. We'll see what the community wants. This is the only reason we need to have another extensive discussion because you and Hughesdarren couldn't accept the previous consensus even though you both participated! Merphee (talk) 09:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you going to start an RfC or not dude? That's the best way to establish a consensus for this thing. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * chill out dude. Merphee (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's been a few days. Are you going to start that RfC you were talking about in all those reverts you made? PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this is it Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board, but I did not read the above very closely cygnis insignis 14:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately not, as that was started on Feb 24th, and is not an RfC. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That is what it looks like to me. A formal process would be site wide, and I expect it would address every nation's media. And then sanctions would apply, then the interpretation of sanctions, and so on. Sound like your cup-of-tea? With the same amount of effort there could be properly referenced section on this matter, in every major newspaper in the world, or a convoluted and divisive discussion on how to reduce this to a data point. Pick one? cygnis insignis 15:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't been consistently reverting edits to the article based on an RfC that is allegedly just over the horizon. PeterTheFourth (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What outcome are you seeking? cygnis insignis 16:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It would only be binding on this article. There wouldn't be any new sanctions that apply as a result. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe that, like many other articles on media (please see numerous examples in above section), we should have the political alignment in the lede. This has been repeatedly reverted by because he was allegedly going to have an RfC about it. Now there's no RfC and he's not engaging on talk, so... what do I do? PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , does a sourced section in the article give an obvious formulation that can be summarised in the lead. My approach is to source, check and expand the content and the lead sentences become obvious. I think this a more productive method. cygnis insignis 06:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you restate that in simpler terms? I'm not sure I understand when you say things like 'I think this a more productive method'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I read books. I see interesting information. I wonder if it included where people can share this information (for whatever purpose). If I see a void and add that information, I know how to do so from a careful examination of npov and the means to verify that when I communicate a 'fact'. I don't look at content here and think it ought to state X, then find a means to do so, that is not operating with npov. I think this is crucial to 'anyone can edit', I'm not alone. I've replied to you in a blind way, that is, I am replying to the request for elaboration on 'I think this a more productive method'. cygnis insignis 14:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I completely agree cygnis insignis. And sorry I have not created the RFC as yet. Have had real world issues to deal with of late. What's the rush PeterTheFourth. I notice onetwothreeip has added it to the article again. Merphee (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I reverted this back to Cygnis insignis' last edit and the status quo. Will get the RFC underway soon. Merphee (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You boldly removed the infobox parameter, which is apparently against an Arbitration Committee decision. I restored it since I disagree with the removal. This is such a pointless controversy here, and obviously you're just obstructing in the hopes that it would be removed during a discussion that never ends or never gains a consensus. If there really was a consensus about this that was decided on another discussion page, there would be multiple people here advocating that it be removed, but it's just you. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I reverted your bold move to include this in the infobox Onetwothreeip. For the past two months none of our articles on Australian newspapers have included this in their infobox. And why are you so hell bent on just including it in The Australian, as a side point. no need to answer that. Anyway there is much support and bloody good reasoning provided by some very seasoned editors who have supported us leaving this out of the infobox as the status quo has been for a few months. The most recent discussion was here. Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board. I mean do we even need a formal RFC is what I'm now wondering. Seems like it is decided. I think Cygnis insignis' comment to have a "properly referenced section on this matter, in every major newspaper in the world, or a convoluted and divisive discussion on how to reduce this to a data point" says it all. I choose the "properly referenced section" over a divisive datapoint in the infobox and not too big section on political alignment of each article either. In my opinion we are, for some reason, providing far too much weight to whether a newspaper is left wing, right wing or whatever. How about we just move on? Merphee (talk) 04:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:DEADHORSE WP:FILIBUSTER. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Inserting such an extreme statement in the opening sentence of the article using a 13 year old source is not on. Would you be cool putting that in let's say the SMH or The Age. That is in the opening sentence say, The Age is a Left Wing newspaper and use a single 13 year old source to back it up? Serious question? Merphee (talk) 07:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you be okay with having the political orientation of the newspaper in the lede if we were using more recent sources? Yes or no. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you be cool with putting that the SMH or The Age are Left Wing publications in the opening sentence of the lead? Yes or No? Merphee (talk) 07:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Or the ABC? Merphee (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The Australian Broadcasting Corporation would be the easiest to select reliable sources stating it is Left Wing. But should that strong overriding political alignment be boldly stated in the opening sentence of the ABC's article? Serious question? The Australian, The Age and the SMH are centre-right, centre-left, centre-left. Again, should that be stated in each of the articles? Personally I don't think it should in any of the articles just mentioned. What are you and Onetwothreeip trying to do here? Seriously? Merphee (talk) 07:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would, if reliable sources said so. Would you please answer my question? PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

what question? Merphee (talk) 07:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you be okay with having the political orientation of the newspaper in the lede if we were using more recent sources? Yes or no. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

cygnis insignis 07:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is what an RfC is - WP:RFC. Please note that was constantly saying he would start an RfC, and I was just asking where it was. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , what is stopping you? Why is the onus on another to open yet another discussion, when you are the one going against the result of the previous discussions? cygnis insignis 07:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Because Merphee has been consistently reverting because they claim they will start an RfC. I have not been reverting claiming I will start an RfC. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Rubbish PeterTheFourth. I haven't been constantly reverting anything. We are discussing these issue here and while doing so isn't it fair to request that we don't go adding the contentious edits to the article until it is resolved and a consensus reached. Merphee (talk) 08:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It cuts both ways. Some users are sure it should be there, and I acknowledge that my previous removal accords with my contrary view and interpretation of consensus. Not a productive line of inquiry, I think, the sparring buries the objective points and outcomes. If someone sticks it in again (I deliberately avoided looking at the current state), the onus is clearly on them to re-open the very recent discussions and risk looking tendentious, exhausting, and petty, objecting to that is a huge waste of time and I refocus on something substantive.  cygnis insignis 08:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Cygnis; is English your first language? I'm having a lot of trouble understanding the turns of phrase you use, but that may just be my own stupidity. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * buildin' da 'pedia,
 * Hi Merphee, please answer the question. Would you be okay with having the political orientation of the newspaper in the lede if we were using more recent sources? Yes or no. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I found your question to Cygnis insignis asking them if English is their first language very rude and condescending. Would you consider apologising please. There is no room here in this discussion for that type of comment. Merphee (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * What I want is consistency on all of our articles on Australian newspapers for the benefit of readers. We also need to be guided by policy on what we include in the opening paragraph of an article. I think this dispute over political alignment is giving it undue weight. Also you cannot possibly determine objectively and definitively what The Australian's, SMH's, The Age's or any other newspaper's political alignment is the infobox or the lede. What criterion are we using to start with? Can you see that point so many editors have already made in the other discussions on this topic? If you really want me to open the RFC then yep I'll do it. Merphee (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's frustrating that you're unable to answer a simple yes or no question. Yes, please, open the RfC. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I reverted your bold move to include this in the infobox Onetwothreeip. For the past two months none of our articles on Australian newspapers have included this in their infobox. And before those two months it was there in the infobox. You actually removed it in the same edit where you added paragraphs to the article. The nonsense about saying the ABC or Sydney Morning Herald is left wing just makes the already obvious motivations for your editing more obvious. There is no need to be definitive about The Australian's orientations if we continue describing it broadly, as "centre-right to right wing", which is obviously supported by reliable sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Onetwothreeip, can you please explain exactly what you mean by "makes the already obvious motivations for your editing more obvious". Thank you. Merphee (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Despite any new RFC or not, there is clearly no consensus here on the talk page to be reducing The Australian's supposed political alignment to any single label or 'wing' in either the infobox or lede. And even if there was there is clearly no consensus as to what that wing would be. However the rude comments and accusations of bad faith from both Onetwothreeip and Peter the Fourth need to stop. I've asked Peter The Fourth to apologise to Cygnis insignis. Merphee (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is very clear there is no consensus for the inclusion in the lede or infobox. I think Dispute resolution may help resolve this impasse in a civil manner and stop further pointless discussion or potential conflict. Merphee (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * More importantly there's no consensus for removing it, which was the trigger for all this since it was in the article for a long time until you removed it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. It's been out of all of our articles on Australian newspapers for almost 3 months now based on two extensive talk page discussions. We need Dispute resolution here as there clearly is no consensus and dispute resolution is the next step to us. Also Onetwothreeip, can you please explain exactly what you mean by "makes the already obvious motivations for your editing more obvious"? Just more accusations of bad faith and incivility from you. At some stage an administrator has to take action to stop you. Merphee (talk) 03:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And before that three months it was on the article, the controversy here is that it was removed rather than being included. You have demonstrated by your comments that your motivation is to make The Australian appear less right wing of a newspaper than reliable sources say. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please focus only on content Onetwothreeip. And please follow our policy Assume good faith. I have had to bite my 'typing finger' many times here with you and not react to your blatant provocations and incivility or comment on my belief as to what yours and Peter The Fourth's motive is here with this edit. Would you be interested in Dispute resolution to help resolve this content dispute or not? Merphee (talk) 03:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You keep insisting there should be some grand discussion about this but there's barely been any discussion at all. I'm completely uninterested in all this furore for a short infobox parameter. So I'm notifying every person who has commented on this talk page, although they may have already decided that this is a pointless exercise. . I'm personally tired of continuing the matter further. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. There is no point continuing. HiLo48 (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Your edits show you certainly do care Onetwothreeip. Anyway for the sake of inclusion and neutrality onetwothreeip don't you think notifying all other editors who have ever commented on both of the discussions regarding the inclusion of a single 'label' on political alignment in any of our articles on Australian newspapers would have been better. After all the Australian is not the only newspaper in Australia and I want a proper resolution to this issue whereby everyone agrees and true consensus is formed. Otherwise this ridiculous issue is going to arise again on another article on another Australian newspaper which is not helpful and is quite disruptive. Merphee (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I am notifying all of the other editors on top of the editors Onetwothreeip chose to notify, who have ever discussed the inclusion of a single 'label' stating the political alignment in any of our articles on Australian newspapers (including The Australian). Although these editors may have already decided not to provide further comment on this issue regarding the inclusion in our articles of Australian newspapers, it is important that this specific issue is discussed as widely as possible to develop true consensus. . That's everyone I think? Merphee (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote, and it's not proper to be asking people to 'offer their vote'. Regardless, if you'd like to summon all these people to the discussion, the correct path would probably be to start that RfC you have repeatedly said you would - there's advice on doing so at WP:RFC that you may find helpful. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * "Your edits show you certainly do care Onetwothreeip." Merphee, I recommend you stick to discussing articles, and issues with them, rather than other editors. 04:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries. Merphee (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Peter the Fourth, if you feel so strongly about it why don't you start a RFC regarding whether or not we should include a single 'label' on the supposed political alignment within the infobox of each of our articles on Australian newspapers. I really don't think we should be as there is no criterion set for doing so and a wide range of other reasons. Worth noting is the fact that our articles on USA newspapers also do not have this unitary and subjective label in their infoboxes. And some really strong reasons have already been provided by other experienced editors at extensive conversation held on this topic in the past at Australian Wikipedians' notice board including this comment and this one    and this one  and this one . More comments and discussion on the topic can also be found here Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board. Merphee (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We're not going to argue about what other people's comments mean on another discussion page. Let them speak for themselves, and in the context of this discussion. I don't think I'm the only one who is tired of you brandishing links from other editors as if they are agreeing with what you say, or as if we disagree with them. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sick to death of talking about this issue and having to listen to your constant lack of civility. I've had enough of biting my keyboard finger. I'll be lashing back from here on. For someone who says they don't care about this, you sure do 'go on' don't you Onetwothreeip. Haha. Merphee (talk) 07:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Time to drop the stick 123IP. Consensus appears to not have perceived political alignment in the infobox. Perhaps time to fight another battle?
 * The big problem as I see it is finding reliable sources. The Australian has undoubtedly moved to the right over the years, but that's just my opinion. Is there any objective way of determining political viewpoint, other than quoting somebody's opinion? This whole debate has gone on for too long, and I think a consensus has been established. Wasting valuable editing time on pages and pages of talk over some minor point is counterproductive and I am dead against it. --Pete (talk) 09:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one fighting anything, this is acting like this is a discussion about including the parameter. The parameter has been there for a long time, until a couple of months ago when Merphee removed it. It's only two people here who are saying there shouldn't be something like that, hardly a consensus against. My preference is for it to be retained but as I said before, I will continue to keep well out of this argument and will let others debate that. The objective way of determining political views is through the reliable sources, which indicate what pretty much everybody thinks the newspaper's political views are. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well add me to the tally. And it's not a matter of counting noses, it's a matter of wikipolicy. On that note, you seem to be causing disruption for no good reason, and if you get other editors riled up and distracted, there will be consequences. --Pete (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The only person getting riled up by my comments is Merphee. Please tell me either here or on my talk page which comments of mine that you may find objectionable. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Please no body ping me again on this subject. We do not need an RFC to apply the fundementals of wikipedia, in this case, for example, statements and quotes must be derived from IRS, and be NPOV, ie, all such positions over time, but with DUEWEIGHT. If a summary, latest position, data point is to appear in an infobox it also needs to be NPOV, ie, as at date and IRSed. And of course no OR, ie, an editor cannot use a position label unless it is in an IRS. These fundementals apply to all articles. Aoziwe (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The infobox entry seems well-derived from sources in the article, so on that basis it can be restored. (And, let's face it, it wouldn't even be an issue except for Merphee's desire to IDHT everyone to death.) Pinkbeast (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would be willing to restore it but if Merphee would remove it again I would rather someone else restore it immediately after. I have no desire for an edit war. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I support adding the political alignment to the article, preferably in the lede as opposed to infobox but not a big deal. We have the political alignment of media in many other articles - as long as we have the sources for it there is no problem with including these things. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to (sourced) discussion in the text of any newspaper's political position in general or on particular issues. I feel it is probably inappropriate to try to capture a single position on a one-dimensional spectrum for any long-lived major newspaper (such as The Australian), especially without a globally agreed mid-point between "left" and "right". It might be valid to claim that company F is "more left" than company N, but are they really left and right in a global sense over all time, or might they be "right" and "more right" or "left" and "more left" depending on what the comparison is, and perhaps even on whether the issue under consideration is social, economic or something else? My impression is that some mainstream newspapers in Australia appear to support "the opposition", regardless of which party in in government. --Scott Davis Talk 01:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Howdy all, as you're probably aware I'm very much in favour of keeping the political alignment in the infobox. It'd be good if this could be a standard but I understand that good sources detailing this for smaller newspapers would make this non-viable. But it is entirely possible for The Oz. It could also be in the lede. I would reiterate that we should not be looking to American newspapers or news sources for comparison as Australia's media landscape bears a far stronger resemblance to UK media, owing to Australia's media culture being primarily derived from the British's. UK Wikipedians have decided on keeping political alignment in the infoboxes. Any consensus previously reached on this issue seems to be from primarily from a small number of people in vigorous agreement with themselves.Reginaldarnold (talk) 06:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The current article discusses political positions in the History, Coverage and Editorial and opinion pages sections. Reading those, it is not presently clear that the paper is at any particular single point on a Left–right political spectrum. If it is to appear in the infobox, then it must be much clearer in the text, and whether the position has been constant since 1964 or has moved over time. Citing the newspaper itself or its editors only tells us what the editorial staff think its position is, not an absolute answer. Do we have any independent (not related to either the owners or opposition of The Australian) reliable sources for the political position of The Australian? If anyone has some, lets list them here and see if they show consensus. --Scott Davis Talk 06:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's an article from roughly 2 years ago by some guy called Denis Muller who seems to have a fair amount of experience in journalism. It takes a bit of a long view on multiple sources, but explicitly describes The Australian and News Corp papers as biased to the right. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Then there are other reliable sources which say it is more centre. What is the objective criterion here for establishing this single unitary political alignment? And at what point in time is this single data point? So the debate goes on. Is this based on policy? Merphee (talk) 09:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm completely against including a single subjective data point of political alignment in the infobox of this article. And there is no consensus to do so. This endless debate is becoming extremely disruptive to the project. Merphee (talk) 09:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OMG Peter the Fourth the Conversation article source you just quoted can hardly be seen as reliable or in any possible way definitive. Merphee (talk) 09:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The intent is not for it to be definitive, just for it to be part of the conversation. Why do you think it's not reliable? Dennis Muller seems to be an expert in the field of journalism, and I think we'd be fine using his expert opinion on media bias. Additionally, would you please answer that question I asked earlier about whether you'd be fine with the political orientation of The Australian being included in the article if we had more recent sources than the interview? PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously without any type of objective criterion a single data point in the lede is exactly the same as the infobox. So Peter the Fourth the answer to your question is obviously no. And this endless discussion going around in circles is getting very disruptive to the project. There is no consensus here for adding this to the infobox.Merphee (talk) 12:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So you would not be okay with adding political orientation to the lede, even if we had more recent sources. I think this position is at odds with our policies on reliable sources, as is your constant reverting. I think there's plenty of support here for adding this information to the lede, and as such I will do so. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Like Scott (and Peter), I'm also very much in favour of keeping the political alignment in the infobox, but including the sourced text in the lede would be a suitable alternative. Given the amount of discussion generated this is clearly an important point and the information should be included in one or the other. Hughesdarren (talk) 12:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ummm. I didn't intend to say that I was in favour of keeping it in the infobox unless the WP:RELIABLE sourced text is unequivocal. I don't think it is at present, and is unlikely to ever be for a long-running popular-appeal newspaper. Even The Conversation article says that "... it became increasingly conservative." which means that Muller considers that it has changed its own position over time. --Scott Davis Talk 13:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This Peter is not in favour of assigning a specific left-right point. Where do we find a reliable source that is not opinion? And if we can somehow find a whole bunch of opinions, that's no good, it would be synthesis for us to amalgamate them and say in wikivoice something that no external source has actually stated. The position of the paper has changed over time, and is in fact never constant; it espouses a variety of views. --Pete (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly. There is certainly no unequivocal source. And the political alignment 'over time' has obviously changed and will continue to change. What's wrong with us just providing a properly sourced discussion of any supposed political alignment of The Australian (over time) within the body of the article. Merphee (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's unequivocal among reliable sources that The Australian is broadly a right wing newspaper. That is what infoboxes display, their current ideology and position. Many articles about newspapers display political orientations in the infobox despite shift in their views historically. I would rather it was displayed in the infobox rather than the lead, but I'm not going to be goaded into an edit war over it, so that leaves it to be placed in the lead. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no consensus whatsoever on this talk page or any other discussion elsewhere about using a unitary subjective descriptor. None. Yet you and Peter the Fourth keep provoking an edit war and inserting it into the article anyway. Please stop edit warring. Reliable sources have called The Australian centre, centre right, and right wing. Depending on the point in time the source that is used. You both know full well that there is no consensus here for adding right wing or in fact centre or indeed centre-right. None. So why are you edit warring? Merphee (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So let's just call it centre-right to right wing, since that's what sources say, ideally in the infobox. The point in time is now. Nobody here is seriously arguing that The Australian should be considered "centre". Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I would not revert or disagree with any change of the orientation from lede to infobox - somebody mention that many major UK papers have their political orientation in the infobox, it appears having it in the lede is a US thing mostly. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Obviously the 3 of us are going to be dragged to the edit warring noticeboard very soon. Just because the two have you have taken turns putting it back in the article right in the middle of the discussion in bad faith and when absolutely no consensus has been established you are both edit warring just the same as I am! Merphee (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have not been edit warring. You're admitting that you were edit warring on purpose, and that you knew you were edit warring when you made those reverts, and you know that edit warring is against the rules. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Seriously is this still going, I think its time to put this bone down and back away slowly. Attrition is not consensus building. You all have an unshakable opinion regardless of what is being provided. Going for an RFC now, will only see this end at WP:ANI & ARBCOM Gnangarra 03:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. May I respectfully suggest to some of our fellow editors above that they read through WP:LAME before they post here again.  Regards to all. Aoziwe (talk) 11:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Fox News claims to be fair and balanced, so I guess that is evidence that The Australian is left-wing by comparison :-P Both are News/Murdoch controlled. I'd rather see more detail in this article about how the newspaper has responded over time to particular situations and issues. reference 2 is not online, but is used in the Coverage section to identify topics of significant coverage, without telling us if the treatment is biased towards left/right/conservative/small-l liberal or anything else. The next section says The Australian was anti-Australian Greens, bu so is the ALP sometimes, so that doesn't tell us much either. --Scott Davis Talk 04:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)