Talk:The Australian/Archive 4

Stop the edit-war
This keeps up, there'll be a whole heap more eyes on this article. The sources used to support the claim that this newspaper is right-wing are inadequate. Both are from political media and are personal opinions. One dates from 2008! I don't care if they are right or wrong. They are not good enough. If the paper has a solid political view, then it shouldn't be too hard to find some solid source, hey? --Pete (talk) 10:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "I don't care if they are right or wrong." I think that's a little dishonest Pete. Nearly a decade of watching your comments tells me that you really do care. HiLo48 (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I have full-protected the article for 12 hours so everyone can calm down and stop reverting each other. I'll keep an eye on this talk page, and if I can see a general consensus on what to do with the lead, I can unprotect then. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I too believe the sources used here are quite inadequate. That is probably because there are so few reliable sources on this controversial aspect of the article and then such variation within the few sources that are available. HiLo48, may I suggest you please stop commenting on Skyring's valid 'content related' comment and stop the incivility toward this editor. It is not helpful. Merphee (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There would be very few people who would claim that describing The Australian as at least a little bit right wing is controversial. And I hardly think my comment to Pete was uncivil. Let him judge that, if he chooses to. HiLo48 (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with what you think people you know would claim about The Australian and everything to do with what good quality reliable sources say. As far as your comment above to Pete all I can say is please focus on content only. Merphee (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but over the several months since I first shocked you by stating what to most Australians is the obvious fact that The Australian is right wing (see WP:BLUE), you have frantically rejected every possible source for and logical basis to that fact. Why are you so desperate to protect the paper from being described as it so obviously is? We all know it won't stop you reading it. It won't hurt you. Honestly. Have you actually reflected on your own motives here? HiLo48 (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith and focus on content only please HiLo48. I will not tolerate this kind of incivility and bad faith assumptions from you. However I refuse to retaliate. Please apologise or I will need to seek administrator action. All I asked you to do was stop focusing and attacking other editors like you did with Pete directly above and focus only on content. I think that is a reasonable request. It is disruptive and not at all helpful to the project. Please refer to our policies and principles on Civility and Etiquette. Merphee (talk) 02:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I assume good faith in your original belief that The Australian was a wonderfully balanced, middle of the road journal. I just cannot comprehend, with good faith, how you can possibly now still think that. Wikipedia works on the basis of sensible mature discussion. Part of that is trying to understand why people take positions I see as rather odd. That way I can work out how to discuss this with you. But I really am struggling here. Again, why are you so desperate to prevent the paper from being described as it so obviously is? (See WP:BLUE). HiLo48 (talk) 02:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That was not my belief on this article at all. That's an absurd assumption. However I am talking about you reading our policies and principles please and assuming good faith when interacting with other editors. Also focus on 'content only' please in our article talk page discussions rather than trying to belittle other editors or second guess their hidden motives. It is not helpful and is very disruptive. I'm not sure if anyone has picked you up on this type of stuff before here at Wikipedia. Merphee (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to second guess your motives. I can't figure them out at all, and have given up. That's why I'masking you what they are. Why are you so desperate to prevent the paper from being described as it so obviously is? (See WP:BLUE) HiLo48 (talk) 03:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest you just move on and drop the stick now and always try and focus on content here at Wikipedia. Otherwise you may find yourself at ANI for this type of behaviour. It wastes everyone's time and is very disruptive. Merphee (talk) 03:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry Merphee, but I actually laughed out loud when I read that. I will stop now, but only because I'm getting nowhere. Thank you for the informative conversation. HiLo48 (talk) 03:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It was a serious bit of advice to you. And one well worth following in the future. Sorry I refused to engage with you on anything but a discussion on content. Merphee (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

HiLo's comment was uncivil. I stopped taking even the Weekend Australian and its treasure of features years ago because the paper was becoming more of a comfort blanket for the right wing than the reliable and objective chronicle it had been. I don't think that there's any doubt that we can agree in our own views that the paper is well to the right of centre. My problem in saying this in wikivoice is finding a sufficiently authoritative source. A few comments on a talk show doesn't give me much confidence. Is there perhaps some recent academic study on Australian media we can use? --Pete (talk) 03:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:BLUE HiLo48 (talk) 04:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you've said that several times. You say we don't need a solid source, because everyone sees the same thing. Problem is that there are any number of excellent sources saying the sky is blue, and that's why we don't need to cite our statement to that effect. As I said earlier if the paper has a solid political view, then it shouldn't be too hard to find some solid source, hey? Where's your solid source, HiLo? --Pete (talk) 04:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, WP:BLUE speaks of using common knowledge, not "any number of excellent sources". HiLo48 (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONKNOWLEDGE cygnis insignis 06:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes Pete thank you it sure was uncivil of HiLo48 and I asked him to apologise but he has yet to do so. Lashing out at other editors and making bad faith assumptions about other editors which disagree with his point of view is not at all helpful and is quite disruptive to say the least. As far as having an academic study relating to the political alignment or bias in any of our Australian newspapers I don't believe there is and therefore all of this is terribly subjective and The Australian's political alignment is not at all obvious based on the extensive discussion on this talk page despite HiLo48 'saying' he personally thinks it is. I also have a problem with us placing so much 'weight' on the supposed subjective political alignment of The Australian in this article. I think we should all just drop the stick on this one and walk away. Merphee (talk) 04:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I quite often find in online discussions (not here) that people trying to make an extreme political point provide a link to an article in a journal I'm not familiar with. It's helpful to be able get some quick indication of the usual political alignment of that journal, to see what one might normally expect that journal to say. It's frustrating when no such alignment is provided by Wikipedia. But, as I said earlier on on this page, I think dropping the stick would be a great idea, so long as the article returns to the state it was in before you picked up the stick in the first place. HiLo48 (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You miss the point, HiLo. We can find excellent sources for the statement "The sky is blue". I have yet to see an excellent source for the statement "The Australian is a right-wing newspaper." If it is impossible to find a single good source, then we should not be making the statement at all, let alone claiming that it's a part of the universe that everybody knows without question. Where is your source, HiLo? --Pete (talk) 06:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * YOU miss the point Pete. WP:BLUE is not about sources. HiLo48 (talk) 07:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with Pete. Your 'sky is blue' argument is completely irrelevant here on Wikipedia HiLo48 can't you see that. We need high quality reliable sources, not your opinion or what you think. The essay WP:COMMONKNOWLEDGE that Cygnis insignis provided earlier today and you ignored, sums this up beautifully. I'd give it a read if I were you. But anyway. Merphee (talk) 07:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why is it irrelevant? I see complete relevance. You saying it's not doesn't make it so. HiLo48 (talk) 07:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * HiLo, I ask for external sources because I get the feeling that if you personally believe something is a fact, that's all you need to push your point of view strongly, and when others question your belief, you get all offended and take it as a personal attack. WP:BLUE is not a wiki blanket endorsement of your beliefs; you might feel that something or other is at the core of your personal belief system, but the strength of your personal belief isn't what Wikipedia works on.
 * Your beliefs frequently accord with mine, as they do in this case, but that doesn't mean we can combine our inner dogma to make some exterior truth that can stand alone. Nor can we rope in others of similar strong belief. That's not how Wikipedia works. At some point we need exterior sources.
 * So, if I ask for a solid source, my request is based on wikipolicy, not some personal attack on your deepest philosophical core. --Pete (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Your response IS about me. You are editing today in the same way you have since you first disagreed with me many years ago. I am quite certain that if my comment had come from someone you didn't know, your response would have been vary different. But I shall leave that path, and simply repeat - WP:BLUE is perfectly applicable here, and it doesn't require sources. Now, please discuss that, and not me. HiLo48 (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Off you go again HiLo48, once again attacking the other editor (in this case Pete) and bringing up old arguments you've had with many other editors years ago on other article talk pages. Please just focus on content only. As far as your perpetual posting of WP:BLUE of course it is not applicable here. Not even in the slightest. I totally agree with Pete on this one. Wikipedia is about us using what quality reliable sources say on a given topic. That's it nothing else. Your personal opinions don't matter. Not in the slightest. Nether do mine, or any other editors. Merphee (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why does WP:BLUE not apply? HiLo48 (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's that pesky sourcing thing. Leaving out any discussion of the private souls of those editors - those esteemed editors - participating here, imagine if Don Trump were a Wikipedia editor. He states things that he regards as true, and gives every appearance of believing to be true, and assures us are true, but provides no sources for his view. We can check reliable sources and find that his apparent belief in his veracity is misplaced, but pointing this out has no effect, and he merely acts aggrieved, maybe ejects them from the press room, maybe drops a few bombs on them, refuses to admit any error.


 * The sky is blue, nobody doubts it, we don't have to provide sources, but the thing is that there are sources, and if somebody questions the statement, then we don't have to wave our hands around and get emotional and nukey, we just have to provide a reliable source, and say, well, I'm just repeating what a whole bunch of people say, people who know what they are talking about and have doctorates in blue sky analysis and have published books on the subject. The system works, and you are reading the proof of it in the world's most used encyclopaedia. --Pete (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Not an answer. WP:BLUE only requires that something be common knowledge. Sourcing is irrelevant. I have only ever encountered one Australian who doesn't (or at least didn't) know or believe that The Australian has a right wing slant. And I've met a lot of people. Please stop deflecting discussions of WP:BLUE to one about sources. HiLo48 (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTBLUE makes the point, mentiond previously, that if something is common knowledge, it shouldn't be too hard to source. --Pete (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Fantastic and well constructed comment Skring Pete! At least it's not lost on me and I would say anyone else who reads it would also agree, even though HiLo48 has once again ignored how our policy works in this instance and your correct interpretation. As for your WP:BLUE HiLo48 and you saying you've only "encountered one Australian who doesn't (or at least didn't) know or believe that The Australian has a right wing slant". Well, I have asked a bunch of people from all different walks of life lately and in the real world, and many of them actually believed The Australian newspaper to be left-wing! Guess it depends who you talk to hey HiLo48. Maybe and I say this in the nicest possible way but maybe you need to widen your circle of friends HiLo48. That's why WP:BLUE doesn't apply here at all and that's why we use verifiable high quality sources for contentious (non sky is blue) stuff like we are talking about. You are way off the mark as far as policy goes. So I'd listen to Pete if I were you and read up on WP:COMMONKNOWLEDGE. Merphee (talk) 04:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * You and Pete agreeing to condemn me on what I wrote is not going to convince me I'm wrong. I have made my point. Goodbye. HiLo48 (talk) 06:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We're not condemning you. Reliable sources are all that matters here HiLo48 especially in a case like this. Merphee (talk) 07:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * HiLo, nothing ever convinces you that you are wrong. Especially when you are. Now I happen to agree with you about The Australian being on the right side of the political centre, and looking at the history of the infobox affiliation statement, "centre-right" seems to be one of the two consensus positions, the other being that we shouldn't have an infobox statement at all, because people get all disruptive over it. Sourcing this sort of statement is problematic, but surely not insoluble, and it's kind of weird that you want to avoid discussing the issue at all. This is Wikipedia, after all, and while WP:BLUE is an essay, WP:NOR is about as fundamental a piece of wikilaw as you can get. --Pete (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Pete after all the drama here I really think we should leave it out and walk away. I also have a serious issue with putting the terms right wing / left wing in our articles on Australian newspapers, given that this is an international encyclopedia and the terms left wing, right wing, liberal, progressive, conservative and so on have different meanings in different countries. I cannot see how it benefits our readers. But that's just my opinion and I'm sick to death of discussing it. Merphee (talk) 11:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "I'm sick to death of discussing it." You keep saying that, while keeping on discussing it. HiLo48 (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * HiLo48 just because you were proven to be completely wrong with your little WP:BLUE essay and thinking it applied in any way here in this instance, and you were shown it obviously didn't based on our sound reasoning ands policy, please don't continue it on, unless you have something new to add to our content discussion or a new reason why you think it applies. Thank you. Merphee (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC).
 * Now you're discussing me again. HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * HiLo48 have you something new to add to our content discussion or a new reason why you think WP:BLUE applies? If not I suggest we stop discussing this and move on. Merphee (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Additional sources on The Australian's' politics
I agree that the current sourcing isn't sufficient; but I also think that a quick Google Scholar search for "The Australian" newspaper or "The Australian" "Rupert Murdoch" shows that its politics and the influence it has had on politics is one of the most noteworthy things about the newspaper, at least in academia. I think that it might be worth going into more detail than just "right-wing" (there's a lot that these sources say), but most of them are pretty clear that Murdoch uses the paper to influence politics and spread his views; and most of them treat this as one of the most important aspects things about it. A few possible sources at a quick glance:   (Search Google Scholar with their titles for the full citations; these are just a few I grabbed quickly, but they're pretty representitive.)  I feel like, rather than left-right, the lead (and the article) should make it clear that Murdoch uses The Australian to influence politics both within Australia and abroad, with specific examples. What the sources say is not just that the The Australian presents a right-wing political view (although there's that), but that it exists primarily to present Rupert Murdoch's political views, which, of course, happen to mostly be right-wing... though some of those sources emphasize 'libertarian.' That is the much more important part of what the sources say and what should be covered somewhere in the lead and at much greater length in the article itself - there is extremely extensive academic sourcing discussing the role The Australian has played in Australian politics, which are almost entirely absent from the article. --Aquillion (talk) 07:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering what left-wing and right wing and centre-left and centre right and centre and extreme right and extreme left and extreme centre and so on and so forth actually mean in Australia or to Australians compared with other parts of the world? Problem is these terms mean different things to different people and between countries the meaning also differs. Them we have political alignment. Would the ALP call itself left wing? Would the coalition call itself right wing? So many questions, so few sources, so much confusion, so much disruption over this ridiculous subjective question. Given Wikipedia is global how is this pointless debate possibly good for our readers who may view right wing left wing differently in the USA than here in Australia. Or what does it mean in every other country? I really do not see how there is ever going to be consensus on this when there is no set criteria and objectivity. Merphee (talk) 07:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That is potentially an issue. I linked this source below, which is possibly the best one I found (as an in-depth analysis of the politics of The Australian, published in a reputable journal about journalism.)  It traces how they changed over time - they haven't remained the same - but as it says in abstract, libertarianism has been a common theme (and of course it also emphasizes neo-liberalism.)  We would probably have to read papers like that in more depth to be able to boil them down to a clear takeaway; probably, before putting something in the lead, the thing to do is to use them to write a larger section (where we can go into lots of depth on the paper's politics, how it changed over time, what influence it had on politics and so on, as well as what various sources have said.)  Then we can come up with a summary of that section to put in the lead (possibly much more than a snappy one-word descriptor.)  I feel like the people focusing on that one-word descriptor are getting lost in the weeds a bit - they're not entirely wrong (in the sense that there's a lot of sourcing supporting the idea that The Australian clearly has a perspective and used to advance it, one that perhaps some sources or people might view as right-wing), but the broader in-depth story of that political focus is both more relevant and more useful to readers.  I think we might come up with an answer to whether to call them right-wing while digging through sources like those, but I think it's secondary to the more overarching story covered by sources like those. --Aquillion (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, Aquillion, but how do we avoid synthesis? We need someone who isn't a Wikipedia editor to make the points you are making and to do it in a reliable source. --Pete (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Those points are a broad summary of the important points from the sources I linked in my post. --Aquillion (talk) 07:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course. But we need someone else to do the summarising. We can't say things that nobody else has said. We can't ask our readers to connect the dots. We can't just hint and wink. That's WP:SYNTH in a nutshell. --Pete (talk) 07:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you read any, or just respond by suggesting what they stated is possibly synth? User is providing a solution, it is worth pointing out, good for them! cygnis insignis 07:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. First, we can (and, in fact, are expected to) summarize our sources.  Otherwise we'd end up with an infinite regression where we need a source to summarize our sources, then need another source to summarize that source, and so on.  Obviously my description was just a quick hand-wavy summary of what I came across in order to give people a general heads-up about what they say in general, not something intended to be immediately inserted into the article; but it is broadly based on what one of them says.  Second, more specifically, it was broadly based on this part of the final source:  The following year, he founded the new national daily broadsheet, The Australian, which was to be a loss-maker but which gave its owner political clout at the national level. It allowed him, for example, to strongly back the leader of the Country Party, John McEwen, whose protectionist economic policies he then supported (Cryle, 2008, pp. 17-20). By the 1972 election Murdoch switched the support of his newspapers to the Labor leader, Gough Whitlam, not only making financial donations but actively assisting with party publicity and speeches by Whitlam (Oakes & Solomon, 1973, p. 278). Murdoch himself later admitted: ‘we all really threw ourselves into the fight, to get a change. It did break twenty years of conservative government. Not a bad thing to do’ (Shawcross, 1992, pp. 162-163). Three years later, his newspapers turned on the government and campaigned for its defeat. The conservative parties precipitated a constitutional crisis that culminated in the dismissal of the Whitlam government by the Governor-General, with Murdoch later admitting that his newspapers played a central role in the affair (Kelly, 1995, p. 244).  That's the sort of in-depth blow-by-blow thing that the article needs to cover.  Also see this source, which has an extensive section about the evolution of Murdoch's politics and how The Australian's reporting was used to advance them.  Third, you need to actually read the sources someone provides (or at least do a quick skim and search for the words relevant to the topic), not just leap to the conclusion that "summarize" means "synthesis" rather than "condense what they literally say to something readable".  Highlighting specific aspects that you feel are synthesis unsupported by the individual sources would be fine (obviously, as I said, it's a quick hand-wavy summary and will need considerable refinement, more examination of the sourcing, and so on, so I'd expect there's a lot of room to improve it) - but just dismissively saying "yeah, but that's just a summary of the sources and therefore WP:SYNTH!" is both wrong on several levels and completely unhelpful.  I can't even identify what part you feel is synthesis or what aspects you don't feel are directly sourced, so how can I possibly address it? --Aquillion (talk) 08:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeees, but how do you fit all that into a couple of words in an infobox, which is basically what the discussion is about? Are you saying that there is some objective way to do this that might overcome what we've seen so far? Could you outline the process, please. --Pete (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you need to read the comments again, and a bit of civility wouldn't go astray. You made an accusation above, based on nothing, the user is clearly discussing the improvement of content. cygnis insignis 12:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That is why I suggested, above, that we start by making a section in the article devoted to this (I think we definitely have or can find enough sources for that.) A section like that can have a lot more nuance and context.  Then, once we've fleshed out that section and spent more time going over sources, reading and comparing them and boiling them down into stuff that can go into a section, we can consider what it says and summarize the key takeaways from the section into the lead per WP:LEAD.  But I think that the abstract from the McKnight paper might give a very general idea of what the addition to the lead could eventually look like. --Aquillion (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. I think I'm distracted by the edit-war raging on this point. Yes. Heartily endorse this approach as a section in the article, but I think the abstract mentioned is way too wordy for the lead, and certainly not appropriate for the one or two words an infobox would require. My concern is that any such statement of political orientation is going to be sourced from Wikipedia editors either direcly or through synthetic confection, rather than attributable to a reliable source that a consensus of editors endorse. --Pete (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree that trying to reflect complex issues in the Infobox is a bad idea. HiLo48 (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Aquillion. Do we look like we have finally reached some consensus here? My proposed consensus position is "The infobox should not contain a political position (for now), and neither should the lead section. There are reliable third-party academic sources available to write much better sections on history and political interactions of The Australian over time. Once these sections have been created and expanded, the lead section should be expanded to summarise the article in accordance with WP:LEAD. If and only if the lead summary points to a clear position suitable for two words in the infobox, it may be appropriate to add that position as a summary of the lead." --Scott Davis Talk 01:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an excellent way forward. Thank you. My wholeheartd endorsement. --Pete (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I personally find it disturbing, and puzzling, that supporters of the kind of politics The Australian presents have worked so hard to keep an obvious fact about its political leanings out of the article. I truly don't understand why. However, in the interests of progress here, I will agree with the proposal. HiLo48 (talk) 03:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Does anybody object to an infobox description of "centre-right to right wing", on a basis other than any description shouldn't be included in the infobox at all? Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, this is ludicrous. Flagrantly edit war and break 3RR all you want, I do not and will not agree with this nonsense conviction that we can't include a political orientation in the lede or infobox. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Like Skyring/Pete, I too support what Aquilion has proposed and thank them for their efforts. Like most editors who have commented on this talk page however I strongly oppose any listing in the infobox or in the lede of any single, subjective and ridiculous label of The Australian's supposed political alignment which has caused the trouble here and am perplexed as to the motive of editors who have wanted to put it in. It makes no sense. Anyway hope this proposal Aquillion has provided may settle things and we can move on now consensus is formed. Merphee (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "...The Australian's supposed political alignment..." It's that third word that is causing all the problems here. I only agree with Aquilion because it will hopefully allow sensible discussion on other matters to proceed. You rudely question "the motive of editors who have wanted to put it in". I can assure you my motive is nothing more than to have this encyclopaedia reflect common sense, common knowledge in this country, and truth. Please stop the insults, and go away and think about this calmly for a while. The Australian simply IS a right wing publication. Even Pete agrees with that. But I will agree to not telling anyone if it will shut you up for a while. THERE is my current motive. HiLo48 (talk) 06:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The only one here insulting and abusing specific editors is YOU HiLo48. And you sure do have a very long history of attacking editors and abusing editors who don't agree with your extremist points of view. With such strong personal points of view here about this and other controversial topics, I am not sure you should be editing. We need to go by what the sources say. That's all. That's it. And in this case the sources do not support in any way your extreme point of view. Please stop causing conflict here and go away now. And read up on Neutral point of view. You constantly talk of how much you hate Wikipedia and the hard working administrators here so why are you here. Seriously. All you do is attack other good faith editors trying to follow policy and build an encyclopedia. Merphee (talk) 06:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You do realise, I hope, that you are the only editor here trying to deny the right wing position of The Australian. That hardly makes my position extreme. If you weren't here, there would be no argument as to the paper's position. So, answer me please, whose position is extreme? HiLo48 (talk) 07:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OMG HiLo48, Wikipedia is not about what you or I or any other editor 'thinks' about a topic, especially a controversial one like this. It is about what the sources say about a topic. And some sources say centrist, some say centre right, some say right and some even say more left leaning. Please just go away and read up on our policies that Pete and others have directed you to and you will see. Thank you. Now can we just move on, this is becoming very disruptive. Think whatever you want in your personal world HiLo48 but don't try to insert your point of view into our articles, that's all I'm saying. Geez. Merphee (talk) 07:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You called my position of believing The Australian to be right wing an extreme one, yet it matches that of everyone else here but you. Sorry, but your position is nonsensical, no matter how much you choose to call me disruptive. HiLo48 (talk) 09:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I mean really, c'mon, for goodness sake, this is obvious!!! I'm rigid with disgust at the abomination above, and think my indignation is entirely justified in this situation; an apology would be appropriate. Maybe a block? I don't think that would be too harsh. I just find it infuriating that users are not addressing the real problem here, and cannot take any of this seriously while this glaring error is being ignored: the apostrophe in the heading above. I will comment after I have calmed down a bit, it might take a week or two. Please continue the discussion without me until I have returned from a 'sabbatical', because I am almost persuaded that seeing what emerges from research and sourced content is hard and boring and it is simpler to perpetuate a slanging match on the talk page.   cygnis insignis 09:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * HiLo48, my position is as Pete pointed out to you. It is based on what the the sources say for the 1000th time. At not everyone here has said The Australian newspaper is hard right wing like your personal belief! Stop trying to distort things please. As I pointed out to you today many in the general community believe it to be left wing for goodness sakes! My opinion is that is centre to centre right. But you are missing the point. And I am not going to continue with this with you. It is about what the reliable sources tell us and it matters nought what your opinion or my opinion or any of our opinion's are. Just what the sources tell us. Some say centrist, some say right wing wing, some say centre left and some say other things. Merphee (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyway I don't appreciate being told by you HiLo48 that my view which is based squarely on our policy is "nonsensical". That seems like a personal attack to me. I've given my support to Aquillion's solution and have got nothing more to say on this matter for fear of copping more abuse from HiLo48. You've successfully chased yet another editor away Hilo48 who dared to disagree with you. Merphee (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "...my position is...based on what the the sources say" No it's not. I remember how this all began. You simply didn't even know that most people see The Australian as right wing. The vast majority of sources describe The Australian as right wing.
 * "At not everyone here has said The Australian newspaper is hard right wing like your personal belief!" That's not what I said. I simply said "right wing". Not HARD right wing. Please don't misrepresent me.
 * "many in the general community believe it to be left wing". I've seen no evidence of "many".
 * "I don't appreciate being told...that my view..is nonsensical." What I described as nonsensical was your view that mine was an extreme position, while you are the only editor here who doesn't see the paper as right wing. I see no reason to retract that statement. It simply is nonsensical.
 * "I am not going to continue with this with you" Good. While I am happy to continue refuting your poor logic and misrepresentation, it is very time consuming, and not at all productive for this encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hilo48 please focus on content. You said you were in favour of Aquillion's proposal as a solution here and a resolution to this ridiculous situation. There is no consensus whatsoever for anything else. My personal opinion is The Australian is centre to centre right. However my opinion or your opinion or anyone else's opinion do not matter. only what the reliable sources say and they vary depending on the year and the source. Merphee (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Hilo48 please focus on content." Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Thank you for demonstrating that I have successfully made my point. HiLo48 (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Duplication of sources etc
If I could ask, why is it necessary to put this "However The Australian is regarded by some other commentators in opinion pages as on the right of the political spectrum.[18][19][20]" slap against the Crikey source? Crikey is from 2007- Those three are from 2014, 2015 and 2017. Those three commentators views were formed as a result of everything that has gone on in politics, the media, and the Australian since; the whole climate change furor, the campaign against the Greens, etc, none of which had occurred in 2007. Not to mention that the statement is pretty much on a par with what is already there, in the correct place timewise, (at the end of the section). "The Australian has been criticised by some other commentators for promoting a right wing agenda, and encouraging the growing political polarisation between left and right in Australia.[25][26][27]" And guess what, they are exactly the same three sources?(which btw havent been reused, or formatted correctly, just duplicated) Its just repeating itself? And how can you track changes in editorial policy over time, if you are mashing statements and views from different dates up against each other?. Curdle (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I added to the article that the newspaper is considered right, using those three sources to attribute it. Merphee clearly diminished it by making it seem like only some people's opinion rather than a pattern of how The Australian is considered. If you agree that the previous version is better, I encourage you to revert it. I also await Merphee's explanation for why my refactoring of the newspaper's reporting on climate change should be reverted. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Obvious lack of consensus on infobox/lede
Judging by the previous section - "A modest proposal" - which quickly turned into a genteel version of a barroom brawl, there is little or no chance of gaining consensus for any political alignment statement. If people are just going to call each other names instead of doing something constructive, perhaps they could just find some other corner of the boundless internet to I have ?

Clearly we need some solid sources on which to base anything we say in wikivoice for the benefit of readers seeking useful information. I'm sorry, Hilo48, but your bold assertion that the political alignment of the Australian is so universally obvious that it needs no debate is patently untrue; several editors support positions at odds with your own unsourced views. If you could, as suggested, drop that particular stick and pursue some other strategy, that would be great.

I think that the strategy proposed by Aquillion and supported by me is a winner because it is standard wikiprocess. Write a section on the political stance of the newspaper in the body - we already have some material there - and use that as a basis for a brief statement in the lede material.

Yelling at each other on the talk page is no solution and gives no confidence in any outcome which might conceivably emerge from such a brawl. Please, comrades, don't respond by finding more genteel ways to call each other motherfuckers, but instead, work on examining what sources are available and how we might use them.

Some editors, I note with warm approval, have put forward sources. All we need do now is construct a Wikipedia-worthy article from them and any others which may emerge. --Pete (talk) 04:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you are volunteering to write in the body of the article that The Australian is right wing. Now can we stop talking about HiLo48's WP:BLUE argument? Clearly that argument got nowhere, but since then they were referring to one particular editor not accepting that the newspaper is right wing, and too many people have been interpreting this commentary as the continuing attempt to further the argument that sources aren't necessary to describe The Australian as right wing. If ever there was a time to stop beating a dead horse, and I use that expression much more accurately than the other editor who has decided to use that repeatedly, it would be now. It's starting to look like a performance about who knows Wikipedia policy the best, and it has been decidedly contributing to the awful length of this discussion. It is not simply an intractable dispute between HiLo48 and Merphee as some have tried to characterise it as. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good plan. As numerous editors have already stated and I totally agree with, we need to view any political alignment over the entire history of the newspaper. History is very important. Can't take a snapshot which may change tomorrow. So Aquillion's proposal seemed fair. At times the reliable sources have spoken of more centrist leanings and at numerous points in time aligned with the ALP (which is a left wing/socialist/progressive) political party in Australia. Not sure how Rupert Murdoch is supposed to have played into that left wing alignment based on a couple of editors 'sky is blue' argument but anyway. And then at other points in time the newspaper has been more centre-right. Mostly it depends on the paper's chief editor at the time. Merphee (talk) 06:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * "It is not simply an intractable dispute between HiLo48 and Merphee as some have tried to characterise it as." It's certainly not, although I believe Merphee sees it that way because that's where it all began in his experience here. He initially claimed NOBODY saw the paper sa right wing, and I (and even you, Pete) have proven him wrong. And Pete, in your usual manner of casting me as the enemy, you say "I'm sorry, Hilo48, but your bold assertion that the political alignment of the Australian is so universally obvious that it needs no debate is patently untrue." Yet again, someone from the "Don't say it's right wing even though it is" school of thought has provided no links. Who here says it isn't right wing. And please stick to the present. HiLo48 (talk) 06:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Merphee, there is no problem at all with documenting the paper's ideology today. This isn't a hard copy publication. If the ideology changes tomorrow, we can edit our article tomorrow. Do you have any sources saying the paper is anything but right wing today? HiLo48 (talk) 06:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As you know there has been at least 5 other editors who have clearly stated that History is very important to this Wikipedia article. Merphee (talk) 06:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And for the last frigging time HiLo48 would you please stop the bickering and personal attacks on this talk page and stick purely to content! Merphee (talk) 06:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The Crikey.com source seems to be the only independent source we have to go by and it says the paper is more centrist. Merphee (talk) 06:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you explain these edits you've made? They seem rather strange, even if some of it is a matter of restoring previous edits. I'd also appreciate others' weighing in on this, since it was apparent we agreed that the present alignment of the newspaper could be included in a historical analysis of it. It seems like when Merphee says the entire history of the newspaper should be considered, they mean that the present shouldn't be considered. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course the present should also be included. However you didn't write it as Aquilion has proposed. You just went with the same hard core approach of The Australian is right wing. Full stop. that's not Aquillions suggestion. Merphee (talk) 06:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Your bold edit to the climate change section is not on. i reverted it and restored the long term text. If you want to go with Aquillion's proposal let's do it. Merphee (talk) 06:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There was absolutely nothing controversial with my changes to that paragraph and I am becoming increasingly convinced that you wish this article to take a negative view of The Australian. I have no prejudice to whatever proposal that you talk about, and what I added is nothing to do with that. You are free to include whatever Aquillion has proposed just as I am free to include material from various sources, they are not at all exclusive of each other. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Further, this is what the 2007 Crikey source says about The Australian. Reputably John Howard’s favourite newspaper. He has been profuse in his praise – which should make journalists worth their salt ashamed. You need to worry when the politicians praise you. Redeemed itself with its work on the Australian Wheat Board, which had some Government figures protesting that the paper had a “split personality” or even was “betraying us”. The Oz is also the paper that first ran doubts about the truth of the Government’s line on the children overboard story. The present editor, Chris Mitchell has described the paper as “centre right” in its editorial line, but claims it is down the middle in its news coverage. The truth is that Mitchell is mostly a good editor with courage and sound journalistic values, but his credibility is undermined by occasional weird bees in his bonnet. There was the Manning Clark story during his time at The Courier-Mail and most recently the fruit-loopy editorials attacking and distorting the work of Robert Manne and others. The truth is that Rupert’s Australian flagship is a measure of the Murdoch pragmatism. For many years 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. This is clearly not a passage that supports or describes the newspaper as "centrist", so there is clearly either synthesis of fabrication from Merphee saying so. The only thing this article says about centrism is that Australia's newspaper largely are not divergent from the centre of public opinion, but clearly with The Australian being to the right of that centre.

Most importantly I am very disappointed that other editors here do not seem to take it upon themselves to analyse the sources that Merphee is choosing to use, and the claims about these sources that are being made. I simply do not wish to be the only person analysing these sources and adding them into the article, and I am frustrated with the hypocrisy of people demanding the article be described in a way that agree with sources but are doing nothing to add anything like that to the article, over the very lengthy time that this has been a strongly discussed issue on the talk page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow and the passage you just highlighted sure as hell doesn't paint The Australian as hard right wing as you just inserted into the article. I'm disappointed that your opinion pages are provided as reliable sources. They are poor quality according to what Wikipedia demands. The only independent source appears to be the Crikey.com source. In current times it is centre to centre right. In days gone by it has leaned much further to the left (ALP socialist). Merphee (talk) 07:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Never said "hard right wing", just right wing. Do you have any sources that contradict those sources? Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah the crikey source. And even centre to right is not right wing. And we are sup[posed to be re-working the article based on Aquillion's proposal. That is the only consensus here. NOT what you've wanted to do all along. I think we need to do that before you go jamming in your preferred version. Merphee (talk) 07:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We can do both. If you want to advocate for what Aquillion has proposed, you can do so. There is clearly consensus for using sources to describe the newspaper as some form of right wing, including centre-right. If anybody is against this, please speak now. As for the Crikey source which is from 2007, it starts by saying it's John Howard's favourite newspaper even the editor at the time described it as centre-right, so I would certainly include the Crikey source as describing it as right wing. Now you really have to explain the changes you made to my refactoring of the paragraph about climate change coverage, and also explain how you think the Crikey source calls The Australian centrist. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you can use the Crikey source to say explicitly "centrist". If you read the whole thing, the operative sentence is actually "The truth is that Rupert’s Australian flagship is a measure of the Murdoch pragmatism"...they were happy to support Keatings "big picture"..you know, the whole international shebang- floating dollar, trade/engagement with Asia, all the stuff the Australian was already a long term supporter of. That doesn't mean they are centrist. An article written by ex editor Paul Kelly in 2015 to celebrate 50 years of the Australian says of the Fraser period "It was during this period that the political identity of the paper as a centre-right publication became entrenched" and later goes on to say that post 1996 the party was "far more invested in John Howard than in the defeated Labour party" and goes on to state exactly what issues he sees the Australian as being a supporter of; They all look pretty right of centre to me- Smaller government, lower taxes, deregulated competitive economic structure, reform of industrial relations etc.
 * It was published by media international journal, so behind a paywall, but heres a link  if you have a state library membership you can access it.Curdle (talk) 11:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Look, if we are going to discuss The Australian's political alignment over its long history which most 'independent' editors have agreed we should do then we need to consider the newspaper's support of various ALP governments as well. I agree that the Crikey source doesn't explicitly say The Australian is centrist. However it also does not say it is right wing. There is a big difference between Centre-right politics and Right-wing politics. It is not "weasel words" as Onetwothreeip said. That's misleading. These descriptors are distinct forms of political alignment. One Nation would be considered right wing, not Far-right politics either, but right wing nonetheless and the Coalition would be considered centre-right and not right wing. The ALP would be described as centre-left as well. Whereas the Greens would be considered left wing. I have said a number of times and could show diffs if need be, that currently The Australian is centre-right, not right wing. And the few independent and quality sources on this topic, such as the Crikey source supports this Centre-right politics assessment too. However we ARE considering history here as well so periods where the newspaper leaned to the left should be mentioned. Merphee (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Through history The Australian has varied, and currently it's centre-right to right wing. One Nation is definitely considered far right. If you want to establish The Australian as being considered centrist, you need to provide sources that say so. It is not enough to say that The Australian has supported both major parties, and the 2007 Crikey source firmly places the newspaper right of centre. If there is not going to be an explanation why my alteration of the paragraph on climate change reporting was reverted, I will have to restore them per a lack of talk page discussion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Please read my comment directly above again. And by the way if One Nation now with Mark Latham are far-right then are The Greens far left? I think the Greens are just left wing aren't they? And if One Nation is far right then what the hell is Fraser Anning then? We're running out of labels here Onetwothreeip. I suggest we stick to the political descriptors Wikipedia refer to in our articles. Currently all that can be supported by quality sources is centre-right politics not right-wing politics. But then as I said we need to integrate into the body of the article Aqullion's proposal and look at the history of the Australian which over the years has often supported Labor Party governments and policies. Merphee (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you agree to this proposal by Aquliion Onetwothreeip? Merphee (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as the bold climate change edits you are talking about can you keep your hands off that section while we try to sort this out first. i'm happy to discuss it with but don't appreciate your aggressive pressured approach saying  "If there is not going to be an explanation why my alteration of the paragraph on climate change reporting was reverted, I will have to restore them per a lack of talk page discussion". We all have lives outside of Wiki so take it easy and chill over these bold edits while we can focus on resolving this situation first please. Merphee (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * One Nation and Fraser Anning are considered far-right. The Greens are not considered far-left, they are considered left wing. This is how they are described on the respective articles. As for The Australian, many sources are calling them right wing without specifying "centre-right". If you can't say why the edits to the climate change paragraph shouldn't stand, then they will immediately be restored to the article. We're obviously not going to wait for you to finish something else in order to edit another part of the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Just like another editor what YOU think something or someone is is NOT what Wikipedia say based on the reliable sources. Pauline Hanson's One Nation is described in their Wikipedia article as right-wing politics not far-right politics. And I just said The Greens are left wing, not far-left. Please re-read my comments above. And I agree Fraser Anning is approaching far-right politics and thus was expelled from One Nation and Katter's party. Do you disagree with any of that. Now to try and resolve this long standing issue on the talk page, do you or do you not accept Aquillion's proposal Onetwothreeip? This is what the consensus has come to as a resolution? You keep avoiding that proposal and that question? If not would you like to initiate dispute resolution to help resolve it? Merphee (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what Aquillion has proposed, and whether or not I agree would not change anything else I have said or what the general consensus has agreed to. I'm also confused as to why you added empty spaces to the end of this talk page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes you do know what Aquillion's proposal to help us reach consensus Onetwothreeip Do you agree with it? Do you want dispute resolution? Merphee (talk) 03:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't even know who that is, let alone this proposal. Accusing me and another editor of tag teaming is absurd. Consensus has now agreed to consider The Australian as largely publishing right wing and centre-right views, and to include this in the article with sources that establish this. You are the only person that disagrees. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * This section is actually titled Obvious lack of consensus on infobox/lede and there is no consensus. This is because you do not want Aquillion's proposal either. And last time this was brought up at edit warring noticeboard you were told by several editors you are tag teaming. You are obviously tag teaming again. amazingly so. Do you want dispute resolution or not? Merphee (talk) 03:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about the infobox or lead, this is about you removing something from the body of the article. Accusations of "tag teaming" are completely unfounded, have never been affirmed by others at any noticeboard, and it seems the only evidence Merphee has of this is that two editors are reverting his edits and therefore that is a tag team. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Summarising the section 'Editorial and opinion pages'
Hey. I added a quick, short and sweet summary to this section. The summary is 'The Australian has been described by journalists and commentators as conservative, business focused, and right-wing. It has not been tied to either of the major national parties.'. has removed it three times because there is no consensus for this.

Quick facts: Regardless - Merphee, why have you removed this summary three times? Is there a different summary you'd prefer? PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Consensus isn't required for new material.
 * No consensus is not a valid reason to remove material if you have not stated any other reason for its removal.


 * There is no consensus for any single label or data point to be placed anywhere in the article as a catch all. Would you like to use dispute resolution to resolve this? You keep avoiding that question? Merphee (talk) 04:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You've never asked me that question. No, I don't think dispute resolution would help, as it's a non binding process and you have not displayed any adherence to regular social norms. 'No consensus' cannot be your only reason to argue against something. Do you have any actual reason for why you dislike my summary? PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Because this section started by another editor is stating there is no consensus for us using a single data point. This whole debate as you very well know is about us using a single label to describe The Australian newspaper over the history of the newspaper. Obviously ANI or edit warring noticeboard is our next step I think. This disruption cannot go on. Alternatively have you got high quality reliable sources stating The Australian is a right-wing newspaper? Merphee (talk) 04:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, we're not using a single source or a single label - I'm summarising the entire section, which has over ten sources, and I'm using three seperate labels. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As you know, it is the right-wing, centrist, centre-right, far-left, left wing, centre-left politics labels everyone has been laboriously discussing here. Merphee (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Does anybody else object to the proposed summary? proposed a similar summary, which reads 'The Australian has been generally regarded as conservative, business focused, and observing centre-right to right-wing views.'. I'm fine with either - any other suggestions/comments? PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Good enough for me. We ought to provide citations for that, even if it's a summary. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry if this is in the wrong place,(finding it hard to keep track of where comments should be, feel free to move it) but do any of the sources agree with the description of conservative? Something that says centre right with libertarian tendencies perhaps... business focused ok...but then again that means you are just repeating the essentials from the Chris Mitchell and Paul Kelly quotes. I think it makes for a better article if we avoid repeating stuff that has already been said. Curdle (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe get a serious editor to look over the contributions first, despite the vigorous contributions to a discussion about the article it appears that at least one user is reading it for the first time. cygnis insignis 09:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't understand. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I know, it's okay that you don't. Sincerely, cygnis insignis 09:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * How about you just say what it is you're trying to say, Cygnis? You honestly are often incomprehensible in the way you talk, normally missing context. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , Oh, I suppose I should have quoted the edit summary "There's been some coatracking here that has gone under the radar". cygnis insignis 11:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I stand by that. Do you disagree with that assessment? Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No? The point is the focus has been on discussion, not the article, the content of which, beyond the absence of what you have been trying to hang on this coat-rack, was a complete surprise to you. I made this point because this talk is a lesson in one method of improving content, or getting one's way. cygnis insignis 11:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What are you saying was a surprise to me? Onetwothreeip (talk) 13:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid speaking via cryptic references will make your usual standard of communication even harder to understand. Try being as plain as possible for those of us less able to understand your mind. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * For what outcome? I pause from creating content and come here to remind myself about how to avoid that. cygnis insignis 11:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you're not using the talk page to talk to other editors, you're not using the talk page for its intended purpose. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , we're talking aren't we? cygnis insignis 11:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)\
 * You asked 'for what outcome' (?) you should not communicate using cryptic references. I replied 'to talk to other editors', because you're hard enough to understand as it is when you're talking normally. If you do actually intend for other people to comprehend what you write, sincerely make an effort to write things which are readable, please. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm begging you! It's pretty obvious that all the wrangling has been detrimental to the article, but pointing out one person as being responsible doesn't help anything.Curdle (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , so is putting words in others mouths, I would prefer that didn't happen again. cygnis insignis 13:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)