Talk:The Guardian/Archive 5

RfC on "Political alignment" infobox parameter
Should the "Political alignment" parameter display as (1) Centre-left, (2) Left-wing, or should we instead (3) remove the parameter entirely? 12:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Survey

 * Centre-left The chief supporter of (3) claims that it is impossible to "adequately condense the cited content to a widely accepted term". This is in response to repeated efforts by POV-pushers to modify the political alignment parameter to far-left/left-wing. Personally, I think removing well-sourced and obviously useful content in the name of preventing edit-warring by POV-pushers amounts to a capitulation. "Centre-left" is a more than adequate (and also abundantly sourced) summary of the political alignment of this newspaper.
 * Context: One user in particular has recently variously sought to characterise The Guardian as "far-left" and "left-wing". This user recently changed tack on the 15 June, now claiming to prefer to remove the parameter from the article entirely, a measure which they had previously opposed on the The Australian article (which they were attempting to characterise as "centrist" rather than "centre-right"). They were blocked for edit-warring in the context of that dispute. Endymion.12 (talk) 12:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes cygnis insignis 12:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * A comment I made was undone with the the summary revert trolling, my "friend" is described as "hysterical" by the prosecutor above and begins warning them after being informed not to post on their page. What were we talking about again? cygnis insignis 17:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC) My "trolling" was restored, ty that user. This RFC needs some outside moderation. cygnis insignis 07:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes Just leave it removed completely and for all the valid reasons already presented. This will also stop ridiculous edit wars involving the likes of Endymion.12. Lol. Merphee (talk) 13:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, 3: remove the parameter entirely for all the good reasons presented above. -- Begoon 13:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 1, Centre-left. Because Wikipedia should be informative and factual. Just reading the paper is sufficient to come to the same judgement as the wealth of reliable sources describing it as centre-left. Anyone suggesting The Guardian is anything other than centre-left either doesn't know what they are talking about or has an ulterior agenda, and removing the parameter would be capitulation to the unpleasant tactics employed by the latter as evidenced in the thread above. Captainllama (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 1, Centre-left. Zin92 (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 *  Left of centre Centre-left to left-wing. We must not substitute our personal judgment for what the reliable sources say. The cited sources call The Guardian "left-wing" and "left-leaning" . Neither says "centre-left," so that fails verification. "Left of center" encompasses both "left-wing" and "left-leaning." If there are other reliable sources that should be included, those sources should be presented here and taken into account. R2 (bleep) 16:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Centre-left per sources presented above. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Centre-left (and if you have the energy, go back and deal with Merphee's equally interminable IDHT war on The Australian) Pinkbeast (talk) 06:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello Pinkbeast. That is not a rationale and this is not RFC on other users, however, the substance of your position there was also personal attacks on anyone who did not see it your way. cygnis insignis 07:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a rationale; it's a suggestion for editors who have the energy to deal with Merphee's incessant mendacious hypocrisy. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Then put that incessantly mendacious and hypocritical accusation in an appropriate place, and replace it with something substantive. cygnis insignis 14:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 *  Centre-left to left-wing. if we don't delete it from the infobox. Centre-left politics is not Left-wing politics. All of the reliable sources from the last few years say the Guardian is a left-wing newspaper. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/15/business/media/guardian-tabloid-uk.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merphee (talk • contribs) 07:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You can't !vote twice User:Merphee, so you will need to amend your original vote. Also, please remember to sign your comments. Endymion.12 (talk) 11:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: has indeed voted twice and should clarify their position. R2 (bleep) 18:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Despite the pings and elapsed time the double vote remains. will you finally kindly remove one of your two votes? Captainllama (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * 3, remove I love infoboxes, but this is not the kind of information that's suited to condensing into a little key-value pair. A reader seeing "Political alignment: left-wing" in the infobox might interpret that in a variety of ways, including whether it relates to bias in their news coverage, their editorial page or their readership. That's why we should precisely elucidate what we're trying to say in prose. And good news, that's already being done in the intro and the Political stance and editorial opinion section, and it really benefits from the expressiveness of free text. Colin M (talk) 04:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * remove (invited by the bot) In situations like this, this is not info, it is an opinion selected from among differing opinions. It's also wp:synthesis North8000 (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Left-wing, that is what the sources say in the article. And centre-left is a subset of left-wing. Hecato (talk) 07:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Left-wing per the more recent RS (including the New York Times) listed in the article. Mcrt007 (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Here are five, more recent sources from this year which say otherwise, (page 11), (page 101) (page 167) (page 11) (page 73). I can quote the passages for you if you don't have access. Endymion.12 (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Most of those links seem to be behind paywalls, so I can't access them. They also seem to be some sort of original research. I'm willing to go for the "Center-Left" classification as well if relatively recent RS back it up; will look more into this. Mcrt007 (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please don't jump in every time someone votes based on what the 2017, 2018, 2019 reliable sources actually tell us and is different to the outcome you want here. You have provided us with only a couple of 15 year old sources it looks like to me. Chief editors of newspapers do change the political alignment of any newspaper. And chief editors change. You also said that we could use sources from 1980 and that would be perfectly acceptable Endymion.12. But I disagree. Sources from 40 years ago are too old. Sources from 15 years ago are too old. Have you got any recent high quality reliable sources at all that are not behind a pay wall that clearly state The Guardian is aligned with centre-left politics. This different to left-wing politics. All of the independent reliable sources seem to clearly state The Guardian is aligned with left-wing politics. Merphee (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry folks, but I truly laughed out loud when I saw Merphee write "Please don't jump in every time...." HiLo48 (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No-one cares about your ridiculous and child-like comments HiLo48. This is why you were very nearly BANNED (not just blocked once again) but actually BANNED from Wikipedia altogether like so many editors believe you should be. Merphee (talk) 23:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I will leave it to others to assess who might be top scorer on jumping in here. HiLo48 (talk) 02:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Option 3--Remove A quick Google search shows that the Guardian has been described by different sources in different ways. Some define it as "left-wing" and others as "centre-left". Keeping both terms in the infobox might make little sense because of the nature of the two ideologies/political positions so not keeping any of them seems to be better. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 3, 1, 2 in that order. The sources aren't that strong and don't point towards clear agreement on its politics, so omitting it entirely might be best; but if I had to summarize they seem to tend towards labeling it as center-left.  --Aquillion (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Center-left, failing that left-wing per RS. Galestar (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove, or Center left. Mainly as per Aquillion. The article itself doesn't make a clear case that alignment of the paper is either center left or left, and I don't see why the infobox should attempt simplify such a nuanced and unclear topic just for the sake of having a parameter. If we keep it, as there's evidence for both, we should also consider how other comparable UK papers on (i.e. The Times and The Telegraph) are characterised by Wikipedia (center-right) when sourcing for both exists, so at least let's be consistent. Scribolt (talk) 11:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Left - I see no reason to avoid describing it accurately, especially when it is verifiably so. Also see the chart showing which party they support. Atsme Talk 📧 10:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A chart showing that they endorsed a center / center left political party in 2010 is evidence that they are their alignment is Left? See also their endorsements in 2015 & 2017 Scribolt (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove - Reliable sources seem to be split between the two. Additionally, such a distinction will depend on one's definition of the centre, which can vary with time and country, therefore it is too nuanced to be summarized into one line of an infobox. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove or 3. A classic case of trying to get an infobox to do too much. Plus these terms mean different things in different places, and to different people. The paper might be considered "left-wing" in American terms, but is mostly regarded as "Centre-left" in the UK. American supposed RS's should be treated with caution in this context. Johnbod (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Left for the most part. Their endorsements for the 2015 and the 2017 elections have been massively pro Left wing, with a few exceptions. Recent reliable sources listed in the extended discussion describe them as Left wing, and most of the opinion articles they publish promote Left wing views. Center left as second option per older sources listed in the extended discussion. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 06:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The "older sources" claim is false. There are no less than 15 sources in the main article from the last five years which support the "centre-left" claim, five of which were published in the last year. Please adjust your comment. The fact that one particular user has repeated this claim about the recency of sources ad nauseam does not make it true. Endymion.12 (talk) 10:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with ColumbiaXY's and other editors who have made that point which you just refuse to accept Endymion.12. Your sources are OLD. Regardless of this fact I think it is abundantly clear that this RFC is over and out. The clear consensus is to remove this ridiculous subjective political alignment from the infobox. 10 independent editors have voted for this resolution. The RFC has been running for a month now which is long enough. All we have here is you Endymion.12 diving in and taking up further space on the talk each and every time a new editor comes in and clearly disagrees with you with solid logic. It's over. Move on now dude. This resolution is overwhelmingly made. It will (as I said over a month ago now) also avoid you endlessly arguing the same old point about your old sources too Endymion.12. It's time you Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Merphee (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyone can verify that all 15 of the sources currently cited were published after 2015 simply my opening the links. Repeatedly making verifiably false statements is the kind of behaviour that will get you blocked for WP:TEND. The RfC will be closed by an uninvolved editor at a later date. It is this editor who will determine the consensus here, not you. Endymion.12 (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yawn. Read this Requests for comment "There is no required minimum or maximum duration; however, Legobot assumes an RfC has been forgotten and automatically ends it (removes the rfc template) 30 days after it begins, to avoid a buildup of stale discussions cluttering the lists and wasting commenters' time. But editors should not wait for that: if one of the reasons listed above applies, someone should end it manually, as soon as it is clear the discussion has run its course" It has run its course! It's over. Any editor can close it. It's over. You lost the argument. Just drop the stick now dude and I suggest using some sources next time that are not from nearly 40 years ago. 1980 sources are NOT credible. However that's beside the point. An overwhelming majority of editors have voted to remove the damn political alignment. Count them Endymion.12 and then move on. Your behaviour is clearly WP:TEND Merphee (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Here the 15 sources which Merphee refuses to acknowledge exist (cited).


 * https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/22041451.2019.1561394
 * https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-00822-2_7
 * https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-04981-2_12
 * https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-93314-6_1
 * https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=jz2SDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA67&dq=guardian+centre+left&ots=TcrKGXRyol&sig=fC9cI8CibLW--V5JK2hoCuzkOpk#v=onepage&q=guardian%20centre%20left&f=false The last five are more recent than any he has presented. The closing procedure is clear that where the outcome is potentially contentious an "uninvolved editor" must close the discussion. We currently have 9 users who want to remove the field, 10 who do not. Of those 10, 6 prefer "centre-left", and of the 9 who have a preference for removing the field, 2 have explained that if it remains, they would prefer "centre-left" to any other description. I will open a thread at WP:ANRFC. Endymion.12 (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This account was created 20 days ago, and exclusively participates on RfCs. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/22041451.2019.1561394
 * https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-00822-2_7
 * https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-04981-2_12
 * https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-93314-6_1
 * https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=jz2SDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA67&dq=guardian+centre+left&ots=TcrKGXRyol&sig=fC9cI8CibLW--V5JK2hoCuzkOpk#v=onepage&q=guardian%20centre%20left&f=false The last five are more recent than any he has presented. The closing procedure is clear that where the outcome is potentially contentious an "uninvolved editor" must close the discussion. We currently have 9 users who want to remove the field, 10 who do not. Of those 10, 6 prefer "centre-left", and of the 9 who have a preference for removing the field, 2 have explained that if it remains, they would prefer "centre-left" to any other description. I will open a thread at WP:ANRFC. Endymion.12 (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This account was created 20 days ago, and exclusively participates on RfCs. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-04981-2_12
 * https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-93314-6_1
 * https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=jz2SDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA67&dq=guardian+centre+left&ots=TcrKGXRyol&sig=fC9cI8CibLW--V5JK2hoCuzkOpk#v=onepage&q=guardian%20centre%20left&f=false The last five are more recent than any he has presented. The closing procedure is clear that where the outcome is potentially contentious an "uninvolved editor" must close the discussion. We currently have 9 users who want to remove the field, 10 who do not. Of those 10, 6 prefer "centre-left", and of the 9 who have a preference for removing the field, 2 have explained that if it remains, they would prefer "centre-left" to any other description. I will open a thread at WP:ANRFC. Endymion.12 (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This account was created 20 days ago, and exclusively participates on RfCs. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Closing the RFC
This was the question posed by editor Endymion.12 in this RFC and editors voted on.

Should the "Political alignment" parameter display as:

(1) Centre-left 6 votes (2) Left-wing 5 votes (3) remove the parameter entirely 9 votes.

Please don't go confusing the 3 original RFC options that you posed Endymion.12, that's disruptive. Seems pretty clear that option 3 with 9 votes has it. How is that contentious? I trust the person who closes this can see through your attempt to muddy the water. Merphee (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The claim that 5 people voted for the "left-wing" option is a complete fabrication, as anyone can verify simply counting the votes themselves. Also, please stop creating new threads, it's becoming ridiculous. Endymion.12 (talk) 22:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Clearly there are 3 options.
 * (1) Centre-left 6 votes
 * (2) Left-wing 5 votes
 * (3) remove the parameter entirely 9 votes.


 * What part of 9 votes and therefore an overwhelming majority do you not understand Endymion.12. It is NOT contentious in any way! That is Therefore policy states that any editor can close this when the outcome is clear. Your behaviour of deleting and altering other editor's comments is becoming very disruptive. Merphee (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Accept the verdict. 9 VOTES is an overwhelming majority out of the 3 options. Stop undoing the close and the resolution/consensus that has been clearly established. Move on. Drop the stick. It's over. Merphee (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * On those figures, there are 20 votes. 9/20 is not a majority at all, let alone "an overwhelming majority", which is the most annoyingly misused term in modern politics. But it is the option with the most support.  Johnbod (talk) 02:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The logic I used here is the comparative number of votes between each of the three options. That is remove from infobox (9 votes) compared with centre-left (6 votes) and then again remove from infobox (9 votes) compared with left-wing (5 votes). Regardless of whether it's "overwhelming" or not it clearly is, as you said Johnbod, the option with the most support. Given the RFC has now been running for over 30 days I seriously think we need to put it to bed and remove the damn descriptor from the infobox once and for all. Merphee (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Two users selected "left-wing", as anyone can verify by simply checking for themselves, as I said. I have no idea how you arrived at the number five, presumably by also counting people who voted "Centre-left to left-wing", "Left", and maybe the time you voted twice. This is why only an uninvolved editor will close this RfC, and not you. Endymion.12 (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please stop arguing about this. At some point, an uninvolved editor will come to close the RFC. At that time, they will assess the consensus. The more arguing you two do here, the more they will have to read and the harder it will be. StudiesWorld (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Trust me, I have better things to be doing. I'm only here again, having intentionally walked away several times for this precise reason, because Merphee repeatedly attempted to close the RfC himself. I'm not going to accept being tarred with the same brush as this person either—that's neither fair nor helpful. Have a nice day. Endymion.12 (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Haha. I almost fell off my chair in laughter when I read your comment Endymion.12 that you have better things to do. You have been watching this talk page every second of every day it seems. In fact every time an independent editor has voted against your preferred version and that's the vast majority you have jumped in and attacked them! Now. And for the record Endymion.12, 4 independent votes were made for left-wing, not 2 like you falsely tried to imply. These were editors Hecato, Mcrt007, Atsme and ColumbiaXY. I originally included myself in the 5 votes who would have voted for left-wing but changed my vote to remove entirely or option 3. And after I counted again 10 independent editors voted to remove the  stupid subjective political alignment from the infobox like all our articles on USA and Australian newspapers already have done. That is a full 10 independent editors who have have voted to remove it entirely. That is obviously the vast majority of voters over the past 30 plus days.  So it is 4 who voted for left wing. And 6 who voted centre-left and 10 who voted to remove entirely. Merphee (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I was for "remove", certainly not "left-wing"! Johnbod (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry Johnbod you are totally correct it was actually editors Hecato, Mcrt007, Atsme and ColumbiaXY who voted for left-wing. You were as you correctly stated one of the 10 strong majority who voted for Remove it entirely. Interestingly a couple of other editors voted centre-left to left-wing. This correction doesn't alter the 4 votes for left-wing. This is a clear majority of independent editors voting to remove this ridiculously controversial label from the infobox which has directly caused so much conflict on this talk page. Merphee (talk) 02:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion
These sources do say "centre-left", but have been repeatedly removed. I give page numbers in my comment on 13:52, 15 June 2019. Endymion.12 (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * fixing pings doesn't always work, Endymion had a reply. cygnis insignis 16:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please provide links to the disputed sources so participants can evaluate them. And if the source text isn't available through the links, then please provide the relevant snippet of source text as well. R2 (bleep) 16:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure. The Guardian is described as centre-left in the Redden article on p.825: "The broadsheet sources analysed for the UK include: ... The Guardian (centre-left) (Jones et al. 2007; McNair 2009)"; in the Robison article on p.383: "The newspapers analysed included most of the British daily and Sunday broadsheets: ... the Guardian (centre-left)"; in the Pimlott article on p.194: "The Guardian, The Observer, and The Independent, all papers whose editorial lines were centrist or centre-left"; and in the Madood chapter on p.48: "The late Hugo Young, the leading liberal columnist of the centre–left newspaper the Guardian". Endymion.12 (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those sources. I've changed by vote to "centre-left to left-wing" to describe the full range of sources. Neutrality requires us to describe disputes without picking sides. R2 (bleep) 17:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Problem is that there are major sources (that are also very recent) that describe The Guardian as Left Wing. Therefore how do we describe The Guardian aligned only with Centre-left politics which is very different to Left-wing politics. Therefore the only half accurate, albeit ridiculous and highly subjective data point and label we could possibly consider using in the infobox would be "centre-left to left-wing". I'm okay with that, but do not see why we don't maintain consistency with all of our articles on USA newspapers which do not include this stupid political alignment in their infoboxes. Using "centre-left" is POV pushing and is definitely giving undue weight to the few sources which state that while completely ignoring the major sources which state left-wing. Merphee (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And yet...there are multiple sources, amply and helpfully linked here by Endymion.12, that describe The Guardian as centre-left. In fact, based on the sources provided, there actually seem to be more sources that say centre-left than left-wing. We must describe the diversity of reliable view points, not take sides as you're suggesting. Are you familiar with our neutrality policy? R2 (bleep) 18:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Policy, by in large, does not refer to labels, it outlines how neutral content can be presented as sentences and paragraphs, not compressed to a reductive and almost meaningless classification that announces what a user wants it to say (according to their infallible pov, and the sources they select to seemingly support that). cygnis insignis 19:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of your view on whether this is useful content, you are incorrect to claim that this falls under WP:SYN. We have not "combine[d] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Endymion.12 (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * IMO common good editorial process such as summarization and making decisions for certain items in infoboxes violate a strict reading of wp:synth. I'm not a proponent of stopping those, nor of using that argument to delete something. With this being a good example, it invariably involves judging based on a combined view of many sources. Which is normally a good thing even if it violates a strict interpretation of wp:synth. But in this case, where the "information" is just other people's espoused political opinions about them, it's probably better to leave it out and cover it in the body of the article where there can be attribution in the text.  You can just consider my synth comment to be a sidebar, not a reason. Generally sources with the same political leaning as the subject will lean their descriptions towards centrist, and those with opposite political leanings will lean their descriptions towards the extreme. North8000 (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This section of the explanatory supplement actually rules out your "strict" interpretation of synthesis. As for the second point about the summary of "other people's espoused political opinions", we're actually basing this on nearly a dozen academic references cited on the page, and four more in the comments below, so this is hardly just a summary of a number of subjective opinions, but ultimately it's your call. On an unrelated note, would you object to me moving this exchange to the section below? Endymion.12 (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem to move it. North8000 (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Subjective, single data point labelling in infobox - is this 2019 or?
Can someone answer this question. When we are putting a single, unitary, subjective label of The Guardian's supposed political alignment are we saying its political alignment today in 2019 or its political alignment from 15 years ago or more as some of these sources are from? Given the political alignment varies over time and relates strongly to who is chief editor at the time, what period of time are we using here for our little label? Merphee (talk) 02:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't suppose you would be pushing your pov by attempting to muddy the waters at all? It's obvious the (deeply relevant) date in question is Stardate 41153.7, same as all the other dates of reference for newspapers on Wikipedia. Maybe you could pipe down with the diversionary exercises while editors consider whether to answer "yes" or "no" to the question of which of three options they consider appropriate, above. Captainllama (talk) 04:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't suppose you are trying to push your own obvious POV Captainllama, by making bad faith accusations and not assuming good faith as we all need to do. My question here about using recent reliable sources rather than sources from 10-20 years ago is obviously and totally relevant. Otherwise this ridiculous circular discussion is going to go on and on and on and around and around. That is why ALL of our articles on USA newspapers and Australian newspapers have decided to delete this bullshit unitary, subjective political alignment label from the infobox. It's just too subjective to be putting a single label on a newspaper given editors and owners and journalists change. That is the only neutral thing to do, delete it entirely, and it avoids this unnecessary conflict between editors wasting everyone's time. Context is important dude. What, if any political alignment a newspaper has 20 or even 10 years ago sure is not what it necessarily is today. Have you got any reliable sources at all from the last 5 years which clearly state The Guardian is a centre-left newspaper? Anyone? At all? That's what we need to go by. What the reliable sources say. All of the reliable sources from the last few are clearly saying in black and white terms "The Guardian is a left-wing newspaper" editors in chief matter. Can't you understand that Captainllama. Merphee (talk) 04:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And you do realise don't you Captainllama that the only sources provided which talk of centre-left are from 2005 (14 years ago), 2006 (13 years ago) and 2010 (almost a decade ago). No-one has produced a single reliable source from even the last 5 years clearly stating that The Guardian is a "centre-left" newspaper. However I have produced several high quality independent reliable sources from between 2018 and 2019 all clearly stating "The Guardian is a left-wing newspaper" The RFC started above is completely biased as the editor who opened it only included their own sources without including all of the 2018 and 2019 high quality independent reliable sources. As I said if the label must be kept then including what major and recent reliable sources tell us must be included. And centre-left to left-wing is the only option that is not completely and utterly biased. Merphee (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * this is not the place to make an accusation of bias, it is crude and disruptive to do so. cygnis insignis 06:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed cygnis insignis, quite agree. I wonder why you are telling me this? It would clearly be better aimed at the only editor to have used such language, your verbose accomplice Merphee. Captainllama (talk) 15:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "accomplice" You don't have a rationale, you are just throwing mud at your nominated adversaries, eg. "removing the parameter would be capitulation to the unpleasant tactics employed by the latter as evidenced in the thread above." This is beyond simple belligerence, and clearly you don't see that in your win or lose mode: attacks on other users, myself included. cygnis insignis 16:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Unless you are suggesting that the editorial position of The Guardian has changed recently, sources from 2010, 2005, or indeed 1980, are perfectly acceptable. If you have references which suggest that The Guardian has become more "left-wing" since 2010, let us see them. Endymion.12 (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I realise that you are both united as a tag team on trying to label The Guardian as "centrist" but so very many sources tell us that The Guardianista https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/guardianista is in fact "left-wing" not centrist in its political orientation. Not my opinion. It is what the majority of the sources tell us and we need to be guided by that and that alone, not what you would like us to label The Guardian as. And using a 1980 source as you suggest here Endymion.12 is plainly ridiculous as far as Wikipedia policy goes. We cannot be using sources from 1980 Endymion.12 and it is not "perfectly acceptable" as you state. Furthermore if we are going to use any label we simply must represent what all the sources tell us and give proper weight to each as policy tells us to do. Yes, some very old sources talk of centre left. However many others and up until the current year 2019, clearly state The Guardian is a left-wing newspaper. This conflict is getting exhausting and there seems no end in sight. I think the only solution here would be to take this label out of the infobox as Cygnis insignis has suggested and then discuss any supposed political alignment within the body of the article. What are you both so hell bent on trying to label The Guardian as centrist? Have you got any reliable sources from even the past 5 years that clearly state The Guardian is Centre-Left? Any at all? And could you both comment on the proposal to end this dispute by simply removing the label from the infobox. It seems quite a logical solution to helping us resolve this dispute. Why do we need this label when all our articles on major USA newspapers do not include it? Merphee (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Merphee. Just so I understand where you are coming from, why is it relevant that articles on major USA newspapers don't include the label please? The Guardian is a UK newspaper and the articles on several major UK newspapers that I checked do have the label. Thanks. Zin92 (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah I realise it's a UK paper. The reasons to avoid a single label in the infobox though are many and probably why all our articles on USA newspapers have deleted it. Consistency across similar articles is just one of many reasons why taking it out of the infobox seems the logical choice here. Merphee (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Funny. At The Australian you were incredibly keen to use a 2007 source talking about the situation in 1995, because what it said happened to suit you. This insistence that sources be very current is a bit of a Damascene conversion, isn't it? Pinkbeast (talk) 14:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * what is not funny is you taking up space on this talk page to attack any editor who disagrees with your point of view and deflect from the content dispute at hand. This is a very tired old tactic you use here at Wikipedia. Have you any actual point to make or are you here just to attack and disrupt this discussion? Merphee (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

RFC did not include all of the sources stating The Guardian is left-wing
I am concerned that this rfc did not include all of the reliable sources which state The Guardian is a Left-wing newspaper. With respect to the editor who started this rfc they only included the few old sources from 10 to 15 years ago that stated it was centre-left without providing all of the alternative and very recent sources stating it is left-wing. I therefore would like to open this up to a new rfc which includes all sources rather than those which support the editor's own vote so we may provide a NPOV. Also we need to provide another option of centre-left to left-wing which appears the most representative label given that many sources say the paper is both left-wing and a few state it is centre-left. We obviously do not want to provide undue weight only to the few old sources that say the paper is centre left while completely ignoring all of the sources clearly stating it is left-wing. Reliable sources and undue weight We need to strictly adhere to our policies. Reliable sources Merphee (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We're obviously not going to list "all sources". We need reliable sources, sources that are independent themselves where possible. Which additional sources do you propose be looked at? HiLo48 (talk) 05:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Here are a couple of sources just for starters. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/15/business/media/guardian-tabloid-uk.html https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2017/03/07/how-left-or-right-wing-are-uks-newspapers Merphee (talk) 09:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/guardianista Merphee (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The RfC question/voting section does not include any references. I uploaded some references in the discussion section while talking with someone. If you also want to upload references, please do so. You also don't need to create a new sub-section with a sentence-length title every time you want to repeat some point you've already made. Endymion.12 (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Nah...The point I am making here has NOT been addressed at all and this little rfc is far from clear. We obviously need outside independent dispute resolution on this as There are a huge number of reliable sources which clearly state The Guardian is left-wing. I mean for gods sake the Collins frigging dictionary even refers to the Guardian as Left-wing. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/guardianista That said, I don't deny some sources (not the most recent ones you've included though) also state it is centre-left. I want a resolution and the RFC has ended in a stalemate, with no resolution at all. I will go ahead and add "centre-left - left-wing" as a compromise. Seems the best resolution. I'm sure if we need external independent dispute resolution here this outcome will be achieved anyway as it is based wholly on policy. Or we could just delete this ridiculous label altogether, which would save this ongoing conflict and also reach resolution. Merphee (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As I explained in our first interaction here, "left-wing" in a British/European context is generally taken on Wikipedia to refer to publications with more radical left-wing tendencies, or affinities to historical socialism/Marxism, per the extensive discussion at Talk:List of left-wing publications in the United Kingdom. When the articles you are citing refer to The Guardian as a "left-wing" newspaper, this is in the sense that it is left-of-centre. They are not using "left-wing" to indicate that The Guardian is on the fringe-left, which is what you are attempting to do. I have provided nearly a dozen sources (with the relevant page numbers) which meet your new standard for recency which demonstrate that The Guardian is a moderate liberal/left-of-centre paper. There is no stalemate—this RfC isn't over, and won't be finished for at least another month. Endymion.12 (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We obviously need neutral, independent Dispute resolution on this. We have perfectly good and separate global definitions of what both left-wing politics and centre-left politics are. We don't use your concocted imagined definitions Endymion.12, that is original research and is not allowed. Wikipedia is also a global encyclopedia. We go by what sources tell us. That is it. Nothing else. And many of the reliable sources state The Guardian is a Left-wing newspaper and some sources also state it is a centre-left newspaper. Therefore we go by what policy tells us to do in this instance. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Neutral point of view). The version in the infobox right now is contravening policy and we need civil resolution to this dispute without focusing on other editors but only on the content issue at hand. Merphee (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There are no reliable sources stating that The Guardian is "hard-left" or aligned with far-left politics. However there are a lot of reliable sources that clearly state it is aligned with left-wing politics and a few that state it is aligned more with centre-left politics as I've consistently stated. Please don't continue trying to frame or attack me simply for trying to apply policy and build a quality article and trying to help us resolve our differences and reach a resolution to this dispute. Merphee (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Merphee, I have made one short post here, politely asking you a question. I have not attacked you, and clearly haven't attempted to frame you, whatever that means. You saw my name and were triggered. Grow up. HiLo48 (talk) 08:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

HiLo48 please focus on content only. Any inclusion of a single, subjective label of the newspaper's supposed political alignment in one point in time would be considered wp:synthesis as other editors have correctly pointed out. Discussion of political alignment should be within the body of the article and discussion should be guided by our policies. When there are many very recent reliable sources which clearly state it is aligned with left-wing politics and then alternatively,a few reliable sources which state it is (r was) more aligned with centre-left politics, how can we include either left wing or centre-left? In fact choosing one single unitary subjective label over the other separate label would violate a number of Wikipedia policies. It would be giving undue weight to one label only. Removing the ridiculous label from the infobox appears the only solution and has already been done in all of our articles on USA and Australian newspapers and for very good reasons. Removing of the label would also stop such unnecessary conflict and would seem a good solution to this ridiculous and protracted dispute. Merphee (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you please try to be more concise with your comments (or is the strategy to wear us down with endless winding, repetitive streams of consciousness, often posted two at a time, in response to every single comment?). Endymion.12 (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I won't take your toxic bait Don't take the bait and abuse you like you abuse or belittle or harass every other editor here which disagrees with your point of view and skewed logic as so many editors do. I am looking for an end to this ridiculous dispute and compromise to reach a resolution. Have you any response regarding this content dispute and resolving it? You have conveniently chosen not to address the valid points I've raised above. Merphee (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

History WW1
Was the gaurdian the first western paper (paper in a country of western allies) to pulbish details from the Sykes–Picot Agreement? I believe that after the russian revolution socialist russians released the details but the gaurdian was the first paper perhaps outside of russia or otherwise in a western allies country to publish the details. It was a scandle at the time as the details of the agreement were in contrast to the public rationalle for war.

Thought this might be a note worthy aspect of the papers history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.74.29.19 (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Here is some coverage of this: https://medium.com/otdsyb/the-manchester-guardian-publishes-details-of-the-sykes-picot-agreement-fcd9a34df159 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.74.29.19 (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The Guardian vs the Guardian
I have corrected a few cases of the Guardian to The Guardian (but then there is this quotation made by The Guardian themselves). Am I in the right?--Adûnâi (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Ban fossil fuels-typo
I apologize for a my typo related to the edit oldid 947547751. Namely, it isn't shown by the archive.is copy which was updated after five years, BOth the edit and the archive.is copy has been saved at 23:52 of march 26, 2020. I don't realize if the two independent processes -the copy and the WP publication- can create a somesort of reciprocal dependency when they are executed simultaneously in the same machine. Probably, this isn't the right place to open the current discussion but the issue is related to the chrono of "The Guardian" WP web page.Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 11:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020
Add a notice into the first paragraph that clearly states this publication was founded by a individual who was a slave owner. 88.202.131.150 (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 22:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Guardian Article
- see this Guardian article. Atsme Talk 📧 14:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I lost track of that one - it's the one that says the Guardian has always hated slavery." Doug Weller  talk 14:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Guardian and support for the Confederacy
This has been removed from the article for "slander", aside from the fact that the written word doesn't constitute slander, it is corroborated by a research document and two contemporary articles from Guardian itself discussing its pro-Confederacy past. Not cited but provided here are further secondary sources that discuss Guardian's pro-confederacy past.


 * That was the wrong Twinkle template, it should have been WP:NPOV. Your second source clearly says ". The Guardian had always hated slavery. But it doubted the Union hated slavery to the same degree. It argued that the Union had always tacitly condoned slavery by shielding the southern slave states from the condemnation they deserved. It was critical of Lincoln's emancipation proclamation for stopping short of a full repudiation of slavery throughout the US. And it chastised the president for being so willing to negotiate with the south, with slavery one of the issues still on the table. The paper believed that the south had the right to secede and to establish an independent state. It suspected that it would succeed. It thought, as Gladstone did, that this might hasten the end of slavery – and it may have been right, since no slave society, including Cuba and Brazil, survived into the 20th century. Above all, though, the paper wanted to be consistent. It had supported independence for the Slavs, the Hungarians, the Italians and the Egyptians – so why not for the Confederates, too?" So yes, it favored secession and thought that would end slavery. Doug Weller  talk 17:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * See below. The MA thesis is not a reliable source, and I've quoted the link in the Spectator article. It was pro-confederacy as it thought that was the best way to get rid of slavery. Given the bit and wording about its founder, this is just an attempt to discredit the Guardian for its long ago past, without context. Doug Weller  talk 15:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

"It was pro-confederacy as it thought that was the best way to get rid of slavery." inferring motive is editorialising. Simply present the facts. Robincard (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * you don't appear to be reading my sources, and certainly not your sources, see above quote which makes it clear that it thought secession would end slavery. I'm not inferring motives, just quoting. Doug Weller  talk 17:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)