Talk:The Australian/Archive 6

Not about the RFC.
Here is a quality independent reliable source explicitly stating The Australian newspaper supported Kevin Rudd's LEFT WING ALP government in the 2007 election. Needs to be integrated. Cannot state The Australian is right wing with no quality reliable sources stating it is and quality reliable sources stating The Australian supported left-wing ALP government in a Federal election. https://www.crikey.com.au/2007/11/23/election-07-the-newpapers-choice-this-time-round/ Merphee (talk) 04:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The source does not say that Rudd's Opposition (the article was written before the election that gave him Government) was "LEFT WING". Rudd was a member of the Labor Right - is that left-wing (Wikipedia says "Centre to Centre-left" in the infobox and "centre-right-leaning" in the lead), either in absolute terms or even compared to the Liberal Party Moderate faction? --Scott Davis Talk 05:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This was really directed at Onetwothreeip. The reality is the ALP is a left wing poltical party. No? I mean the Labor Left which has most current opposition ministers as members, is also called the socialist Left faction FFS. The Australian newspaper supported the ALP in the 2007 election over the Coalition government. Period. This source needs to be placed in this section. Has anyone got a problem with using this quality reliable source I've provided in this context? Obviously a little synthesised summary calling The Australian right-wing when it openly supported a left wing political party is a bit 'misleading', putting it very mildly. Merphee (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You do realise the "synthesis" statement you objected to was removed a few days ago? Curdle (talk) 06:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, however Onetwothreeip, PeterTheFourth, Pinkbeast would again revert that I'm sure as soon as the article is not protected. Onetwothreeip made this comment today "Simply not true that the newspaper supported the Rudd government". He then asked for a reliable source. I've provided a quality independent reliable source. So much for these three editors edit warring and constantly placing their little synthesised bit of original research summarising The australian as conservative and right wing hey. Wow. Merphee (talk) 06:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean the one time it supported Labor over the Coalition since 1984? Sure its editorial supported Labor in 2007, 1984 and 1983, but the Coalition in 2019, 2016, 2013, 2010, 2004, 2001, 1998, 1996, 1993, 1990, 1987, 1980, 1977 and 1975. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * OMG..lol...You said, "Simply not true that the newspaper supported the Rudd government" And I provided an actual independent high quality reliable source which stated precisely that. Please stick to the discussion rather than constantly providing unsourced points of view off the top of your head and trying to Push them into our article. Merphee (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You said the newspaper supported the Rudd government, and that's not true. It supported Rudd when he was opposition leader. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * haha...nah...I suggest you read the source again or you're saving face. Either way, it's pretty straight what it says. ".....endorsed Labor at a Federal level". It's going in the article too. It's the highest quality independent reliable source we have! Merphee (talk) 09:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Just so it's clear, what the paper did in 2007 is not necessarily indicative of its stance in 2019. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * but its equally important to some to understand its leanings in 2007, 1997, and 2019 as that impacts the story they choose to tell. Gnangarra 13:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's true, but we wouldn't write in the infobox (say) that The Guardian is published in Manchester. We can keep historical material separate from that about the current state of affairs. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And indeed it is simply not true that the newspaper supported the Rudd government; and it simply is true that a cite written the day before the election cannot possibly shed any information on whether the newspaper supported a government formed after the election. Surely the idea that the opposition is not the government is not impossible to grasp. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ya, sure it's not true Pinkbeast. The Crikey source is the highest quality source used in this entire highly biased coat rack section of the article. the rest of the cherry picked sources are from opinion pieces from single writers. In fact, we need to add other material from the Crikey.com source to provide some much needed NPOV. Merphee (talk) 04:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Editorial/opinion section
I recently wrote this into the article and it was reverted: Former editor-in-chief Chris Mitchell said in 2006 that the editorial and op-ed pages of the newspaper are centre-right but "comfortable with a mainstream Labor prime minister Kevin Rudd". In 2007 Crikey described the newspaper as generally in support of the Liberal Party and the then-Coalition government, but has pragmatically supported Labor governments in the past as well.

The Australian presents varying views on climate change, publishing articles by those who disagree with the scientific consensus such as Ian Plimer, and authors who agree with the scientific consensus such as Tim Flannery and Bjørn Lomborg. A 2011 study of the previous seven years of articles claimed that four out of every five articles were opposed to taking action on climate change.

Can anybody outline why they disagree with any of this? Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We have already told you why. I also suggest you stop edit warring and tag teaming. You need to engage here with other editors in a civil manner please. Merphee (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I mentioned up before that I disagree with the label "conservative"...Libertarian, business focussed yes, centre right, ok. But The Australian is a pretty long time supporter of republicanism, plus a few other policies that are the antitheses of the definitions of "conservative" linked to in that wikipedia article.
 * The crikey source is actually pretty careful not to label them with any particular tags; I think the wording In 2007 Crikey described the paper as "a measure of the Murdoch pragmatism". While it helped "define Paul Keatings 'big picture'... it "provided both turf and fuel for the culture warriors of the Right" during the Howard government. - is a better summarisation of what it says. Curdle (talk) 06:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You might have a good argument but ultimately it's up to sources to define if The Australian is conservative or libertarian or not. I'm sure you would agree that reliable sources have called them both. I think there are examples of conservatives who support republicanism, I think Greg Sheridan is included in that if I'm not mistaken. The newspaper also has people who advocate monarchist positions. Either way it's not for us to judge. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * But of the three sources you are using, the monthly does not use the word "conservative" at all; The conversation article says merely "becoming more conservative" without saying that that is what it is, (all the other allusions are to either completely different papers, or the more tabloid newscorp ones, and the article is considerably firmer in their use of the word to describe them)
 * The Guardian is slightly stronger, saying "often knee-jerk conservative ideology that the Oz trumpets so readily." but then goes on to mention the "thundering of the neoconservatives"...who are rather different kettles of fish from your standard conservatives. Plus it explicitly links this to the tenure of Chris Mitchell. I don't think its enough to support that particular label.Curdle (talk) 08:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Should we add the Laurie Clancy source to the summary as well? In the section we quote that saying the newspaper "is generally conservative in tone and heavily oriented toward business". I'm not torn if we don't end up using the label 'conservative', it just seemed like a reasonable read of the collection of sources we have when I was trying to write up a summary. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, thats still not really enough.."conservative in tone" doesn't equate to a political stance. (which is what is being done when you wikilink "conservative" to our article of the same name) It gives the appearance of confusing a description with an actual political ideology Curdle (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The way they express being more conservative implies that it is conservative, and neoconservative is certainly a subset of conservative. I'm all for finding more sources though, or alternative descriptions of the newspaper. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In all the reading, looking for just such a source, I haven't really been able to find anything that definitively pigeonholes The Australian. Whether that's because the academic sources are just more interested exploring the cause and effect the evolution of the Australian has had on the media, or describing stances on particular issues or they just feel that it cant be labelled, they are generally very reluctant to explicitly assign it. Sources are happy enough to label "newscorp" with an emphasis on the tabloids, but not the Australian, separated from Newscorp. You find themes of pragamatism/ Murdoch's interests, his desire to to use the paper to gain influence, and a general libertarian ethos, but not really anything more specific. If anyone can find something, sure, but until then there just isnt really enough for such a basic description. Curdle (talk) 09:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's the optimum word here Curdle. "Pigeonhole". Onetwothreeip, you going in search of sources to fit your point of view is coatracking and point of view pushing. This section of the article is a frigging coatrack already but your little summary the 3 of you have shoved into our article is a joke. This is not what the reliable sources say. More to the point history does matter as numerous editors who have commented on this issue have told you and I agree. The only proposal that other editors apart from your team of 3, was Aquillion's proposal. You are breaching our policies. Meanwhile your little summary is in the article against consensus not to include single descriptors. Over time The Australian has supported progressive/left wing policies of varying governments both ALP and Liberal or Coalition. That's what the sources say. You trying to push your point of view via your so called 'summary' into this article is disturbing to say the least and needs to be reverted. As other editors have suggested why not be civil and outline your proposed text here on the talk page before it is pushed into our article so we all can collaboratively work on OUR article. Merphee (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, no Merphee, now you are going in the opposite direction. Its a pretty clear stretch to say The Australian has supported anything that could be generally called"left wing" or "progressive" policies at all, at least since 1975. They had a small "l" liberal bent pre 1975, until Murdoch sacked Deamer. And THAT is precisely what the sources say. Curdle (talk) 11:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I said the Australian has supported progressive "policies" from both governments Curdle. Saying the Australian only supports conservative policies is POV pushing. Provide a high quality source then that states that The Australian is generally regarded as conservative? The sources used do not state that. Merphee (talk) 12:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I took you saying Over time The Australian has supported progressive/left wing policies of varying governments both ALP and Liberal or Coalition. as saying they supported progressive/left wing policies. I had been arguing against the Australian as being depicted as supporting any party in general or, being described as "conservative" and explained I can't find sources that explicitly says they are, so not sure why you are requesting I produce some? The sources (even the editors of the Australian itself) consistently say centre right and libertarian agenda; both of those rather conflict with either left wing, or progressive, dont they? Curdle (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The sources also lean toward centre-right politics but putting the "centre-right to right-wing politics" as a summary is again a pretty frigging clear stretch. And no one has produced a quality reliable source here that states The Australian is a right-wing newspaper. If no-one can produce these reliable sources and multiple editors have asked for these to be produced then I am going to remove this POV from our article. As a compromise I am willing to leave centre-right politics. But centre-right politics is not right-wing politics. Sources please? Merphee (talk) 12:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Summary
Currently we have the - IMHO - unjustified statement that "While The Australian has held a range of views over its history, it is generally regarded as conservative, business focused, and observing centre-right to right-wing views."

Three sources are given to support this:
 * 1) "Mixed media: how Australia's newspapers became locked in a war of left versus right" - The Conversation. Only one statement in this source mentions The Australian post-1975, and it says nothing about the newspaper's political orientation.
 * 2) "The decline of the 'Australian'" - The Monthly, July 2014. Here I find only one sentence talking about the orientation of the paper - "it articulates and enables much of the agenda of the right wing of politics (and the present government)" - This is one columnist who admits to having a feud with the editorial staff, and it is five years old.
 * 3) "Ideology runs rampant at Rupert Murdoch's Australian newspaper" - The Guardian, December 2015. "No matter how well written, no matter how well edited, the paper’s right-wing bias is overwhelming," it says. This is by far the best source, but again, it is the venting opinion of one ex-employee, writing in an outlet I hope we can all accept takes an opposing political stance to The Australian, and it is several years old.

How can we possibly say from these sources that The Australian of 2019 is "generally regarded as conservative, business focused, and observing centre-right to right-wing views."?

And no, it's not a matter of finding a bunch of newer and more explicit sources. To say it is "generally regarded" means we have to have some basis for that "generally". None of the sources say it, which means that the statement is either unsourced, or synthesised and we don't do synthesis. We don't present the dots for our readers and ask them to connect them up for themselves. We find someone who joins the dots and we use them as a source.

For example, maybe we could find three equally useful/useless sources giving a different view and say "While The Australian has held a range of views over its history, it is generally regarded as liberal, socially-focused, and observing centre-left to left-wing views." Am I correct in saying that if we said this in wikivoice, some here would start choking on their noodles? --Pete (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Of course Pete. I totally agree with your policy based logic. As this section is synthesised I've pulled it. It's not helpful to be fuelling the fire here and jam in some ridiculous summary while we are in the middle of heated discussion. Merphee (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * If it was as well sourced as that, then it should be in the article. You are more than welcome to add content to the article. The article from The Conversation considers The Australia to be on the right wing side of what they perceive as a media war. The articles from The Monthly and The Guardian are pretty clear that The Australian is right wing, and we don't normally take into consideration who the writers of those articles are, but being a former employee of the newspaper in question obviously makes that more reliable if we were to consider that. What is relevant is the publication itself, since it is their reputation, unless otherwise stated. These are obviously not the only sources that we could use, so I'm more than okay with other sources being considered to support the statements. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I find your assertion that the opinions of disgruntled ex-employees are more reliable hard to swallow. I'd be interested to hear your comments on the other points raised, 123. --Pete (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The myth of the "disgruntled ex-employee" has a long history as a pernicious smear against anyone who has ever worked anywhere. By accepting that terminology you are accepting a certain point of view and that does not belong here. We are not using people's personal experiences and opinions in this article, either yours or those of the sources, we are taking the facts from the sources. While Merphee has claimed that we shouldn't be contributing to the article while having "heated discussion", we really don't need heated discussion while trying to create content. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In the sources given, the ex-employees lay out their differences with their former employer. I suggest that in such cases credibility and motivation are issues worth considering. Again, 123, are you able to address the points made above regarding wikiprocedure, or are you happy to avoid discussion on policy? --Pete (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to raise with me issues of policy then by all means raise them. I have not seen any indication that these sources are at all not credible, so you will have to raise those concerns specifically since otherwise they are from what we regard as reliable sources and we would take them seriously. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * They have been raised above. Please address them. --Pete (talk) 02:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course the policy concerns raised have not been addressed. And centre-right politics is not the same as right-wing politics is not the same as far-right politics. That is why we have separate articles for each! Sources generally support centre-right politics only. You have yet to provide a single high quality reliable source which unequivocally states, The Australian newspaper is a right-wing publication. Have the 3 of you got one? Merphee (talk) 06:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Better than that, one of us have three. It's the three that I used for the sentence, one each from The Monthly, The Guardian, and The Conversation. You're more than invited to find more and better sources if you'd like. The reason we have used centre-right and right wing is because the newspaper encompasses a broad range of right wing opinion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Onetwothreeip can you please provide the exact sentence and in which source that explicitly states, the Australian is a right-wing newspaper? And have you got any quality reliable secondary sources? That would help. Relying on one single writer's opinion in an opinion piece just isn't good enough for such a big bold edit you're trying to make about the supposed political bias of the country's largest newspaper. And can please respect the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle with your bold edit instead of trying to push it into our article as Pete has also asked you to do. We are trying to respectfully discuss with you what you want to put into our article. That would help avoid edit warring. That goes for the other 2 team members PeterTheFourth and Pinkbeast too.Merphee (talk) 07:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to go into that detail, if you withdraw your accusation of tag teaming. It's completely untrue and unfounded. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The observation has been made by 3 editors onetwothreeip and sure is not "unfounded". In fact, there is a wealth of evidence. Now stop deflecting and focus on sources please and my specific question. Also as Pete told you, follow the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle please. Will you read it please and agree not to push your bold edit into the article while we are trying to discuss what you are wanting to put in our article. It is very uncivil. Merphee (talk) 07:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Funny, it was 4 last time you told this lie. When are you going to produce diffs that name me? (Answer: never, because you were lying.) Pinkbeast (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You're accusing me and others of meatpuppetry when you accuse us of tag teaming or acting as any kind of team, which is very serious. If you simply mean that several editors are acting in a similar way then that's not tag teaming and that's all the more reason to withdraw your accusation. Otherwise do show the evidence, or else you are just spreading false rumours. As for the BRD cycle, it has already been discussed. The cycle doesn't go back to discuss just because some has reverted it after a discussion has already been made. I'm always willing to further improve articles but the BRD cycle has concluded for that particular sentence. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Would you like to get some type of Dispute resolution here? We obviously need resolution and others to help us all here. Your edits have been reverted by multiple editors over the last few days and this is highly disruptive. I'm thinking if not, we obviously need to make a request for the Arbitration Committee to resolve this serious content dispute. What do you both think? Would either of these proposals to help us resolve this long term content dispute sound reasonable given that you don't want to abide by the BRD cycle either? Merphee (talk) 09:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Longstanding consensus wording
I think that this statement: The Australian has been criticised by some media commentators for promoting a right wing agenda, and encouraging political polarisation in Australia. is a lot easier to sustain, and overcomes the problems raised above. I am happy with this wording, for these sources. --Pete (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This does not summarise the section, the point of a section summary. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The statement does not purport to be a summary. It is, however, accurate and sustained by the sources, which is more than one can say for the wording you support. If you would like to respond to the points I raise above, that would be useful, 4. --Pete (talk) 01:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If your content is not intended to summarise the section and is instead just restating what we already have a second time, it's redundant and useless. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you've missed the point. I'm talking about the first sentence in the "Editorial and opinion pages" section, as quoted above, along with my reasons why it is unsuitable. The wording has now been changed by you to "While The Australian has held a range of views over its history, it is generally regarded as conservative, business focused, and observing centre-right to right-wing views", which is still unsupported and inaccurate. Perhaps you'd like to address the points made? --Pete (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think it needs to summarise the section, but that line is a description of The Australian's critics, while I do admit that we can have some space for criticism in the article if it's reasonably supported and contributes to the article. What should be more important is summarising the newspaper itself, and as I have suspected long now, you are really just not liking that this major Australian newspaper is right wing. If there is substantial criticism of their right wing positions then we can have that in the article as well, but that should not be how we objectively present the facts of the newspaper's political orientations. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 123, That wording has been present since August 2018, and appears to have consensus. See this diff. It is an accurate representation of tghe sources and I have stated on multiple occasions I have no problem with it. You are attempting to insert another statement purporting to be a summary, using the exact same three sources, and as noted, it is problematic. Your analysis of my personal opinions are laughably wrong. As noted several times here, I stopped taking The Australian several years ago because I felt it had drifted too far to the right. --Pete (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have never stated that was a summary of the section. I am not against what you have quoted being in the article, so I am part of that consensus. It just should not be used as a substitution for an objective summary of the newspaper. Would you like to provide sources that support your assessment that the newspaper has drifted to the right? Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You astonish me. Are you admitting you have no confidence in the sources you yourself have been pushing? No. Don't answer that rhetorical question. Just go and address the points I raised earlier today. Continued prevaricating won't do any job except convince people that you are good at avoiding productive discussion. --Pete (talk) 03:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what points you're talking about. You haven't raised them with me. This is not a rhetorical question at all, can you provide sources that support your assessment of the newspaper drifting to the right? I would genuinely like to see those sources and use them in the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No idea, eh? Well, they are found in the first comment under the subheading summary above - diff and you responded shortly after - diff. How about you start at the top and work your way down? The Conversation is used as a source to state that The Australian "is generally regarded as conservative, business focused, and observing centre-right to right-wing views." Yet only one statement in this source mentions The Australian post-1975, and it says nothing about the newspaper's political orientation. --Pete (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously Onetwothreeip's synthed summary should have gone. And that section there still needs addressing and other sources brought in that clearly show the opposite to the paper helping to promote a right wing agenda. Merphee (talk) 00:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * While I haven't found any sources that explicitly describe the Australian as right wing, as opposed to centre right and libertarian, equally I wasn't able to find any that "clearly show the opposite to the paper helping to promote a right wing agenda". If you can, please by all means post them here.
 * I was wondering if it would be a good idea to break up the section into time periods, say 1964-1975, 1975 to say 2002 and 2002 to present, perhaps. I noticed that has been done in a few newspaper articles, and it would be a way of marking the changes in editorial direction through time, which really should be done before people start trying to summarise it. In line with this, all statements made about the paper really need to be in chronological order of when they were made; so that particular statement about agendas etc, should be back at the end of the section, as they express views of commentators from 2014-2017 which reflect both previous and present history. Curdle (talk) 08:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's the whole point you just made Curdle. No editor including Onetwothreeip has found any reliable sources that explicitly describe the Australian as right wing. That's why his little summary was complete and utter SYNTH. However Onetwothreeip, PetertheFourth and Pinkbeast kept on Pushing it into our article despite multiple editors clearly stating it was original research. Merphee (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The last comment wasnt discussing Onetwothreeip, PetertheFourth and Pinkbeast, because as you said, I have already expressed opinions on those particular edits previously in this discussion.
 * My point was those claims are not the only ones lacking in adequate sourcing. You keep saying things like "and other sources brought in that clearly show the opposite to the paper helping to promote a right wing agenda" without providing any; I havent been able to find any either. The Australian itself has proclaimed it is a polemical newspaper; it is just a reality that there are sources that are highly critical of it. NPOV means recording that criticism when it exists. If there is a weight of criticism, Npov does not demand that every bit of criticism needs to be be joined to some sort of rebuttal, if those rebuttals do not exist; that is just false equivalence. If you have reliable sources, please, produce them and they can go into the article.
 * You didn't respond to the suggestion of breaking the section up into time periods. Does that mean you agree, dont agree, or have no feelings on the idea? Curdle (talk) 08:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Curdle these editors kept Pushing the point of view that Murdoch only ever backs conservatives. No reliable sources state this explicitly. They also said the Australian is a flat out right-wing newspaper. No quality reliable sources state this. IMO that's POV pushing. You gotta call a spade a spade. It's against our NPOV policy. The Australian backed Kevin Rudd's ALP (left wing) government for f... sake. It awarded its highest Australian of The Year awards to far more ALP (left-wing) politicians and left wing progressives over the decades than conservatives. I mean come on! Merphee (talk) 11:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, there may be a point about Murdoch not really supporting Rudd - its on record that Murdoch didnt want to support Rudd for the election until Mitchell talked him round. And one of the articles Aquillion posted above straightout says that Murdochs support of Labour was only ever lukewarm as opposed to his support of Liberals, and goes on to say " in the second half of 2008, Rudd’s relationship with the Murdoch press deteriorated, particularly in regards to The Australian". There's plenty more, you should read it. a crikey ref said about Rudds oz award "The national broadsheet spent 2009 attacking the Government’s handling of the GFC, attacking the need for stimulus packages, attacking the actual spending within the packages – to the extent of soliciting and running every half-baked rumour from a P&C in blue-ribbon Liberal electorates – and airing every possible line critical of the Government" and concluded the award may have been a bizarre way of admitting they may have been wrong to not support him. You can't draw any conclusions regarding whether supporting a party at election time makes the paper left or right, unless the sources make that conclusion..and they don't seem to.
 * So you cant draw any conclusions from the Australian of the year awards, that would be OR. Unless the sources make the connection, we cannot. Curdle (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * True enough regarding the Australian's Australian of he Year Award going mostly to left wing and progressive politicians, innovators and community leaders. Even though it is true, the sources obviously need to reflect that fact. This is the problem with relying on flimsy 'opinion pieces' written by single left wing commentators for our reliable sources as has been done in this currently extremely biased section of our article. And similarly there are no reliable sources to support the synthesised summary which stated The Australian is a conservative right-winged newspaper, original research which is not supported by any reliable sources. As you said Curdle, "Unless the sources make the connection, we cannot". Very true. We also need to view The Australian over its entire history as multiple editors have stated. It seems that The Australian supports left-wing/right-wing governments and policies depending on the editor of the day. Much more so than who owns it. Merphee (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Simply not true that the newspaper supported the Rudd government. Anyone with any memory of 2008 to 2010 would know how that newspaper among others reported the fiscal stimulus. In order to put into the article their support for Labor governments, please provide sources that show this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. Here we go again. it doesn't matter what YOU THINK. It matters what quality reliable sources say like Crikey.com. Not the little 'opinion pieces' masquerading as reliable sources you've provided thus far from single hard left wing writers. Here is just one of the high quality reliable sources clearly, unequivocally stating that The Australian newspaper supported Kevin Rudd's LEFT WINg Labor Party.  https://www.crikey.com.au/2007/11/23/election-07-the-newpapers-choice-this-time-round/ Merphee (talk) 04:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to note a few months later that this is when the ALP was in opposition, not government. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would also note that the obvious goal of these now disturbingly convoluted discussions should be to identify the political slant of the paper today, not at some cherry picked time in the past. I cut my political teeth on The Australian in the 1960s, when it was rampantly and unashamedly leftist, but that's clearly irrelevant to our goal here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Writing right-wing in the infobox
just to start a discussion: I think that putting right-wing in the infobox is WP:UNDUE. see above discussion. It's highly likely that you have seen the arguments above I don't know why you chose to do that without seeking consensus --SharabSalam (talk) 09:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually it's "centre-right to right wing". The general consensus does agree with something like this, but really it's just obvious to anybody familiar with Australian politics. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Still there is no consensus for adding the original research "right-wing" to the infobox. Adding it to the infobox is a whole different issue. We have enough explanation in the body of the article which is still tagged as original research. It would be UNDUE to add it to the infobox.--SharabSalam (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that there is no consensus, and I am quite frankly astounded as to why that is the case. As a flagship Newscorp/Murdoch publication, it would surely be a surprise to most objective observers worldwide if The Australian was anything but right wing. But what really surprises me is that a lot of the opposition to that description comes from editors who themselves might be described as having right wing political views. The opposition seems to contain an awful lot of obfuscation and deflection from what should be a rather simple issue. I know what I have written here contains a bit of OR, but I have tried hard not to be judgemental of anyone's or the newspaper's position, apart from expressing my surprise as to why anyone would see describing the paper as right wing as a negative thing. Again, I repeat, among those who have got involved in this discussion, there is no consensus. I'm just buggered if I know why. HiLo48 (talk) 11:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is no consensus for "right wing". There is, however, consensus for "centre-right to right wing" in the infobox. It seemed to me that those against describing the newspaper as right wing would more likely be considered left wing, and were unhappy with this significant newspaper being right wing. I don't regard these reasons as important either way. Onetwothreeip (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think once one subtracts the interminable IDHT from one obsessive, the support for it is pretty clear. As for SharabSalam, they have no actual interest in this page; they just don't like me much because I pointed out they lied in an unblock request. They are one of those editors who staggers from one block for edit warring to another.
 * Absent any actual arguments against, it should be reinstated. It should never have been removed. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Does anyone else entertain the possibility that a left and right spectrum is defined in an agreeable way? cygnis insignis 12:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I reinstated the content, it sounds quite legit and the same info is included in other newspapers' infoboxes. The removal of this info by was irrelevant in my humble opinion. Best regards. ---Wikaviani  (talk)  (contribs)  15:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * stop assuming bad faith. I already forgot who you are. Do you think that after 5 to 6 six months I will revert you just because of that old issue?lol I don't have any problem with you, bro. Stop this drama queen behaviour, it's embarrassing and BTW I didn't lie in a unblock request keep your self-importance to yourself. I do have interest in newspapers including the Australian and I do have interest in Australia. Check my edits history.. Now I am not saying that I have a lot of knowledge about newspapers but You'll find me editing and reverting in newspapers articles in compliance with Wikipedia policies.
 * , there is still no consensus and making that bold edit without seeking consensus was not a good idea. I think that the categorization of any newspaper in the infobox is mostly a bad idea especially when it's a controversial one it's like saying in Wikivoice that the newspaper is a right-wing propaganda. I say we don't add anything in the infobox the section in the article is enough.
 * You reverted while there is no consensus saying that I should follow BRD guideline. Do you know what that guideline says? it says when you make a bold edit and someone reverts you need to discuss this in the talk page. I am not the one who made the bold edit.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No Wikaviani there is no political alignment in ANY of our articles on Australian or USA newspoapers. Only UK newspapers. This is The Australian newspaper not a UK newspaper. Merphee (talk) 10:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Do you seriously have doubts about my knowledge on WP:BRD ? You are not the one who made the first bold edit but you reinstated it. Also, the "D" in BRD means "Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting.". This is what you ignored with this edit of yours just two minutes after engaging in this discussion. You need to wait for the discussion to conclude before diting again this article. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  19:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't reinstated the bold edit, ironically you did. The bold edit was this Special:Diff/909986253, it was reverted here Special:Diff/910014981 Onetwothreeip didn't start a discussion, Pinkbeast reinstated the bold edit, I reverted saying that this is UNDUE and there is still no consensus for this. I got reverted again by Pinkbeast, saying that I am doing this because I don't like him which is not true. I don't have anything against him. so I reverted after the accusation and then you came and reinstated the bold edit without consensus. And BTW I am the one who opened the discussion although I don't have to seek consensus for the long standing version. I am the one who is in compliance with the guidelines of wikipedia not you.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * As far as i can see on this talk page, you're the only one who disagree with the current version. Also, reinstating an edit does not mean adding a content to an article, it can also mean removing some content from the articl. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  20:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , is there something you didn't get in my last reply? I am not the one who made the bold edit and I am not the one who reinstated the bold edit it doesn't have to do with removing or adding what in God name are you talking about???? I am not the only one who has reverted and I am not the only one who thinks there should be consensus and I am not the only one who thinks this is UNDUE(see my talk page). See above extensive discussions about this as well. There is still no consensus. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Look, you need to cool down dude, i got what you said above very well, i just say that your reverts were irrelevant since, as far as i can see on this talk page, you're the only one who disagrees with the current version. The discussions about this article should be located here, not on your talk page. I have not anymore interest in keeping discussing with you about this. Regards. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  21:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am trying to be cool but you act like if you don't have any idea about this dispute and all you are doing is just reverting assuming I am wrong because it's me. I am not the only one who has revert. There is no consensus see the above discussions!! See and the discussions below it!!.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * My point above is that it would be astounding to media watchers worldwide if a Newscorp/Murdoch outlet anywhere in the world was not right wing. I reckon that if we insist on not saying The Australian is right wing, we have such an unusual and globally unique situation that we really need to explain why this is the case. HiLo48 (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There was NO CONSENSUS to put the political alignment back in this article. The community have already voted on this to remove all political alignments from the infobox in our australian newspaper articles. Onetwothreeip added it again after it was removed 4 months ago! Merphee (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And where are the sources for such a ludicrous assumption that our largest newspaper is right-wing? How utterly ridiculous. This is pure POV pushing to even suggest such a political alignment. Onetwothreeip saying "but really it's just obvious to anybody familiar with Australian politics" is NOT correct. Just because YOU think it is means absolutely nothing! That is original research and POV pushing. This matter was put to bed 4 months ago! Merphee (talk) 10:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ROTFLMAO. HiLo48 (talk) 10:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you thought that was funny you should read your own hilariously POV laden comments above. I almost pissed myslelf laughing HiLo48 after reading how you try desperately to paint The Australian as right-wing while sources describe it as centrist. Hahaha. However as you know there was very extensive discussion on other noticeboards where consensus determined no political alignment was to be included in the infoboxes of our Australian newspaper articles. Merphee (talk) 10:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This, of course, isn't true. Merphee persistently "summarises" discussions as whatever they think the outcome ought to have been. Conversely, on _this talk page_, about _this article_, the preponderance of editors have always been in favour - even if the one against writes fourteen times as many comments. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I have reverted to the statue quo version. How about we start a RfC and end this dispute? I still think it is UNDUE to write right wing in the infobox.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please stop your personal attacks Pinkbeast and carrying on here with your vendetta and false allegations against me. Please focus on content issues only rather than make up lies. Merphee (talk) 03:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I have started a RfC. Hopefully this will solve the dispute. The current version of the article is the long standing version let it as it is until we see the out come from the RfC.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey Everyone! We have a new pair of editors arguing over this. I haven't read carefully enough to see if they align with the participants in previous arguments. --Scott Davis Talk 06:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC to determine if The Australian should include a political alignment in infobox
The question should obviously be whether the long standing status quo of having no political alignment in the infbox of The Australian remains in place as it has for 4 months and as extensive discussions on other noticeboards have developed consensus for. ALL of our articles on Australian newspapers do not include this ridiculous highly contentious single label in the infobox. I will open a wide ranging RFC on the question at another noticeboard sometime soon with as many independent editors as possible. Not a small group of like-minded editorts banding together here to overturn a consensus already established months ago NOT TO INCLUDE the political alignment at all. Consistent with all of our articles on Australian and USA newspapers. We need consistency across articles. Merphee (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * But not with UK newspapers. Hughesdarren (talk) 03:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Merphee no, the question is relevent to this article. Just because other articles do it differently is not a valid argument, maybe those articles are in error?  Consistency is a worthy goal but it is not obligatory and where it is appropriate to deviate from the consistent state, as in this case, we should do so without compunction. - Nick Thorne talk  03:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I know Hughesdarren. It is only on ALL of our articles on major Australian and USA newspapers. UK newspapers probably should also conform to this approach to save these perpetual cycles of editor conflict as is occurring once again here. Merphee (talk) 03:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Nick Thorne we can obviously have two RFCs running concurrently over at least the next month or so. This will allow for a wide ranging set of independent editors to make comment on the issue of whether not only our articles on major USA and Australian newspapers should not include the political alignment as is the case already (and the very real status quo) but whether the articles on the few UK newspapers should also. I will get the much larger RFC organised over the next few days. Stay tuned. Merphee (talk) 03:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Merphee, be careful what you wish for. You seem to assume that your RFC will go the way you expect, but that is by no means certain. - Nick Thorne talk  04:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no personal preference Nick Thorne. I only wish to resolve this perpetual cycle of editor conflict over this single issue. As you and the few like-minded editors above very well know there has already been very extensive discussions over this exact issue at other Noticeboards. Consensus in these discussions were to remove the label from the infobox from all our articles. This seems the most consistent, logical and NPOV solution. It would save editor's time, Wiki talk page space and improve overall consistency. Other editors have also provided a very long list of reasons why none of our articles on major newspapers should include a political alignment. Merphee (talk) 04:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "I have absolutely no personal preference..." An utterly ridiculous comment given the opening paragraph of this section (and much else we have all seen). Merphee, please try to maintain a semblance of rationality in your writings here. HiLo48 (talk) 04:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * An RfC that begins with the attacks, insults, POV and abuse contained in the opening paragraph here does not seem to me a sensible way to resolve anything. HiLo48 (talk) 04:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * HiLo48 enough of your bad faith accusations and personal attacks. The new RFC I am going to start will resolve this issue and perpetual editor conflict once and for all. Your own subjective point of view over The Australian and your personal hatred toward the paper is abundantly clear. Lol. Merphee (talk) 04:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I shall just remind you Merphee (and any other interested readers) that this all began when I dared to suggest many months ago that your use of The Australian as a reliable source on some Australian political matters was less than ideal because it leans somewhat blatantly to the right. You didn't even realise that most people believed that to be the case. You have been trying to prove us all wrong ever since. Don't worry. I won't be taking a big part in any ongoing attempt of yours to continue that campaign, but I will defend myself when required, and will point out further stupidity in your comments as appropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 05:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please don't give Merphee more opportunities to argue. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I can't resist when he talks male cow manure about me. Maybe one day we will have given him enough rope for the logical consequence of his behaviour to occur here. HiLo48 (talk) 05:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please do try to resist, and if you can't, then at least only respond when you do have something thoughtful to say. I have no issue with you finding their comments to be ridiculous or comical, but responding in that way only gives them another opportunity to write two much lengthier comments of no better quality. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep your comments content focused if that's possible. You were the one who forced your preferred POV version back into the article after 4 months it being out of the infobox entirely and after we all spent a month of our lives we'll never get back discussing it. Don't you remember. Talk about wasting other editor's f.....g time! Your comments here as comical as they come. Merphee (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * HiLo48. LOL. What a ridiculously subjective hatred you have for The Australian, our largest most centrist newspaper. Your POV is blatantly obvious. Merphee (talk) 05:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Largest? Well, maybe if you measure the size of the sheets of paper they use. "Centrist" is just ridiculous, and confirms my point above. HiLo48 (talk) 05:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * HiLo48 Your skewed logic was why your arguments against including a relgion in our Australia article infobox gained zero support. Lol. The religion remains in the infobox based on strong well reasoned consensus. Lol. Merphee (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please stay on topic. HiLo48 (talk) 05:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest you stay on topic dude and keep the discussion on content issues only rather than your usual personal attacks on any editors who disagree with your personal point of views. Merphee (talk) 08:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * LOL again. I'm sorry, but your responses here really are ridiculous. At 5.29 you went way off topic. Immediately afterwards, I suggested you stay on topic. Then you immediately tell me to stay on topic! That simply makes no sense. But I'm not surprised. Bye. Bye. HiLo48 (talk) 08:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Just more childish gibberish from you HiLo48. Which is what very nearly got you BANNED twice from the project. Not blocked but banned. Please keep your comments content focused and stop the personal attacks. Merphee (talk) 13:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

You're out of control, please stop throwing aggressive comments around toward any editor who disagrees with you. Please cool down, i mean it, this is not the way we solve disputes on Wikipedia. Thanks. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  13:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC Centre-right to right wing
Should we write in the infobox that the political position of the Australian is Centre-right to right wing? See above discussion for more context.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes Per the above thread. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  21:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes per WP:BLUESKY - Nick Thorne talk 23:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's relevant and there's no reason not to. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, as per Nick Thorne's comment, never should have been removed. Hughesdarren (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, KEEP it removed entirely from the infobox of this single Australian newspaper as it has been in all of our articles on major USA and Australian newspapers for aeons now including the status quo in The Australian newspaper. Merphee (talk) 04:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What may or may not be appropriate in other articles, says nothing about what is appropriate here. Or perhaps we should re-visit the other articles. - Nick Thorne talk  04:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please dpon't go responding here to every comment that disagrees with your point of view Nick Thorne. Merphee (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Pot calling the kettle black. - Nick Thorne talk 05:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes - per above discussion. Might also add that just because other articles have x or y, doesn't mean this article must follow suit. —Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 04:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No. The infobox should not contain a political position. At least one of the arguments above notes that the position has moved over time. That means that someone following the link from a historic reference could get the wrong idea. It also means that if the position continues to move, we will have future discussions about whether it is time yet to change the description from whatever we decide it is this week to whatever it might be in the future. The prose can say "it was centrist at inception then left-wing from Date A to Date B and gradually drifted through the political centre to reach centre-right on Date C and move further right from Date D". (for example). --Scott Davis Talk 06:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The political orientation of the newspaper has been stable for at least two decades now. The infobox should rightly reflect the present characteristics of the newspaper, like we do with the address of its offices which has also changed in the past. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The big advantage Wikipedia has over print encyclopaedias is that we can change our content rapidly to reflect changes as they occur. But as Onetwothreeip says, there hasn't been a change in a very long time, so this issue is really (yet another) red herring. HiLo48 (talk) 06:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. There have been very extensive discussions over this inclusion of political alignment as you know. The consensus on other Noticeboards was to NOT include the political alignment in our articles on all of our Australian newspapers. This is consistent with all of our articles on major USA newspapers. This is edit warring Onetwothreeip, by continuing to push the political alignment back into our article while there is a current RFC. The status quo for over 4 months has been leaving it out of the infobox. Please don't try and edit war it back in while the RFC is ongoing and the new larger RFC is being developed. Thank you. Merphee (talk) 08:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The current RfC is indicating support for including the description. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * No per ScottDavis above. This should be dealt with properly in the text, and as Scott says the current position of the paper has not always been its position. Frickeg (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes per Nick Thorne.103.115.184.128 (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Centre-right Per the preponderance of sources. This RfC could have been structured better. Edit: to clarify my vote and per User:Adoring nanny, my first preference would be centre-right, but my second preference would be to remove the field rather than have centre-right to right-wing, which would potentially be misleading. Endymion.12 (talk) 09:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No per ScottDavis. In addition I think adding such thing to the infobox would give undue weight.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes Reliable sources identify the political persuasion of the newspaper as being so, and we don't have a policy against identifying the political persuasion of newspapers. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Should say centre-right. Per WP:LABEL, we would need overwhelming sourcing to say "right-wing", and we don't have it.Adoring nanny (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No The facts require context, sentences with attribution. There are, obviously, users who favour wrangling over who gets to put a label in the infobox that vies with the content for an empty declaration. There is an archive full of discord, insults, claims of censorship and what have you, because, as always, this is more about force of will than anything policy based. I could, to make a point, add fascist and google up some references that use the term when referring to the paper. ~ cygnis insignis 03:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Do a preponderance of reliable sources refer to The Australian as a "fascist" newspaper? Endymion.12 (talk) 12:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "an overwhelming number of sources" that I might google "state the paper is absolutely fascist, a populist 'manufacturer of consent', run at a loss by Mudrock to influence public opinion on a whim, playing centrist racist misogynistic 'thinkers' to vote accordingly" Did you have a reference that sáys otherwise, NO?, I didn't think so. ~ cygnis insignis 12:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if someone did write a comment like that, the preponderance of reliable sources still indicate that The Australian is somewhere between the centre and mainstream centre-right in Australia, which is something that can be adequately summarised in an infobox field. Endymion.12 (talk) 12:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Relative to what, cousin, other post-colonial ethnostates? Define "right-wing", the current definition has shifted to woefully and obnoxiously wrong, know-nothingism, trying to end the world when their time is up. That is hardly a political position, little to do with conservative / tory values. 12:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment It would be very inappropriate to label the newspaper only as "centre-right", since that expresses the newspaper as more moderate than it is generally regarded. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No: I've reviewed the sources in the section above and I can't say that such a change is supposed by RSes. Cosmic Sans (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes It seems obvious to me. I note that Nick Thorne has posted five times here, Merphee 33 times. Activist (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)