Talk:The Guardian/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

When did the website start?

On both New York Times and The Daily Telegraph, one can find out when they first started publishing online. Here you have to click throug th a subsidary page. Someone should probably change that. –Tom Morris (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Publishing editorials by Hamas-leader Khalid Misha'al?

Is this normal?

~~I'm not from Europe but this would be akin to the New York Times publishing a piece by Osama Bin Laden.~~

Has anyone notable commented on this revelation? Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

it absolutely would not be similar to the NY Times publishing a piece by Osama bin Laden. And this is not a discussion board. nableezy - 21:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay but has anyone commented on it? Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Guardian gagged from reporting Parliament

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=44460&c=1

Bias against Israel ?

I propose that this subsection be removed. Certainly Julie Burchill's comment should be removed as she one of those people for whom Israel can do wrong. As she admits on her own page here (Julie Burchill) she would "die for Israel" so any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic in her view. And, as any reasonable person will admit, there is plenty of legitimate criticism of the modern Israel state that is in no way anti-semitic. Other opinions please? SmokeyTheCat •TALK• 20:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not keen on this section either, but gave up trying to remove it after people kept putting it back in and adding even more critical quotes from people like Bruce Bawer, who like Burchill is hardly neutral on the subject of Israel. I decided the best compromise was to put in a paragraph stating the Guardian's defence of itself in response to the criticisms. Still, if you can get away with removing it then good luck to you. MFlet1 (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Smokey, while your proposition is interesting, you may consider it rejected. Your opinions about Burchill, while violating WP:BLP, are not otherwise compelling. Burchill's opinions, given she worked for the paper, are. IronDuke 03:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the usual procedure is to arrive at a consensus by discussing it rather than one person taking it upon themselves to say that a suggestion is rejected. MFlet1 (talk) 12:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and said consensus has already been reached. While that can change, there is nothing in the above post that should cause that process to even begin, let alone mature. IronDuke 23:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is determined by a sort of Brownian motion of editors happening by - so there's no inherent reason why consensus cannot change even when the facts have not - especially when the original consensus was arrived at by a handful of editors. The smaller the number of editors involved in the prior consensus, the more likely that consensus is vulnerable to being overturned if presented to a wider audience (or even to a different equivalent-sized random sample of the population of editors). Rd232 ^talk 15:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's an exercise to determine the bias of a newspaper on the Israeli Palestinian conflict: Can you find opinion pieces published by the paper that advocates Israel attacking Palestine? Can you find opinion pieces published buy the paper that advocates Palestine attacking Israel? The answer to the first is yes. The answer to the second is no 97.91.173.58 (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, for those fantasizing about a liberal bias on Wikipedia: The Daily Telegraph article doesn't even mention the word Israel! This despite the fact that the Private Eye article notes Britain's biggest-selling weekly sometimes calling it "The Telavivagraph (for its unwavering support for Israel, particularly the Likud party, and its connection with those with a vested interest in Israel's prosperity, particularly Conrad Black and Barbara Amiel)." Rd232 ^talk 15:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Bias against Poland?

At least they've not been given their own whole section or headlined as such, but there's also an undue issue with the last two items here, both of which were added recently. I'm personally not sure whether we need to list every Correction and Clarification or every Letter to the Editor from a country's ambassador about one passing detail in a comment piece or news article. People and national representatives always have some grievance or other about aspects of media reporting, and some even shout quite loudly about it. Whether those complaints need to be flagged up like this on WP pages is another matter. Anyway, I would revert but thought a second opinion might be useful. --Nickhh (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and I have removed them - there must be over a thousand entries in the Corrections and Clarifications column each year, and there are also numerous letters disputing points the paper has made, so each one is not de facto notable. Additionally, the term "forced" is misleading - entries in the C&C column are not by and large "forced" by anything other than the normal newspaper practice of correcting errors when brought to editors' attention. The material about the Daniel Craig film (whose name has slipped my mind for a moment) could probably be used in the Wikipedia article on the film. Barnabypage (talk) 07:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Absent a robust history of Pole-bashing on the part of the Guardian with sources affirming same, the addition was questionable. IronDuke 20:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The Weekend City Press Review

I'm concerned about the reference to The Weekend City Press Review (WCPR) recently added near the top of the article (and also to a number of other British national newspaper articles). I'm not convinced it belongs here at all: is WCPR's significance sufficient to add perceptibly to a major national newspaper's? Does mentioning it add at all to the reader's understanding of the topic at hand, The Guardian?

Additionally, I worry that if we set this precedent, we could find the article clogged up with endless lists of other publications, databases, syndication services, digest services etc. etc. that also include or summarise the paper's content.

At the very least, it should be in a much less prominent position - perhaps under Circulation and Format.

The editor who added the reference and I have had a brief private chat about this, but didn't really resolve anything. Hence, I'm raising it here. Barnabypage (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the latest round of spam related to a spammy article. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

came here via your talk page after viewing the edits on The Times. its not notable enough to included (esp. not in the lead section bit) and looking at the users edits, it seems like they are involved with WCPR. so i agree with you reverting it Perry mason (talk) 04:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

revert

edit summary for my revert has limited space, so I'll add that the sentence you want to add at the end is inappropriate anyway, regardless of sourcing: the previous sentence there about the Met Police not reopening their enquiry is factual and to the point. "not yet provided evidence" is redundant, speculative and not encyclopedic. Also, "scandal" is an unencyclopedic word, and quite unnecessary in the sentence. And there is zero justification for sarcasm quotes around scandal ('scandal'). Rd232 ^talk 11:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that use of the word scandal, with or without quote marks, is probably best avoided here. Pretty much everything has probably been described in the media at one point or other as a "scandal", it doesn't mean WP should use the word. And the "not yet provided evidence" is quite a definitive assertion, purpotedly based on one columnist's claim at the moment. However, reading that piece, Glover doesn't actually say that the Guardian has "yet to provide any evidence to the Metropolitan Police". He only talks about the paper not producing any new evidence to justify re-opening an investigation - ie on top of what it had already made available. So the text being put into the article isn't even supported by the single source. On a more general point, I would say that there's far too much on this one issue here. WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM, I think. --Nickhh (talk) 12:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Good points. I think a separate article on the matter might be justifiable, but I'm inclined to wait for the Select Committee to report and see how that goes. Rd232 ^talk 12:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

i will list why they are wrong.
1. the content which they removed as being unsourced has now been fully sourced by me.
2. they claim scandal is not encyclopedic which is obviously not true.
3. they claim it is POV. which is obviously not true, it was what the guardian themselves called it, i did not make the claim personally.
(there are many more things that i could add but these are the main ones).

the user is not WP:AGF and is constantly reverting my sourced factual edits and then attacking me with various claims and telling me to discuss edits. im the only one making these discussions and yet the most debating with me that they have done is keep telling me to discuss things.

i have asked them ("until ongoing discussion is over, you need to stop messing with this article") to stop reverting article until this discussion is over (or in their case even begins), yet they STILL keep reverting so all i can do is re-revert their obvious vandalism.

they are totally in the wrong and as i have already said (both here and to them), i will continue to re-add the content that they keep removing. Perry mason (talk) 09:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You've not engaged substantively with a single one of the issues raised, and your most recent revert is identical to the version you were reverting to at the time of the discussion above. Furthermore you should not call content disputes vandalism (cf WP:Vandalism), or threaten to edit war. Rd232 ^talk 10:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

apologies for calling it vandalism but i didnt know what else to call it. would 'unconstructive removal of sourced, valid content' be more suitable? and of course my reverts were the same, i was re-adding the content you kept removing. honestly, whether you agree with it or not, why would you expect the edits to be different? i dont understand you point there at all. Perry mason (talk) 11:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You could call it a "revert" - that's the neutral term. And yes, I would expect you to respond to the talkpage discussion either on the talk page or by changing your edit. Rd232 ^talk 11:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

ok to stop you keep moaning about it, ill call it a simple 'revert'. I HAVE BEEN COMMENTING ON TALK PAGES ON HERE, MY TALK PAGE, AND YOUR TALK PAGE. ok i have had enough of you complaining about me not responding on talk when i obviously am (as seen here, on my talk page, and your talk page). until you understand im commenting on these pages, im taking a little break until you can figure it out. i dont really know what else to do to be honest. however, i will continue to monitor the guardian page for your 'reverts'. Perry mason (talk) 11:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well you certainly haven't responded to my brief comments above, where I agreed that using the word scandal, with or without mocking scare quotes, is inappropriate. Saying that "the Guardian themselves call it a scandal" is irrelevant and off the point - I still wouldn't support including the word straight, but that's not even what you're doing, you're including it with sarcasm added. The scare quotes are all your personal addition. Nor have you engaged with the point about the weakness of the sourcing for the claim that the Guardian "haven't provided any evidence" for their claims - in that it's based on one columnist's passing comments in a rival newspaper, which don't even say exactly that anyway. The content reads like POV commentary, editorialising and original research, which of course it is, with or without the flimsy sourcing that it has.--Nickhh (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

it is not inappropriate, its what the guardian themselves called it. how on earth is that irrelevant? "sarcasm" and "scare quotes"??? I am terribly sorry for my lack of understanding but I seriously do not understand what on earth you are on about. the quotes were added because thats what the guardian called it, if i left them out, you would have probably accused me of making the word 'scandal' up myself (even though as i have commented multiple times - yet ignored about - i have fully sourced it). i only added it because ITS WHAT THE GUARDIAN THEMSELVES CALLED IT and i thought i had better add it because of that. personally, i dont care about it at all, it was only the fact that apparently its not encyclopedic when it obviously is (scandal) and other stuff was being made up about it that wound me up. hell, i dont even care about it that much and will remove it just to stop you whining about it. as for the second bit, you are just flat out wrong. yes its just one source (i will add tons more in a little while) but still says no evidence has been provided which is true. just because its a rival newspaper doesnt make it any less true, its what the PCC concluded and obviously the media reported on that. it is not "POV commentary, editorialising and original research". the FACT is that the guardian has not provided any evidence to the Met or pcc, even Nick Davies himself said that "I have no evidence of phone-hacking after May 2007" call it what you like - POV, editoralising, lies, BS, etc. the fact is the guardian has not provided any evidence and as such this fact is included in the article. i will add more refs (not that it makes any difference because it already says no evidence has been given) but if you can provide evidence that the guardian has provided evidence to the Met, please feel free to discuss it here.
edit - i also agree on the WP:UNDUE issue but i only made a fairly small entry about it mainly just adding ref's, the huge extra block of text was added by somebody else. Perry mason (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Shouting aside, you're not really getting the point that (a) it's not encyclopedic to call it a scandal, regardless of the fact that there is an encylopedia entry on scandal. The nearest you could get to it being encyclopedic would be writing "the Guardian called it a 'scandal'". But that's not particularly worth saying either - the facts speak for themselves. Somewhere in Wikipedia policy, I forget where, it says that you don't need to call Hitler "evil" (which isn't encyclopedic, even though evil has an entry), you just describe the facts neutrally and let the facts speak for themselves. That's the relevant principle. (b) the "evidence to the Met" point is already covered. It says "The Metropolitan Police had declined to reopen their inquiry in response to the Guardian's reports stating "No additional evidence has come to light" ..." Basically, you're wrong on these rather trivial points, so let's waste no more time on them. If you want to add more content about the facts, that may be justified, though if it grows much more it will need to become a separate article, which would be OK (though choosing a title may be tricky). Rd232 ^talk 13:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

moaning aside, you're not noticing the fact that above i said (and have) removed 'scandal' to stop you whining. the fact is the guardian is calling it a scandal and no amount of comment from you will change that but i have removed it now so please can you drop it? HITLER!?!?! LMAO, are you really trying to godwin this? "you just describe the facts neutrally and let the facts speak for themselves" which exactly what i have done all along with all ref's added by me.
"so let's waste no more time on them". finally, you make sense and i can agree with you. i have removed the factual bit (and obviously im not wrong as the many sources i have added proves so basically dont resort to attacking me) that upset you so discussion is now over. Perry mason (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You've completely ignored point (b) - the sentence you re-added [1] is merely a speculative version of the one just before it about the Met, which is sourced appropriately. So adding many sources to make the same point in speculative form is spectacularly missing the point. Perhaps hurling a few more insults at me will help? Rd232 ^talk 14:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

i am not insulting you so dont you dare try and accuse me of that (remember to WP:AGF and be nice and all that, however hard it may be for you to do so. im just saying you are wrong, it is not speculation - the guardian has not provided any evidence as the (now multiple) ref's prove. you have not brought up any new points here so your continued attempts to revert sourced content will not be tolerated. Perry mason (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, the scandal point has passed. But on the "no evidence issue", reference bombing makes pages look ugly, and the additional ones provided still don't - as the Glover column didn't - support the text being inserted about the the Guardian supposedly "not providing any evidence". And you still haven't answered the point that this needlessly duplicates the earlier - but more carefully worded sentence - sentence, albeit with inaccurate exaggeration. There was of course evidence for the original phone tapping claims, and here is the section from the PCC report on the subsequent Guardian allegations, which all the reports being used as references, and the "no evidence" page text, is based on, my italics -

"[The Guardian] had produced one new significant fact in its revelation that the News of the World had privately settled a legal action brought by Professional Footballers' Association chief Gordon Taylor for a large amount of money ... [however] the PCC has seen no new evidence to suggest that the practice of phone message tapping was undertaken by others beyond Goodman and Mulcaire, or evidence that News of the World executives knew about Goodman and Mulcaire's activities ... perhaps this was because the sources could not be tested"

Nothing in the above and the (now) multiple secondary sources says "no evidence", full stop. They say there was one new piece of evidence relating to a previously unknown, specific incident, but, despite that, no definitive evidence that supported the broader claims of a wider culture of tapping. Also, they all seem to date from November last year, so the "as of January 2010" text is also misleading. Yes, these are little details, but as soon as you get them wrong, or lose nuance, what the page says stops being entirely accurate.--Nickhh (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

ps: unfortunately the article seems to be getting a little bogged down in this minor point about one small issue. The whole section on this incident - as probably agreed by all of us - is too long, as well as being very scrappy. It needs to be much tighter and clearer. In fact the whole article needs tidying up really. It's full of huge lists of random names, different bits of history in different places and undue weight on some topics and insufficient detail on others. Maybe one day ...

apologies on the date issue, i used an previous edit of mine as the text source (i will change it back to November). and also if we are getting into semantics here, i will change "The Guardian has yet to produce any evidence" into "The Guardian has yet to produce any NEW evidence". although personally, with or without 'new', the statement (backed by refs - ugly bombing or not) is the same.
of course the ref's support the lack of no evidence - plus the fact that the guardian has backed down on its claims (if there was evidence, they would have provided it and splashed it all over their front page), plus no met action, plus no pcc action, plus no action by News. proves that there has been no (new) evidence brought to light. also i noticed you mentioned a little about "original phone tapping claims". this section (and discussion) has nothing to do with that issue. the original claims were found to be true and News. admitted there was an issue there. what we are talking about here is the fact that the guardian made new claims about phone tapping that have not been backed up by evidence, please do not confuse the two issues. and i agree on it being to lengthy (as i commented on above). i believe my earlier smaller entry (disregarding the scandal issue which has been resolved) would be much more suitable than the other version where somebody else bulked it up with various names etc Perry mason (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

More WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, more edit warring. The sentence you wish to add is speculative in nature ("as of..."; "yet"); it cannot be fixed without making it entirely redundant with the sentence just before it quoting the Met. I've had enough, and reported you for edit warring. Rd232 ^talk 17:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

as you can plainly see, i am discussing the issue here with user Nickhh. now Nickhh and myself may not currently agree (although after discussion with him, i have conceded on the 'scandal' issue) we are still involved in ongoing discussion. your agression and threats towards me are not in anyway helping the discussion here. so please, if you cannot keep calm, leave me (and the discussion) alone. Perry mason (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussing whilst edit warring is better than edit warring whilst not discussing, which is what you were doing before. But it remains the case that you are edit warring against consensus, wasting vast amounts of three people's time. If you care about the subject so much, just think what useful things you might have done on it with that time (like spinning it off into its own article, and expanding). PS how many times do I have to say it duplicates the prior sentence in a speculative manner before you either get the point or at least bother to address it? Rd232 ^talk 18:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

if its wasting your time, feel free to leave me alone and also your comments have nothing to do with improving this article at all unlike the comments i have made to Nickhh @ 16:41. i will no longer be talking to you as your constantly hostile attitude is offending me and i do not wish to be rude to you. i will concentrate on trying to improve this article by having a discussion with Nickhh who can remain civil. Perry mason (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent)so that's a "no" to addressing my point then. Rd232 ^talk 19:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Contributors list

This section seems to have gotten somewhat unwieldy over the months/years. It seems to include regular columnists, writers and journalists who are already, or should be, noted in the earlier "Columnists" list, as well as fairly random people who've simply written a couple of guest op-eds or lifestyle columns at one time or other. Is it worth being a bit more elitist, or perhaps selective, about this - eg keep Hugo Young, but remove Alex Kapranos, David Cameron et al? Otherwise it just seems a bit ugly and pointless really. --Nickhh (talk) 09:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The "current columnists" section is also quite out of date. Problem is, papers generally don't announce when a contributor leaves, making it hard to source removals. I would suggest removing such a high-maintenance section altogether. Mezigue (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Opening claim

It is known for its far left political stance.

I would be inclined to disagree with this. The Guardian doesn't really have an overtly political stance. Mtaylor848 (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

That one keeps getting chucked in from time to time, almost as borderline vandalism. I've reverted it again. Some of the people who do it - assuming they really believe it - should pick up a copy of the Morning Star or Socialist Worker of course if they want to know what a "far left" paper looks like. I think it's fair to say though that the Guardian is known for being left-ish, or left of centre, in terms of mainstream UK politics. N-HH talk/edits 18:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

And the "left" part of "left of centre" seems to have shrunk in recent years. They've brought in rightwing columnists and the news coverage is increasingly hard to distinguish from other quality papers. Rd232 ^talk 18:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Left seems about right although in recent years maybe 'Lib Dem' would be a better affiliation although defining what that stands for is pretty hard. Economically they are more central and socially they appear more left. The independent would be much the seem despite its name while The Mirror would actually be 'right' wing (just about, much as New Labour is right wing) simply because of their more populist attitudes - they don't really seem to have much of a bias for the left other than in their support for the Labour Party. The only far left newspapers in Britain are the Morning Star and Socialist Workers who can be classed as 'far' left because of their occassional support for revolutionary changes. To the other extreme is of course the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph.--109.228.68.147 (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

concidering the miscellaneous section

I fail to see what's wrong with this kind of information - it may be very difficult to put theese interesting "small-stories" in other parts of the text - here or at other articles. They cover about 300 years in time, and seems relevant and have refs enough. If no one doubts their facts the most of them will just be erased from Wikipedia. I think it's up to the persom who want's the part changed to do so himself/herself, and see how easy that might be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.36.80 (talk) 06:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Infobox & political alignment

Since the paper came out in favour of voting for the Lib Dems in the 2010 election, people seem to have been constantly adding it to the infobox. Suggesting that people should vote, in this election, for the Lib Dems, primarily to encourage electoral reform, is not evidence of an "alignment" with that party. If it didn't say "Labour" before, it shouldn't say "Lib Dem" now. Centre-left is broad enough to cover the paper's alignment for most of the 20th and 21st centuries. Indeed the paper has always been less tribal about its politics than people might suppose. Peter Hain and Ed Balls are even urging some people to vote Lib Dem, tactically - is that now their "political alignment" as well? N-HH talk/edits 17:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The paper has done more than just advise people to vote Lib Dem, it has said that it fully endorses the Liberals, and that the paper's roots lie in the liberal tradition. It could be considered for the political alignment box. There is at least no doubt that the editorial staff are pro-liberal. Peter Hain and Ed Balls have never told people to vote Liberal- this is actually against Labour membership rules and would result in expulsion from the party if they advised people to vote anything other than Labour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.4.46 (talk) 23:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Mostly true (including that Balls and Hain never explicitly said "vote Liberal") - however, describing the political alignment simply but broadly as "centre left" covers all that accurately, just as it also covers previous endorsements of the Labour party, and even the SDP-Liberal Alliance, in other recent elections. For info, here's a useful graphic of the history for the Guardian and other papers. If we were filling in a space marked "Endorsing in the 2010 UK election", we could and should put "Lib Dem". But that's not what the line in the infobox is asking for. N-HH talk/edits 05:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

[Moved from the top of the talkpage. --PLUMBAGO 07:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)]
The Guardian is now Centre-Right. It backs the Conservattive/Liberal-Democrat government. It is clearly inaccurate to call it centre-left or left. I do not know who asked for the political description not to be changed to LibDem, but the current description is inaccurate and I have changed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobanian (talk • contribs) 06:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Care to provide some evidence for this? The Grauniad seems as committed to progressive causes, and as questioning of right-wing articles-of-faith as ever. I'd agree with N-HH about not confusing support of the LimDems with support of the coalition. Reverting your edit for now, but discuss it further here it you like. --PLUMBAGO 07:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian

At 19/10/2010 this includes: "Founded in 1821, it is unique among major British newspapers in being owned by a foundation (the Scott Trust, via the Guardian Media Group)."

This should read: "Founded in 1821, it is unique among major British newspapers in being owned by a non-profit private company (the Scott Trust Limited, via the Guardian Media Group)."

References: (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Trust (2) http://www.gmgannualreview2010.co.uk/files/governance-and-financial-statements/GMG_Report_of_the_Directors.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.217.134.90 (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the reference (and link) to the Scott Trust being a foundation is now factually inaccurate. Dan (talk) 03:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Funny / NPov "fairytales" front cover image

The use of the image - the current version - made me laugh, but it's probably not NPoV to keep it. From Fairy tale: "Colloquially, a "fairy tale" or "fairy story" can also mean any far-fetched story or tall tale." Use of this would seem to be making a joke and calling into question the veracity of the Guardian's news and stories. --Stroller (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It's quite clearly an advert. I suppose the image could be cropped, but it shows one way that the newspaper attracts readers so is still useful. Nev1 (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

A Rambling Mess

I'm surprised to see what a mess this article is. Half of the content needs to be removed and it should be reorganised into a more coherent order. The history section should be about the history of the paper, not a history of the paper's stories. InHaze (talk) 02:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Digital first

Does the article needs updating to account for the strategtic moves summaried here --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Political stance

It's completely absurd to say that a newspaper which supports a party in a coalition government poursuing the most right wing policies since the war is "centre-left." All this does is devalue Wikipedia. But given the reduced importance of The Guardian maybe it's not important that the Wikipedia entry is false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.16.158.196 (talk) 09:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I think The Guardian supported the LibDems before the elections because they assumed that the involvement of the LibDems in any coalition would be a moderating influence on the Conservatives. As this view has been somewhat undermined (to say the least) by the events of the last 15 months, I'm not sure whether they would support them now. MFlet1 (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot of discussion on this topic in the archives- basically the consensus and the weight of evidence was that centre-left was the right description regardless of supporting the Liberals in the election and widening selection of contributors: FURTHER READING - see the archives! Kathybramley (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

This is indeed incorrect. The Guardian may have been a centre-left newspaper, but its support for a Lib Dem-Conservative coalition government indicates a shift to the centre-right. This should be amended or indicated in the opening section, especially since the editorial line of the newspaper seems to be moving increasingly towards the right on a number of issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.46.203.221 (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Outline for improvement (proposed April 2011)

Hello - I think the article is too big and messy too. I feel all at sea reading this article - but perhaps it takes a disorganised curly-minded waffler to recognise it? I have thought through suggestions. (re-edited by contributorKathybramley (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC))

LEAD The lead section needs to be edited to be a clear summary of the content of the article, if we can agree what the content should be. I quote the manual of style:

The lead should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences.

PARENT/AFFILIATES This should be the main article, but clearly pointing, with brief summary information to sub-topics at Guardian Media Group and guardian.co.uk and others created as necessary: we should remove the bulk of references to these topics in this article.

I think that separate articles are probably worthwhile for the G2, and Guardian Society and Education supplements (main rivals to similar supplements from The Times?) and Guardian Arts and Culture generally covering content, awards etc. (perhaps, I say provocatively, including their relationship to Newsnight Review).

HISTORY Needs one section to cover the historical development in the paper and how this became the modern organisations and affiliations whilst maintaining the emphasis on the paper not the website, affiliated papers, trusts, etc.

PUBLISHING HISTORY the format and distribution of the paper (eg change to local paper to national, broadsheet/berliner, redesigns) as separate to but with reference to major political stance changes strongly connected to these changes. Supplements and their contents detailed/summarised.

TIME-LINES Suggest creating a separate 'Timeline' Page - or two. (I haven't checked the policy pages on these though)

A Guardian Basics timeline (for publishing details such as title changes, re-designs, format, ownership changes, supplements added and discontinued).

create a timeline page listing the politically significant editorial changes, commentary and support or otherwise of major political events eg stances on Isreal/palestine, wars, suffragettism, party political endorsements - change to support lib-dems in the last general election.

POSITION Delineate the position this paper holds accurately with as NPOV as possible.

- It is a cultural as well as a political position. 'Guardian reader'

- An 'organ of the middle class' by dynasty? I suggest we consolidate references to the overall journey of the paper. I feared that would be 'synthesis' and against policy if we put them together? Maybe not: IGNORE ALL RULES! To create a true encyclopaedic article out of the phenomenon that is The Guardian might necessitate taking a line. (apologies if this is discussing the subject not the article - seems it is difficult to do one and not the other).

POSITION -ORIGINS In the outset we apparently had 'safe' middle-class bourgeois views when The Manchester Guardian was founded by Mill-owners, some reference in the article to filling a gap left by a radical paper - perhaps some kind of pacifying aims to it but that is unsupported/not made explicit
POSITION -CP SCOTT There was a greater radicalism under Scott; then the paper expanded and expanded to become a major paper and institution of the British cultural landscape, with mainstream alternative voices; this was what became the tribe of 'guardian readers' referred to in Hansard!
POSITION -GUARDIAN TRUST This process of expansion and the changes pivoting around 1997 and New Labour perhaps then created the apparent return to more general reflection of middle class mores and conversation, mixed in with some campaigns.
AFFILIATE STEERING Some references in the article already suggest that the 'stance' and balance of the paper is less coordinated from a single perspective now but an ensemble effort and based on canvassing the organisation (someone name which organisations affect editorial, who from within them and how - formally or informally is not clear - with citations). I suppose if we have an editorial feeder group consisting in the Guardian organisation family, built from people who can bear to work within it, it must then reflect the variability of individuals but also the 'trending' mores of the loosely defined tribe of 'the guardian reader'. Personal viewpoints on single issues, the overview of the schisms and understanding the background in 'real' human stories - that seems to be important to them, just from my viewpoint. Also there is much greater emphasis on popular culture and intellectual review/debate of variety of different topics, as supported by the various supplements. This is not a homogeneous polity. Anyone find more good key references?

ECONOMICS So significant to be worth a section to itself is discussion of the economics of the situation re losses and financial viability. The business and corporate affairs is a major section, in a totally different area to the political and cultural position, but obviously of interest. Not sure what do there.

General Issues. NPOV/notability/relevance. There seems to be an issue so far with the article listing unexpected viewpoints or controversial ones or embarrassing ones in and amongst the text of the article almost randomly. - e.g. support for female enfranchisement but not suffragettes, and various editorial relationships over time to various Israel/Palestine issues. Again this might require a summary bringing together and a separate page eg 'British media involvement in international politics', or a move of material to sub-sections in relevant pages. e.g. Suffragettes Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Perhaps it is main-topic notable enough to mention the controversy surrounding what the Guardian does and does not print, along with the link to the article embedded in the text.

I agree that there's too much of this type of thing in the article. I tried several times to either reduce or remove the section about supposed anti-Israeli bias in the paper, but some people have a bee in their bonnet about this issue and kept adding it back in. I gave up in the end. MFlet1 (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a name for that sort of thing, but there are semi-organised vested interest groups who for one reason or another will scour the internet looking for copy which they are told is anti-their particular cause, and who are motivated to alter or delete it. For instance, the American Tea Party telling its followers to get out there and favourably review Republican/evangelical Christian writings on Amazon and review pages, while dissing "liberal" views, et c. Same applies to pro-and anti-Israel stuff - lobbies and fanboys seem to get to it. The thing that makes this hard to out and fight is that it is semi-organised and nebulous. Is there a name for this phenomenon and does Wiki cover it? 2.99.147.87 (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting thought! Kathybramley (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

BIG DEALS Any controversy that has become a major national or international news event in itself is also notable e.g. the letter-writing campaign against Bush. That needs to be a section: Campaigns that made the news?

FURTHER RESEARCH - The guardian reader tribe. I think some quotes and references put into the article carry the flavour of the development of this but not necessarily legitimately. I may not have a NPOV, growing up as a guardian reader, with an indeterminate class identity. I see a broad relationship with Papers such as The Independent , late night BBC news, politics and culture review (although it may well be hotly disputed for neutrality). Could one of the other wiki-projects that 'do' original research try to formulate a Venn diagram from reliable sources to reflect the socio-political demographics of this constituency? :D

CULTURAL INFLUENCE Breadth and depth of influence; the size of the organisation; summarised controversy: these constitute the significance of the paper. Significant detail in the wider affiliations and media group and it's influence and political angles and controversies, the role/interaction as both a reflection of of politics and culture and influential voice and sometime full-on campaign leader - both in politics, music, arts, TV and popular culture; the people involved; critical viewpoints at different stages. The ideal would be to relate all this soundly to circulation, history, evidence of who it influences etc. and incorporate details of the style and format not as awkwardly juxtaposed 'technical factoids' but for descriptive purposes. This should be the lead section? And also in field-specific detail sections?

I again quote the manual of style (the lead to guide the whole):

The lead should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences. Kathybramley (talk) 12:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. Needs a lot of work to implement, but it would be worth it. Additional, higher quality sources (books/academic) would also be good. Rd232 ^talk 12:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Some references to follow up: [2], [3] Kathybramley (talk) 08:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

October 2011 is not spelled correctly, should not have the letter "M". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.137.106.51 (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Cablegate

The Guardian's colossal fuck-up in making available to the public unredacted copies of all ~250,000 US State Department cables shared under contract with Wikileaks merits coverage here. Someone up for giving it a shot? The lives of many US confidential sources were put in danger. Any documented repercussions? Sources: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,783778,00.html, http://wlcentral.org/node/2209

i agree, since finding out that a guardian employee leaked cablegate, i have avoided this source entirely. very relavent info. it seems to be a real mess on wiki too. --74.134.81.205 (talk) 07:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

"Cablegate" is covered by United States diplomatic cables leak and a number of related articles. WP:RS is the policy that editors should use to decide whether a source is unreliable and should therefore be avoided. There is also the reliable sources noticeboard at WP:RSN. The Guardian qualifies as a reliable source in Wikipedia so there is no policy based reason for you to avoid it for Wikipedia content. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

www.malcolmcoles.co.uk

I can't see why this is used as a reference to the twitter count , page view count, wikipedia citations or other references.

Why does http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/ reach above other blogs on the internet, of which there are very, very, very, many — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.215.169 (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Quarkbase uses a Yahoo search (site:wikipedia.org linkdomain:NEWSPAPER.co.uk) to count the links. Click on the paper's name to see the Quarkbase data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.215.169 (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it The Guardian or the Guardian?

The article writes it as The Guardian (capital T) throughout, but the Guardian's own style guide says it's the Guardian (small T): "the Guardian, the Observer, the New York Times, etc". See http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/n (under 'newspaper titles').

I happen to agree with them, but does Wikipedia have its own style guide we ought to stick to? I can only find this on the subject, and it doesn't cover this area: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Capitalization_of_.22The.22

Popcornduff (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Many newspapers are, rather surprisingly, inconsistent on this. I tend to follow the principle that The is capped if it is included in the nameplate (logo). However, to add to the confusion, these also change over time. Barnabypage (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Neither the paper's own style guide ("the Guardian") nor masthead ("theguardian") should not take precedence over Wikipedia policies. Therefore the current "The Guardian" is correct AFAIK, per WP:CT. -- Trevj (talk) 13:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not being argumentative, but I can't see a reference to this issue at WP:CT - could you elucidate? Thanks. Barnabypage (talk) 12:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't see it either - that's why I asked 'does Wikipedia have its own style guide we ought to stick to?' in the OP... I agree Wikipedia should stick to its own principles and not be beholden to those of other institutions, obviously - but I can't find a definitive answer on the subject. Popcornduff (talk) 03:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I always thought it was The Grauniad…Ok, trout me, then, I couldn't resist, as a long time ex-pat Private Eye reader. We now return you to your regular debate... Begoon ^talk 04:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The paper's masthead actually has it as "the guardian". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.245.185 (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Circulation figure is wrong.

Can we correct the circulation figures on the article please. Three separate circulation figures are mentioned and the only one that is correct is 209,354. The others are wildly out of date and as the publication has been in sharp decline no longer remotely accurate. The Guardian use the ABC verified number (Jul 2012) of 209,354 themselves. Robbyyy (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Bare links and poorly formatted cites

Hi there, GA Reviewer here. There's a few bare-links as cites and poorly formatted cites. Please go through and format these using WP:CIT templates. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Relationship with Google

Has anyone got any more information of the Guardian's relationship with Google as the new UK HQ for Google is only round the corner from the Guardian office in Kings Cross and the comment system on the Guardian website won't let comments about Google that are negative be published. Was there some kind of financial arrangement in June 2012? 188.221.174.94 (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Guardian US

I've just moved and updated Guardian America to Guardian US. It could do with some more content and independent refs; and consolidation with what's in this article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Left Wing

Is it still left wing? I see an awful a lot of right wing columnists/articles now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.76.235 (talk) 02:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd say centre-left rather than left-wing, as per (many) previous debates. But they have a policy of also giving a platform to other viewpoints, hence the presence of Simon Jenkins and others. MFlet1 (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

"Left-wing" is a relative description, of course. It used to be seen as the newspaper for teachers, social workers, and academics, which was reflected in the weekly job advertisement supplements. It then added IT and media folk.

With the launch of the online version, it became far better known world-wide and was discovered by large numbers of Americans after 911, when its detached commentary became the object of rage among Republicans Many US conservatives appeared on the now defunct talkboard, and their hostility increased in the year before the Iraq invasion. Whereas every major news source in the US was gung-ho for war, or at least swallowing the Pentagon line on WMDs, the Guardian was cooler and the talkboard was full of very critical analysis of every single claim. More than anything else, this made The Guardian look left-wing to Americans.

It would be more accurate to describe its collective position as ranging from social democratic (Polly Toynbee) to moderate democratic socialism (Roy Hattersley), although there have been times when its coverage of some topics, such as the era of the South American dictators, was to the left of that, with admirable coverage from Richard Gott and Alma Guillermoprieto. At the time, the New York Times was credulously following the State Department line, attributing responsibility for what everyone outside the US knew to be Contra atrocities to the Sandinista government. At least the NYT had the decency to publish short, well-hidden apologies, long after the event.

As for UK conservatives being given space, the long book reviews by Enoch Powell, perhaps the most right-wing Conservative MP of his day, were always a pleasure to read. But none of his policy positions would look especially extreme to today's Republicans and some would look downright socialist. Such things are relative.

2601:D:2D00:21B:4C1F:E99C:DA73:6038 (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)David Harley

Name

Should the name at the begninig of the article be re-written in small caps, the guardian?--In Allah We Trust (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

No, not so, because Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles, headings, and sections takes precedence. Philip Cross (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure this is the correct section to post in, but would it be worth mentioning in the lead paragraph the other popular name for the guardian, The Grauniad? (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.178.15 (talk) 10:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

This is already mentioned in the section "References in popular culture". Not sure it's notable enough to be in the lead paragraph. MFlet1 (talk) 12:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

New York Times is named "The New York Times" — should the Guardian be "The Guardian"? I think not, since their website/paper-print says "Guardian". Informally, I say, "UK Guardian" — Just Asking, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

May I correct myself? In reading this from another Wikipedia page, "Glenn Greenwald (born March 6, 1967) is an American political journalist, lawyer, columnist, blogger, and author. He has been a columnist for the US edition of The Guardian since August 2012.[1][2] Prior to that he was a columnist for Salon.com and an occasional contributor to The Guardian.[3][4][5]" and then looking at the top of this page, I see that it is already "The Guardian". How About That [HBT] ? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Etymology

I'm pretty sure the name stems from the philosophical question "Who guards the guards?", but cannot find any internet source that explains this. Perhaps someone can dust off some ancient article to this effect from some old forgotten library back in Manchester...? The name is especially apt considering the amount of government scandals that the paper has broken over the years, especially the current one. Would be nice! BigSteve (talk) 08:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

"Guardian" is not an especially uncommon name for a newspaper. It has plenty of metaphorical associations apart from the Latin tag. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian_%28disambiguation%29#Newspapers

2601:D:2D00:21B:4C1F:E99C:DA73:6038 (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC) David Harley

NSA Snowden leaks

Seems like the Snowden NSA PRISM leaks deserve a mention, since it's been international news for an entire week or so (Bjorn Tipling (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC))

Yes, and also Glenn Greenwald should be highlighted since he writes for The Guardian and was the main participant. I didn't know Greenwald didn't live in London. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Nothing here about the destruction of hard drives in The Guardian offices as directed by the UK GCHQ agents in August. This should surely be in the article. Alfietucker (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

80% on the left only equals "generally mainstream"????

The paper's readership is generally on the mainstream left of British political opinion: a MORI poll taken between April and June 2000 showed that 80% of Guardian readers were Labour Party voters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.204.106 (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Exact date of 1964 move to London

Does somebody know the exact date of the move to London from Manchester in 1964? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.237.12.32 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 20 March 2014‎

The current entry doesn't even mention the move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.89.235 (talk) 11:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

No mention of feminism?

Every day I read the Guardian and everyday there is one or more pro-feminism editorials. I found it weird feminism is not mentioned once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.91.9.190 (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Well it's a standard left-wing topic, so not sure it needs specific mention over and above the paper's political stance, but you could add it somewhere. Ben Finn (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian is not centre left

The Guardian is not centre left, it is slightly more to the left than The Telegraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.21.61.46 (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Eh?! Ben Finn (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

As for being left-wing, it was never left-wing? It was liberal and with a very peculiar middle-class view of liberalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.21.61.46 (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Left-wing in intro

It seems odd that the intro doesn't mention the paper's political stance at all, viz. left-wing (as detailed further down in the article) - not least since this is arguably the principle difference between British broadsheets, and that its stance is discussed at length in section lower down the article. The intro needn't of course go into the fine detail of just what degree of left-wing it is, but there's no doubt it is left of centre. So I would suggest the intro simply begins 'The Guardian is a left-wing British national daily newspaper'. (I did make this change but it was reverted.) Ben Finn (talk) 09:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Liberal would be more accurate. The term "left-wing" covers a wide spectrum, and the term is potentially pejorative. Philip Cross (talk) 09:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think 'left-wing' is pejorative at all - it's a standard political classification along a scale from left to right (is 'right-wing' or 'centrist' pejorative?! Only to their opponents!) 'Liberal' on the other hand is ambiguous - in the UK it frequently means centrist, e.g. as shorthand for Liberal Democrat or the former Liberal Party, and in US usage it seems to cover a wide range of views including left-wing and centrist. Ben Finn (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually I see the info box already describes its political stance as 'centre-left' so I've used that term. This is consistent with the detail further down the article. Ben Finn (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian can only be described as as self-described centre-left

The Guardian can only really be described as as "self-described centre-left". I don't think that a newspaper which carries the most lurid (and partisan) cartoons from Steve Bell (cartoonist), which depict David Cameron depicted as a red sausage in black tails and under a condom, and George Osborne as Gimp in Pulp Fiction, can really be described as merely "centre-left". It might had been so 10 years ago, when its ally, the Labour Party as New Labour under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, were in the Government, but certainly not the case any more for the last 5 years or so. -- Urquhartnite (talk) 11:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd use Bell's portrayal of politicians as an index of anything much, though. You did see how he represented Blair? Especially towards the end?? Hardly the flattering portrayal of a fellow-traveller. :) DBaK (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, it would be completely absurd to evaluate and assign a newspaper's political identity on the basis of one of its cartoonists. The staff of all newspapers include a wide range of political affiliations. The Guardian ranges from regular Conservative-identifying contributers to radical left/green/liberal anarchist contributers. The best assessment is via a newspaper's editorial line. Here the Guardian is consistently liberal individualist with a social conscience (in terms of social policy, freedom of information, bill of rights, etc.) and mixed market (state health and welfare, and free market for everything else). Since the 1980s, for example, it is no coincidence that it backed the SDP/Liberal alliance, then New Labour, then the Lib Dems, then Labour under Milliband with serious reservations. It is also Unionist and thus opposed to nationalist parties like the SNP. It's political campaigns are usually tied into liberal issues and green issues with proposed solutions that don't challenge capitalist economics per se. In sum, for me 'self-described centre-left' actually works quite well, it reflects the stance the Guardian likes to be seen to adopt. Maybe 'liberal centre-left' would be a bit more accurate.

Tax affairs

I think there should be more on the way the Guardian pays little or no tax despite making profits of hundreds of millions of pounds on its private equity deals, and its investments in hedge funds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.148.100 (talk) 09:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)