Talk:The Guardian

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.

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: [1], [2] 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)