Line 1,014: | Line 1,014: | ||
::::Haha, no what we have now is '''no consensus'''. On one side there are a number of 'like-minded' editors for a single label and on the other side a number of 'independent' editors against it and supportive of Aquillion's proposal again detailed below for your easy reference Onetwothreeip. So the current version is obviously not "fine" Pinkbeast just because you say it is. There was NO CONSENSUS to be jamming in your "right-wing" label. None. And this is ongoing. So will you self revert this edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Australian&diff=889313519&oldid=889206756which] please Onetwothreeip in good faith? And my second question is, do you agree with Aqullions' '''very reasonable proposal''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Australian&diff=887536408&oldid=887535336 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Australian&diff=887602090&oldid=887561543 here] as a stable resolution to this decade long debate Onetwothreeip? and Pinkbeast? Can you please answer these 2 simple and direct questions to help '''resolve this'''? [[User:Merphee|Merphee]] ([[User talk:Merphee|talk]]) 09:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC) |
::::Haha, no what we have now is '''no consensus'''. On one side there are a number of 'like-minded' editors for a single label and on the other side a number of 'independent' editors against it and supportive of Aquillion's proposal again detailed below for your easy reference Onetwothreeip. So the current version is obviously not "fine" Pinkbeast just because you say it is. There was NO CONSENSUS to be jamming in your "right-wing" label. None. And this is ongoing. So will you self revert this edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Australian&diff=889313519&oldid=889206756which] please Onetwothreeip in good faith? And my second question is, do you agree with Aqullions' '''very reasonable proposal''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Australian&diff=887536408&oldid=887535336 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Australian&diff=887602090&oldid=887561543 here] as a stable resolution to this decade long debate Onetwothreeip? and Pinkbeast? Can you please answer these 2 simple and direct questions to help '''resolve this'''? [[User:Merphee|Merphee]] ([[User talk:Merphee|talk]]) 09:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC) |
||
:::::You're the only one arguing against it. When you call editors who disagree with you "like-minded", that's literally a description of what is a consensus. Again I still am not aware what this proposal is, I haven't opened up any of these links you've posted. I have no need to revert my edits since they are aligned with consensus. I don't see the benefit in dealing with any more given your flagrant desire to start edit warring and risking sanctions. [[User:Onetwothreeip|Onetwothreeip]] ([[User talk:Onetwothreeip|talk]]) 09:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC) |
:::::You're the only one arguing against it. When you call editors who disagree with you "like-minded", that's literally a description of what is a consensus. Again I still am not aware what this proposal is, I haven't opened up any of these links you've posted. I have no need to revert my edits since they are aligned with consensus. I don't see the benefit in dealing with any more given your flagrant desire to start edit warring and risking sanctions. [[User:Onetwothreeip|Onetwothreeip]] ([[User talk:Onetwothreeip|talk]]) 09:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC) |
||
::::::No I am not the only one. far from it. There are about '''5-10 other editors''' who have stated that a single political label of The Australian should not be included and we instead focus on building content, which is what Aquillion's proposal is. Quite disrespectful to Aquillion for not reading the proposal Onetwothreeip. '''It's all about compromise''' and you seem not open to budging from your preferred edit. That's not how Wikipedia works. And then there have been a number who have like you and Pinkbeast and PeterTheFourth. And we were in the middle of the discussion when you jammed in your preferred version which I've reverted for us to now continue our discussion and I think we should use '''dispute resolution''' from here. [[User:Merphee|Merphee]] ([[User talk:Merphee|talk]]) 09:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC) |
::::::No I am not the only one. far from it. There are about '''5-10 other editors''' who have stated that a single political label of The Australian should not be included and we instead focus on building content, which is what Aquillion's proposal is. Quite disrespectful to Aquillion for not reading the proposal Onetwothreeip. '''It's all about compromise''' and you seem not open to budging from your preferred edit. That's not how Wikipedia works. And then there have been a number who have supported us using a single descriptor/label, like you and Pinkbeast and PeterTheFourth. And we were in the middle of the discussion when you jammed in your preferred version which I've reverted for us to now continue our discussion and I think we should use '''dispute resolution''' from here. [[User:Merphee|Merphee]] ([[User talk:Merphee|talk]]) 09:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:41, 25 March 2019
![]() | Australia Start‑class Mid‑importance ![]() ![]() | |||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Newspapers Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Questionable source
This section was added using a very questionable and openly progressive left leaning magazine. "The Australian has been criticised for its right wing agenda. The Monthly reported "...The Australian...articulates and enables much of the agenda of the right wing of politics (and the present government)...Critics have their numerous differences and disagreements, but in the pages of the Australian they become one tribe: the enemy. “Left-wingers”." Has the edit HiLo got another more reputable source for such an extreme statement?Merphee (talk) 11:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- The Monthly is included in the List of political magazines article. It should not be used to make such an extreme statement about the Australian which incidentally and obviously is not in this list of political magazines article. I ask the editor HiLo to remove the statement or add a reputable non political source please.Merphee (talk) 11:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- I also deleted a POV sentence that had been sitting there for 3 years asking for a source and none had been provided as it is highly unlikely there is one. The sentence was "The Australian has often been criticised for being biased against recent Labor governments"Merphee (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Stop destroying the article. Find some quality, reliable sources yourself. Such research may help you see the silliness of your claim that The Australian is balanced. HiLo48 (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- It would be helpful if you responded to the questions I asked and stick to content rather than attacking me and going to my talk page when I have asked you 3 times to stop doing so and then not communicating about the article and the section you have added which has not provided a balanced perspective.Merphee (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- Balanced? LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- So does that mean you do not willing to discuss the questions I have raised above regarding content and your source and instead you only wish to continue the personal attaacks?Merphee (talk) 01:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- I will simply say that balance is a somewhat nebulous concept. It means different things to different people. Your own comments about this publication show that your view of balance is very different from mine. I will go no further at this stage. HiLo48 (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- HiLo48 in relation to this revert you just made. [1] which as always, I did not again revert or engage in edit warring and instead choose to discuss on here, could we possibly find a different source? It appears that a far left wing magazine like The Monthly is not a good source to criticise a major newspaper of holding bias. And I don't believe the full quote is necessary in the article. Nor does such a controversial statement blend well with other comments in that section of the article. I think we both need to keep things very civil here and from now on as we have had a lot of unnecessary conflict.Merphee (talk) 01:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- Please don't just revert a decent edit and then go away and not respond to why you did so as you always do after I had the decency not to revert and instead discuss the edit in relation to policy and content here. That is wasting my time and is disruptive.Merphee (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- Removing sourced content without consensus is disruptive. HiLo48 (talk) 05:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- I did not remove the text, I removed the quote you put in there the other day in the middle of our discussion. Could you please respond to the questions I've raised HiLo48 about the dubious source you've used. It is not a quality source. If it stays we don't need the full quote do we. I took the time to clearly outline the point I'm making but again you ignore it.Merphee (talk) 07:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- It might be wise to pause discussion here while action continues at ANI. HiLo48 (talk) 07:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- HiLo48 I would really like to clear up this issue I've raised please.Merphee (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Your goal is an interesting one. Does your idea of "clear up this issue" include the possibility that you could concede that The Australian IS a right wing publication? You see, that's how most experienced observers of the Australian media scene see it. And from your comments so far, it seems you are unaware of that. Rupert Murdoch's publications and TV outlets the world over are seen that way. Are you aware of where Fox News sits on the political spectrum? Have a look at the third paragraph of the lead of that article. Then explain why you think Murdoch would allow The Australian to be different. That Murdoch is a media owner with a right wing bias is the primary issue here. It would, in fact, be a big surprise if The Australian was not right wing. Being right wing is precisely what one would expect. In a way, you would need to demonstrate that it's not right wing. As for The Monthly, it takes its place nearer the other end of a simplistic linear spectrum. That is no reason to condemn it. HiLo48 (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- My goal is only to ensure that editors strictly adhere to policies of neutrality and quality sources are used. The Monthly is on a very short list of openly politically oriented international magazines and is far left in nature and openly pro Labor and Greens with most of the subjective 'essays' written by Labor politicians and Labor party supporters. Please see List of political magazines. My only point is why an openly left wing magazine is used for such a statement. Could you find a more neutral source please? It would be like a politically oriented right wing publication saying the Australian newspaper is not against Labor. Can you see my point? Also I don't think we need to include the full quote do we to support such a highly contentious point? Can you address these two specific questions only, so we can quickly resolve this and move on.Merphee (talk) 02:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- I will address only one point, your second. It is simply NOT "highly contentious" to say that The Australian takes a right wing, anti-Labor position on almost everything. Did you even read my comment? You have just demonstrated that your idea of clearing up the issue means ignoring reality. HiLo48 (talk) 03:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- My goal is only to ensure that editors strictly adhere to policies of neutrality and quality sources are used. The Monthly is on a very short list of openly politically oriented international magazines and is far left in nature and openly pro Labor and Greens with most of the subjective 'essays' written by Labor politicians and Labor party supporters. Please see List of political magazines. My only point is why an openly left wing magazine is used for such a statement. Could you find a more neutral source please? It would be like a politically oriented right wing publication saying the Australian newspaper is not against Labor. Can you see my point? Also I don't think we need to include the full quote do we to support such a highly contentious point? Can you address these two specific questions only, so we can quickly resolve this and move on.Merphee (talk) 02:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Your goal is an interesting one. Does your idea of "clear up this issue" include the possibility that you could concede that The Australian IS a right wing publication? You see, that's how most experienced observers of the Australian media scene see it. And from your comments so far, it seems you are unaware of that. Rupert Murdoch's publications and TV outlets the world over are seen that way. Are you aware of where Fox News sits on the political spectrum? Have a look at the third paragraph of the lead of that article. Then explain why you think Murdoch would allow The Australian to be different. That Murdoch is a media owner with a right wing bias is the primary issue here. It would, in fact, be a big surprise if The Australian was not right wing. Being right wing is precisely what one would expect. In a way, you would need to demonstrate that it's not right wing. As for The Monthly, it takes its place nearer the other end of a simplistic linear spectrum. That is no reason to condemn it. HiLo48 (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- HiLo48 I would really like to clear up this issue I've raised please.Merphee (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- It might be wise to pause discussion here while action continues at ANI. HiLo48 (talk) 07:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- I did not remove the text, I removed the quote you put in there the other day in the middle of our discussion. Could you please respond to the questions I've raised HiLo48 about the dubious source you've used. It is not a quality source. If it stays we don't need the full quote do we. I took the time to clearly outline the point I'm making but again you ignore it.Merphee (talk) 07:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- Removing sourced content without consensus is disruptive. HiLo48 (talk) 05:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- Please don't just revert a decent edit and then go away and not respond to why you did so as you always do after I had the decency not to revert and instead discuss the edit in relation to policy and content here. That is wasting my time and is disruptive.Merphee (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- HiLo48 in relation to this revert you just made. [1] which as always, I did not again revert or engage in edit warring and instead choose to discuss on here, could we possibly find a different source? It appears that a far left wing magazine like The Monthly is not a good source to criticise a major newspaper of holding bias. And I don't believe the full quote is necessary in the article. Nor does such a controversial statement blend well with other comments in that section of the article. I think we both need to keep things very civil here and from now on as we have had a lot of unnecessary conflict.Merphee (talk) 01:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- I will simply say that balance is a somewhat nebulous concept. It means different things to different people. Your own comments about this publication show that your view of balance is very different from mine. I will go no further at this stage. HiLo48 (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- So does that mean you do not willing to discuss the questions I have raised above regarding content and your source and instead you only wish to continue the personal attaacks?Merphee (talk) 01:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- Balanced? LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- It would be helpful if you responded to the questions I asked and stick to content rather than attacking me and going to my talk page when I have asked you 3 times to stop doing so and then not communicating about the article and the section you have added which has not provided a balanced perspective.Merphee (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
HiLo48 For clarity it is this bold edit HiLo48 that you included and I disagreed with. My objection is based on the source you've selected and you choosing to include the long quote from that source. Up until now you have avoided discussing these two specific issues I've raised and have instead talked about other irrelevant details and Rupert Murdoch etc. We should only ever include in a Wikipedia article what good quality sources say. Nothing more and adhere strictly to all Wikipedia policies in doing so. Please focus only on resolving this rather than avoiding discussion of these as you have done, but then also oppose me altering the text or removing it until a better more neutral source can be found. "The Australian has been criticised for its right wing agenda. The Monthly reported "...The Australian...articulates and enables much of the agenda of the right wing of politics (and the present government)...Critics have their numerous differences and disagreements, but in the pages of the Australian they become one tribe: the enemy. “Left-wingers”."[1]Merphee (talk) 03:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ Simons, Margaret (June 2014). "The decline of the 'Australian'". The Monthly. Retrieved 1 August 2018.
- HiLo48Ok fine. Of course I read your comment please don't make assumptions without evidence, it's not going to be tolerated any longer. Please also post your comments directly at the base of the page as it confuses other editors who try to read through all of this. Your comments do not address the neutrality of the source or you choosing to include the full quote. We need to be careful when making such bold political statements about The Australian Newspaper like you've decided to include, to help protect Wikipedia from possible defamation and Wikipedia using an extreme left-wing political magazine 'essay' to do so. Rather than take up space here on the article talk page I suggest we use dispute resolution. Are you open to someone completely independent to moderate our discussion?Merphee (talk) 03:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Quote from the Simons article "Then as now, the paper had a distinct identity, character and broad political position. " I submit that if the Monthly is an acceptable source then we should use this as a political alignment in the iditic infobox. BROAD. Greglocock (talk) 08:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- HiLo48I was just looking at the 'Editorial and opinion pages' section where you have chosen to place this edit. This quote from this political magazine kind of swamps the other less extreme opinions on The Australian's political leanings and coverage, giving this 'essay' writer's openly biased personal opinion, undue weight and in turn is misleading to our readers. I have left this here waiting for a response HiLo48 but I think it should probably go to the reliable sources noticeboard if you are not going to participate in a civil discussion over your edit.Merphee (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- I have been completely civil here, and even a suggestion from you that I have not been is uncivil on your part. So I am going to now say that you are pushing a ridiculous POV here in trying to prove that the The Australian is not right wing. You have ignored all I said in my post this morning, and are living in a world of unreality. I will now stop commenting on this page for now. HiLo48 (talk) 10:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- HiLo48 Please stop the personal attacks here on the talk page and your edit summaries. I am not trying to "prove that the The Australian is not right wing." I am focused only on this [2] bold edit you made. I am questioning the source you have used - The Monthly which is on the international List of political magazines and is an openly far left-winged, Labor party aligned political magazine. I have also raised the issue of undue weight, within this section of the article, given to the subjective opinions of this 'essay's' author. I have tried to resolve this with you but you keep focusing on me personally rather than the policy related points I've clearly made.Merphee (talk) 11:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- I have been completely civil here, and even a suggestion from you that I have not been is uncivil on your part. So I am going to now say that you are pushing a ridiculous POV here in trying to prove that the The Australian is not right wing. You have ignored all I said in my post this morning, and are living in a world of unreality. I will now stop commenting on this page for now. HiLo48 (talk) 10:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- HiLo48I was just looking at the 'Editorial and opinion pages' section where you have chosen to place this edit. This quote from this political magazine kind of swamps the other less extreme opinions on The Australian's political leanings and coverage, giving this 'essay' writer's openly biased personal opinion, undue weight and in turn is misleading to our readers. I have left this here waiting for a response HiLo48 but I think it should probably go to the reliable sources noticeboard if you are not going to participate in a civil discussion over your edit.Merphee (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Quote from the Simons article "Then as now, the paper had a distinct identity, character and broad political position. " I submit that if the Monthly is an acceptable source then we should use this as a political alignment in the iditic infobox. BROAD. Greglocock (talk) 08:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- The Monthly is hardly "questionable"- it has a number of well respected writers, and has won several awards for journalism. No newspaper is completely neutral; all media has some sort of bias, so finding a completely "neutral source" is not really possible. Wikipedia deals in whether a source is "reliable", or "not reliable". The statement is not in Wikipedia's voice, it is ascribed to the Monthly; we are reporting that this is what a well respected media outlet has said about The Australian.
- I can find sources that say precisely the same thing as The Monthly article does..here is one from the Guardian [3] Or this piece [4]from a Senior Research Fellow in the Centre for Public Policy at the University of Melbourne.
- Having said that, I'm not personally wedded to exact quotes...perhaps something like "the Australian has been criticised for popularising the right wing agenda and encouraging a growing polarisation of left and right in the political landscape of Australia" perhaps? supported by those two above, as well as the monthly. Unless you have some sources of your own to contribute? Curdle (talk) 11:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Curdle, The Monthly is not a newspaper, it is a political magazine heavily aligned with the ALP and I am questioning the reliability of the essay as a reliable source. I posted on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to determine whether the source is reliable or not reliable after this discussion with HiLo48 sat here for over a week before I decided to use dispute resolution. My point is that the the essay HiLo48 used as a source (which is more like a rant or blog than any kind of journalistic article) should not be used to support such a bold statement. Using an openly left wing, ALP aligned magazine 'essay' to support such a bold statement is not good enough in my opinion and that is why I sought independent editor's opinion to help establish consensus. You haven't commented on my undue weight issue I raised in detail above either Curdle when you get a chance? I will have a proper look at the sources you suggested tomorrow. It's late and I'm going to bed. I would really be interested in other editor's objective opinions in the meantime on the Noticeboard.Merphee (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- I thought I did address your complaint about undue weight regarding the quote-thats why I said we dont have to use it and merely summarise the gist of all three sources (which all say pretty much the same thing) in a single sentence in the alternative text I suggested? Oops I see you havent read them before responding. I don't understand why you are so perturbed about The Monthly being a magazine-both The Atlantic and The New Yorker are magazines; both are on the political magazines list you keep mentioning, and both are considered RS in Wikipedia. The author of the Monthly article, Margaret Simons is a respected author [5]and has written several books etc etc. S'ok read them - There is no deadline. You say its heavily aligned with the ALP- I hadnt heard that, do you have a source for it? Curdle (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
ANNOUNCEMENT TO ALL EDITORS: Because he doesn't like the result of discussions here, and still cannot believe The Australian is at the right hand end of the political spectrum, and thinks Rupert Murdoch is Australia's gift to the world of fairness and truth in political reporting, Merphee has yet again gone forum shopping, this time to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Monthly, and yet again failed to tell anyone else about it. I'll go back to ANI and let the Administrators there know about it. HiLo48 (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Obviously The Australian newspaper is centre-right. It includes that in the info-box. That's quite well known. My issue with your edit is the quote you've used and you trying to make out a mainstream newspaper read by the mum's and dad's of Australia is some kind of crazy far-right fringe publication that is anti-ALP. This has turned into you bashing The Australian and opening Wikipedia up to possible legal action. HiLo48 can you please provide some serious evidence through diffs to support your serious accusations about me. I have asked you many times to stop belittling and personally attacking me but you continue. I've asked you to focus on the edits but you continue to focus on me personally and with extreme sarcasm. It's become abusive and you have been allowed to continue. I'm fairly tough skinned but I cannot see how any editor can survive here with these unrelenting personal attacks,and belittling.Merphee (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- Curdle you saying "Oops I see you haven't read them before responding." No I clearly said "I will have a proper look at the sources you suggested tomorrow. It's late and I'm going to bed. I would really be interested in other editor's objective opinions in the meantime on the Noticeboard" so why did you say that and so sarcastically?Merphee (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps because of your use of words like "objective" here, implying that other editors who have commented have not been objective. I again recommend that you take a close look at your own political position, accept where it is on the simple political spectrum, and think about how that impacts your views of other's comments. HiLo48 (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- Curdle you saying "Oops I see you haven't read them before responding." No I clearly said "I will have a proper look at the sources you suggested tomorrow. It's late and I'm going to bed. I would really be interested in other editor's objective opinions in the meantime on the Noticeboard" so why did you say that and so sarcastically?Merphee (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- Obviously The Australian newspaper is centre-right. It includes that in the info-box. That's quite well known. My issue with your edit is the quote you've used and you trying to make out a mainstream newspaper read by the mum's and dad's of Australia is some kind of crazy far-right fringe publication that is anti-ALP. This has turned into you bashing The Australian and opening Wikipedia up to possible legal action. HiLo48 can you please provide some serious evidence through diffs to support your serious accusations about me. I have asked you many times to stop belittling and personally attacking me but you continue. I've asked you to focus on the edits but you continue to focus on me personally and with extreme sarcasm. It's become abusive and you have been allowed to continue. I'm fairly tough skinned but I cannot see how any editor can survive here with these unrelenting personal attacks,and belittling.Merphee (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
It would help if all editors quit making personal attacks. Looking at the source in question, it is a personal opinion piece written by someone who openly admits their bias. Surely we can do better than that? --Pete (talk) 01:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- That's been my whole point. I'm glad an uninvolved editor has made it, that's why I posted it on the noticeboard as HiLo48 and i had not been able to resolve it. Another uninvolved editor Greglocock's reasonable comment should also be considered [6] The quote HiLo48 included from that article also seems to override the other sources in that section.Merphee (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- Oh so sad. I had not planned to respond here again today, but to describe Pete as an uninvolved editor when it comes to commenting on my comments is simply wrong. We have a long history. Merphee could not be expected to have known this. I won't go into details, and in saying this I am not criticising either Pete or his comment. But Pete is simply not "uninvolved". HiLo48 (talk) 03:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, HiLo! I was about to make exactly the same point. But seriously, why not everyone back off making commentsa about other editors or their motivations and address the issue on its merits? I think The Monthly piece is broadly correct, but I am sure that we can find a better source. --Pete (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- Oh so sad. I had not planned to respond here again today, but to describe Pete as an uninvolved editor when it comes to commenting on my comments is simply wrong. We have a long history. Merphee could not be expected to have known this. I won't go into details, and in saying this I am not criticising either Pete or his comment. But Pete is simply not "uninvolved". HiLo48 (talk) 03:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- Apologies, it was not meant sarcastically- admitedly I was a bit annoyed that you made further complaints about the quote, instead of responding to/ engaging with a possible solution that avoids using the quote you object to.(which would resolve your issues with the length/weight of the quote) I was just trying to point out to you that that was what you did in a humorous way, but I guess it does look a bit tetchy. You dont need to respond immediately to things without reading them carefully and providing considered responses; everyone needs to sleep or wash llamas or work- thats why the remark about no deadline.Curdle (talk) 02:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- What did Gregolock mean? I didnt understand what "iditic infobox. BROAD" meant, so I didnt respond. Am I missing something? Merphee what did you think of my suggestions? Its obviously a view that is shared by more than one academic.. Do you have any thoughts on them Pete ?Curdle (talk) 02:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- ok. Read previous posts and now understand what Gregolock meant. It does seem rather peripheral to your main contention though, Murphee.Curdle (talk) 08:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Editorial disputes
This talk page is a train wreck and it's clear that what's included in the article should be decided by some consensus if it's going to be continuously argued. @HiLo48, Merphee, Curdle, and Skyring: what actually is being debated for inclusion/exclusion? The fact that The Australian has been biased against Labor governments is completely uncontroversial, and indeed it's more than careful to say that The Australian has simply been accused of that, which it obviously has been. Is there anything more than this being debated here? Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- As I've said numerous times I agree that the Australian is currently a conservative or centre-right newspaper. We just need to be careful how it is worded. However as I've said it is not an extreme far right wing radical publication by any means and should not be painted as such. It is the long quote that is extreme in its tone and gives undue weight to that point of view in relation to other sources in that section of the article.Merphee (talk) 10:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- From what I understand, Murphee objects to the monthly as a source because it is on the list of political magazines, and they have claimed it has ties to the ALP. This has been taken to the RSB. I tried to move forward with this [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Australian&diff=853859017&oldid=853855572 suggestion] just keep clicking forward for other responses which adds two more sources that say exactly what the Monthly does, pretty much. Noone seems to have really responded in a substantial way yet. Curdle (talk) 10:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- I suggest we meet somewhere in the middle on this. It is that long quote that gives undue weight and not the point that The Australian is a conservative, centre right publication. Could we perhaps word that more neutrally so it doesn't completely engulf the other perspectives in that section of the article?Merphee (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry Onetwothreeip. AN Admin back at ANI has decided to be nasty to and dishonest about me, so I'm not going to even join this discussion. Good luck. HiLo48 (talk) 12:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- I suggested something like "The Australian has been criticised by some segments of the media for voicing the agenda of the right wing and encouraging the growing polarisation of left and right in the political landscape of Australia." supported by the monthly, the guardian and the conversation artcles mentioned in by previous posts.Curdle (talk) 12:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- CurdleThat sounds reasonable to me Curdle. Unless anyone else objects to your wording I'm willing to compromise and just go with that so we can reach consensus here.Merphee (talk) 12:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- Great, I will put it in then- Or does anyone have objections? . Curdle (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- Cool.Merphee (talk) 12:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- I think that sounds too needlessly careful. The Australian is by all measures a right leaning newspaper. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- Curiously Merphee has just taken it out again, in spite of explicitly agreeing to its inclusion here. Ping Curdle, Onetwothreeip, HiLo48 (who despite the above I'm sure is much better informed on the subject) - let's not pretend this discussion just didn't happen. Pinkbeast (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- I suggested something like "The Australian has been criticised by some segments of the media for voicing the agenda of the right wing and encouraging the growing polarisation of left and right in the political landscape of Australia." supported by the monthly, the guardian and the conversation artcles mentioned in by previous posts.Curdle (talk) 12:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
New source for political alignment
Whilst I don't believe that this section of the infobox should be used for Australian birdcage liners, here's a new source (to me at least). https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-australian/
RIGHT-CENTER BIAS These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Right-Center sources.
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Notes: The Australian is a broadsheet newspaper published in Australia from Monday to Saturday each week since 14 July 1964. It is the biggest-selling national newspaper in the country. The Australian reports news with proper sources and uses minimal loaded words, however they do have a right-center editorial bias through story selection and wording. (8/14/2016) Updated (7/21/2017)
Greglocock (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- I believe this section "The Australian has been criticised by some segments of the media for voicing the agenda of the right wing and encouraging the growing polarisation of left and right in the political landscape of Australia" is biased and needs to be balanced with other sources stating the opposite and there is not a right wing agenda. Before adding anything else though I would like the opinions of anyone opposed to me doing so. I actually think it needs to be taken out of the article entirely.Merphee (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- And yet above you wrote "CurdleThat sounds reasonable to me Curdle. Unless anyone else objects to your wording I'm willing to compromise and just go with that so we can reach consensus here." So what changed your mind? Greglocock (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. When reading this section again recently it sticks out like a sore thumb. There doesn't seem to be any justification for including such a libelous statement. The paper's left-wing, right-wing, centre focus is already well and truly discussed and this bolted on section seems to be pushing some left wing agenda. We need to be careful we don't expose Wikipedia to a libel case as well from The Australian newspaper. As I said I think it should be removed completely, so that's what has changed my mind Greglocock.Merphee (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I added "left wing" media to describe the 3 sources used which are all openly left wing publications. If it is not pointed out to readers that these media criticisms come from left wing sources the wrong impression is given that The Australian is clearly right wing, which is NOT what the reliable sources say. Reliable sources say centre-right. I know that I'll be attacked for daring to try and clarify what the main sources actually say but I don't care. I'm doing it in an open way here and would welcome a civil discussion over these points I've made and without any sarcasm or assumptions from editors. Thank you.Merphee (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I actually agree with you for whatever that's worth. Greglocock (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- None of the three sources justifies the assertion you have introduced that they are "left-wing", so you have simply put in unsourced material. I daresay they might think of themselves as centre-left - curious how "right-wing" is to be fought tooth and nail, but you feel you can just slap in "left-wing" without any cite. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- It's not clear to me why you agreed that it seemed reasonable to put a statement you think is libellous in; nor indeed why the insertion of "left-wing" magically makes the statement not libellous, or why a statement about some _other_ bits of the media expressing an opinion can possibly libel The Australian. A cynic might almost think you just intended to agree, wait a bit, take it out again, and hope no-one noticed. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think it is libellous. I don't think it reads very well. I don't think I could successfully get the equivalent edit to stick on the grauniad's page. I do agree that reliable sources (well maybe not the Monthly) have said things that could be summarised in a form something like the sentence used in the article. I'm not really sure it is notable. Greglocock (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Incidentally The Conversation has a rather better written equivalent criticism. Greglocock (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks Greglocock. I think I've made a fair point. The Guardian, the Conversation and The Monthly are all openly left-wing publications. If we could find any reliable sources that are not openly left wing sources which support such an extreme statement as it is currently written in this section and goes against the previous commentary that the Australian is "centre-left" I'm happy to leave it in. I've been searching but only openly left wing media publications support this extreme statement which paints The Australian newspaper as Right Wing, not centre-right. And again I ask you Pinkbeast to keep your assumptions of bad faith to yourself. I won't tolerate it. No editors should. We need to strictly adhere to Wikipedia:Civility. I tend to agree with you both regarding the libel question though. So Pinkbeast I look forward to you addressing in a civil manner my specific points I am making, which you have not done. Thank you.Merphee (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I just cannot find any reliable sources that are not openly left wing that state The Australian is a right wing newspaper? That's why I think it's important to clarify that the media publications which call the Australian right-wing, not centre-right, are all openly left-wing.Merphee (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- You're a fine one to talk about civility.
- If you want to say these are left-wing publications, you need a cite to that effect. You should understand this given how reluctant you are to call The Australian right-wing. In the mean time, the existing statement - "The Australian has been criticised by some segments of the media" - is eminently true; the Grauniad etc are certainly "some segments of the media". Indeed, the more discerning reader may already be able to infer they're probably not fellow travellers with Fox and Friends.
- In any case I think this can wait until the participants in the discussion above - the one where you twice agreed to this exact wording being included, before deciding it needed to be removed, is "extreme", slightly amended, was highly libellous, and wasn't libellous - have a chance to state their views, which I hope will be a little more consistent. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks Greglocock. I think I've made a fair point. The Guardian, the Conversation and The Monthly are all openly left-wing publications. If we could find any reliable sources that are not openly left wing sources which support such an extreme statement as it is currently written in this section and goes against the previous commentary that the Australian is "centre-left" I'm happy to leave it in. I've been searching but only openly left wing media publications support this extreme statement which paints The Australian newspaper as Right Wing, not centre-right. And again I ask you Pinkbeast to keep your assumptions of bad faith to yourself. I won't tolerate it. No editors should. We need to strictly adhere to Wikipedia:Civility. I tend to agree with you both regarding the libel question though. So Pinkbeast I look forward to you addressing in a civil manner my specific points I am making, which you have not done. Thank you.Merphee (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I added "left wing" media to describe the 3 sources used which are all openly left wing publications. If it is not pointed out to readers that these media criticisms come from left wing sources the wrong impression is given that The Australian is clearly right wing, which is NOT what the reliable sources say. Reliable sources say centre-right. I know that I'll be attacked for daring to try and clarify what the main sources actually say but I don't care. I'm doing it in an open way here and would welcome a civil discussion over these points I've made and without any sarcasm or assumptions from editors. Thank you.Merphee (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. When reading this section again recently it sticks out like a sore thumb. There doesn't seem to be any justification for including such a libelous statement. The paper's left-wing, right-wing, centre focus is already well and truly discussed and this bolted on section seems to be pushing some left wing agenda. We need to be careful we don't expose Wikipedia to a libel case as well from The Australian newspaper. As I said I think it should be removed completely, so that's what has changed my mind Greglocock.Merphee (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
The Simons ref in the Monthly says (my emphasis) "Then as now, the paper had a distinct identity, character and broad political position." "The Australian has greatly improved journalism in this country, despite more or less constant controversies and some bad missteps by the proprietor." " it articulates and enables much of the agenda of the right wing of politics (and the present government)" . Actually all 3 articles are pretty reasonable, but the disputed sentence takes some fairly reasoned criticism and exaggerates it.Greglocock (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- 2 points. The first is that if the current wording remains, we need to then include something like "But other media organisations say it is more centre right" or "it is more centre". Point two, is Greglocock's point saying that, "disputed sentence takes some fairly reasoned criticism and exaggerates it". I agree the way the sentence is written goes over the top and needs to be tamed. I also draw your attention to the other opinions above this disputed sentence which certainly paint the Australian more centre-right if anything and definitely not right wing agenda pushing. I'm interested in thoughts on those points I've made please.Merphee (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- On a side note Pinkbeast's comment "more discerning reader may already be able to infer they're probably not fellow travellers with Fox and Friends" is not relevant. The Australian is very independent and read by mums and dads of australia. I'm not sure what you are getting at Pinkbeast nor will I 'assume' anything, but such a comment seems irrelevant to the content discussion we are having. Thanks.Merphee (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- What I'm getting at is that your insertion of a qualifier is pointless as well as uncited; the reader does not need it to know approximately which segments of the media say these things. Likewise your statement that "we need to then include something" is false; the position that The Australian is "centre-right" is well covered in the paragraph that heads the section. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- On a side note Pinkbeast's comment "more discerning reader may already be able to infer they're probably not fellow travellers with Fox and Friends" is not relevant. The Australian is very independent and read by mums and dads of australia. I'm not sure what you are getting at Pinkbeast nor will I 'assume' anything, but such a comment seems irrelevant to the content discussion we are having. Thanks.Merphee (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- "it articulates and enables much of the agenda of the right wing of politics (and the present government)" seems very like what the sentence in the article says, as does "The Australian is increasingly partisan, its campaigns more belligerent, its attacks on its critics more persistent and nasty". I think only "broad politicial position" really supports what you are saying, and I don't see that it contradicts the statement in the article - one can both espouse a broad political position and voice the agenda of the right wing (indeed, a sufficiently broad political position would of necessity do so.) Pinkbeast (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes it is centre-right, at a push, but the way the sentence has been written exaggerates the source as Greglocock stated and I agree and paints The Australian as some right-wing pushing publication to our readers, which is not what the main sources say about The Australian. In fact I cannot find any reliable source apart from openly left wing sources like the Guardianista and The Conversation (website) and ALP publication The Monthly which actually says it is right-wing can you? In fact, there are sources which state it is more centre nowadays. And the sentence you insist remains as it is in the article gives readers that impression which is not what the majority of the reliable sources say. So yes, I've changed my mind for the good of the article. Are you open to any changes here Pinkbeast?Merphee (talk) 03:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- It doesn't exaggerate the sources. Some of the quotes from the sources, as I said above, are extremely similar to the sentence in the article. It doesn't so "paint" The Australian since the "centre-right" position is, as I said above, discussed in detail earlier in the section. It does not give readers that impression, or not if they actually read what is written; it tells readers that some segments of the media say that, which is manifestly entirely true.
- You're simply retreading your old errors here. You cannot consistently both resist any attempt to even say that some bits of the media say The Australian is "right-wing" (when in fact they say exactly that) and insist on inserting an uncited assertion that the sources you don't like are "left-wing" (just because you say so).
- You're engaging in an entirely spurious attempt to paint yourself as more willing to compromise. You've had to change your positions not least because some of them - like the statement being libellous - were patent nonsense. Oscillating back and forth between "this sentence is entirely reasonable" and "I'll remove it and see if anyone notices" isn't compromising; it's just inconsistent.
- I might change my mind if I hear a clear argument for doing so, which Greglocock might do. "Put in 'left-wing' because Merphee says so" isn't one. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hey Pinkbeast keep your sarcasm and incivility and assumptions of bad faith to yourself! Got it! I won't take your incivility and crap OK!. A lot of editors on Wikipedia have had a gut full of old editors like you who think you can intimidate and offend and interact in such an uncivil manner and completely ignore Wikipedia's code of conduct and Wikipedia:Civility I've warned you before but you ignored it. You are just another editor here. Now, back to discussing 'content'. I actually think this little Bolted-On section in the article is SYNTH and pushing a viewpoint that the vast majority of reliable sources do NOT support. My objection is this part of the sentence, "voicing the agenda of the right wing". It needs to re-worded as it is an exaggeration, at best. This was what greglocock was getting at and I totally agree. Again, are you open to any compromise at all with changing how this sentence has been worded? As I've said I actually think this section is not needed and should be deleted based on the fact that the the summary of the reliable sources above it is well and truly enough.Merphee (talk) 07:18, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Just added a statement from the independent and very well respected and neutral media observer Crikey.com which offers another viewpoint to this sentence you insist on including, which runs contrary to that of the ALP publication The Monthly. The question still remains though about you being open to any compromise whatsoever on changing the exaggerated wording "voicing the agenda of the right wing" Pinkbeast?Merphee (talk) 07:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- You're still a fine one to talk about civility.
- As I said before, that you're utterly inconsistent doesn't make you willing to compromise; it just makes you utterly inconsistent. As such, your attempt to paint me as unwilling to compromise is absurd. I might be, if I hear a better argument than "Merphee doesn't think so".
- Neither of your additions makes any sense. The cite is from 2007, so cannot possibly provide accurate information on the situation today; we want to be careful about allowing lengthy self-justifications from a former editor, who is obviously not an unbiased observer; and you have very carefully cherry-picked "it has been in sympathy with the agenda of federal governments of both colours" - a sentence about the past (from a cite from 2007) where "During the Howard years it has provided both turf and fuel for the culture warriors of the Right" was what Crikey wrote about the then-present situation.
- Furthermore, it really won't hurt to leave the established version - which of course you agreed twice should be added to the page - in place to give other editors a chance to comment. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- You really shouldn't be bringing editor HiLo48 into our discussion as an example of 'incivility' for obvious reasons which I will not discuss here. I also will not paste all of the incidents you Pinkbeast, have had conflict where you seem to bully your way through edits to get YOUR version into an article and compromise at all. There were no grounds for you to undo my well sourced edit yesterday. I will not edit wart. Please discuss your concerns here instead of creating unnecessary conflict. You are obviously unable to compromise. Both Greglocock and me agree your statement is terribly exaggerated but you seem unwilling to compromise.Merphee (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- As for your bad faith accusations I have to bite my tongue to stop myself from pointing out your motives for your edits here. I want to be civil so I won't. However the section added yesterday was already in the article if you had looked before undoing my good edit. As far as cherry-picking well the section you are defending so vehemently to remain could not be any more cherry-picked in my opinion and is SYNTH. To resolve this through compromise and to make your sentence less exaggerated would you accept the word "conservative" rather than "right-wing"? So the sentence would read "voicing the agenda of the conservative government" or do you insist on the wording "right-wing" Hope this is an acceptable compromise to resolve this dispute?Merphee (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Just added sentence from the 2017 reliable source Greglocock suggested. Also Pinkbeast please try not to pretend like the exaggerated statement "voicing the agenda of the right" has been taken out. It is obviously still there and obviously it will remain while other editors have a chance to comment. So far though you are the only editor vehemently opposed to any compromise while others have suggested the statement is exaggerated. Compromise is important to good editing and I am trying to resolve this with you peacefully and respectfully and focusing only on content, which you are certainly not doing.Merphee (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry Pinkbeast, didnt get your earlier ping. Thanks for trying to send it though. So what exactly are you proposing Merphee- are you suggesting that
- "The Australian has been criticised by some segments of the media for voicing the agenda of the right wing and encouraging the growing polarisation of left and right in the political landscape of Australia" be changed to
- "The Australian has been criticised by some segments of the media for voicing the agenda of the conservative government and encouraging the growing polarisation of left and right in the political landscape of Australia", or?
- Pinging @Onetwothreeip:, as they didnt seem entirely happy with the wording we came up with before either. Curdle (talk) 10:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Just added sentence from the 2017 reliable source Greglocock suggested. Also Pinkbeast please try not to pretend like the exaggerated statement "voicing the agenda of the right" has been taken out. It is obviously still there and obviously it will remain while other editors have a chance to comment. So far though you are the only editor vehemently opposed to any compromise while others have suggested the statement is exaggerated. Compromise is important to good editing and I am trying to resolve this with you peacefully and respectfully and focusing only on content, which you are certainly not doing.Merphee (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- I explained the grounds quite clearly; the source from 2007 is of limited utility in telling us about the paper's stance today, and additionally the quote you have used from it is gratuitously cherry-picked, ignoring the very next sentence which is essentially in agreement with the sentence you dislike so much. You can't use a single sentence out of a ten-year-old source just because it happens to be the one sentence that says what you like.
- The use at the start of the section is a self-serving statement from a former editor, which we should always be careful of. Of course he says the paper's coverage of facts is neutral. The editor of Rodong Sinmun would tell you the same thing.
- I have not claimed that statement has been taken out; please pay more attention to what I actually wrote. What I have said is that you're unwilling to wait for input from other editors before changing a sentence you agreed twice to put into the article, which is, of course, entirely true.
- The sources quoted say "rightwing" repeatedly. I see no reason to take it out. (Note that Onetwothreeip described this sentence as "needlessly careful" - they were not in favour of watering it down. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Gosh you really do need to be more conciliatory here please Pinkbeast. You have not addressed my assertion that the sentence in question is SYNTH. I added the word "historically" to put context to the 2007 quote. It is important to add context.Merphee (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- We are having a fresh look at the article Pinkbeast which is entirely reasonable. I simply had a closer look and think it needs to be edited further. That's how Wikipedia works. You do realise the sentence "Former editor-in-chief Chris Mitchell has said that the editorial and op-ed pages of the newspaper are centre-right" was already in the article don't you? Therefore me adding another sentence from the same source is unremarkable. Please don't rudely delete it. Context is entirely appropriate. You are also ignoring what Greglocock quite rightly observed in that your sentence you are defending for some reason painting Australia's biggest newspaper as some right-wing publication, is exaggerated. It needs tempering. Are you open to any compromise please to try and resolve this.
- Gosh you really do need to be more conciliatory here please Pinkbeast. You have not addressed my assertion that the sentence in question is SYNTH. I added the word "historically" to put context to the 2007 quote. It is important to add context.Merphee (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- As for your bad faith accusations I have to bite my tongue to stop myself from pointing out your motives for your edits here. I want to be civil so I won't. However the section added yesterday was already in the article if you had looked before undoing my good edit. As far as cherry-picking well the section you are defending so vehemently to remain could not be any more cherry-picked in my opinion and is SYNTH. To resolve this through compromise and to make your sentence less exaggerated would you accept the word "conservative" rather than "right-wing"? So the sentence would read "voicing the agenda of the conservative government" or do you insist on the wording "right-wing" Hope this is an acceptable compromise to resolve this dispute?Merphee (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- You really shouldn't be bringing editor HiLo48 into our discussion as an example of 'incivility' for obvious reasons which I will not discuss here. I also will not paste all of the incidents you Pinkbeast, have had conflict where you seem to bully your way through edits to get YOUR version into an article and compromise at all. There were no grounds for you to undo my well sourced edit yesterday. I will not edit wart. Please discuss your concerns here instead of creating unnecessary conflict. You are obviously unable to compromise. Both Greglocock and me agree your statement is terribly exaggerated but you seem unwilling to compromise.Merphee (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hey Pinkbeast keep your sarcasm and incivility and assumptions of bad faith to yourself! Got it! I won't take your incivility and crap OK!. A lot of editors on Wikipedia have had a gut full of old editors like you who think you can intimidate and offend and interact in such an uncivil manner and completely ignore Wikipedia's code of conduct and Wikipedia:Civility I've warned you before but you ignored it. You are just another editor here. Now, back to discussing 'content'. I actually think this little Bolted-On section in the article is SYNTH and pushing a viewpoint that the vast majority of reliable sources do NOT support. My objection is this part of the sentence, "voicing the agenda of the right wing". It needs to re-worded as it is an exaggeration, at best. This was what greglocock was getting at and I totally agree. Again, are you open to any compromise at all with changing how this sentence has been worded? As I've said I actually think this section is not needed and should be deleted based on the fact that the the summary of the reliable sources above it is well and truly enough.Merphee (talk) 07:18, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes it is centre-right, at a push, but the way the sentence has been written exaggerates the source as Greglocock stated and I agree and paints The Australian as some right-wing pushing publication to our readers, which is not what the main sources say about The Australian. In fact I cannot find any reliable source apart from openly left wing sources like the Guardianista and The Conversation (website) and ALP publication The Monthly which actually says it is right-wing can you? In fact, there are sources which state it is more centre nowadays. And the sentence you insist remains as it is in the article gives readers that impression which is not what the majority of the reliable sources say. So yes, I've changed my mind for the good of the article. Are you open to any changes here Pinkbeast?Merphee (talk) 03:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I hope people here aren't taken the threat of libel seriously. There is no need to compromise at all with Merphee or with anyone. They caused enough drama to get certain lines written in a way that was purposefully blunting the criticisms of The Australian, were fine with some compromise, and now they want to compromise that compromise. So when Merphee says "you really do need to be more conciliatory here", we don't, because they aren't asking anything reasonable. This is getting absurd. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oh dear, come in swinging with your incivility onetwothreeip. Please read the suggestions and opinions of an independent editor Greglocock. Also show some respect to other editors. And direct your comments to me. Focus on content only. Follow Wiki policy. The sentence is SYNTH. It is exaggerated. It is cherry picked. It is not notable. Thoughts. And keep it civil fellow editor.Merphee (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Independent reliable sources describe The Australian as centre-right. Not right-wing. Don't go making such wild outrageous edits against what the majority of reliable sources state. Thank you. I'm interested only on discussing content and in a civil manner.Merphee (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- We're all independent editors. It is not civil at all to tell people what to do, which is what you are doing. I've already gone through this farce where myself and other editors are discussing the content of the article and then you tell myself and others to "focus on content" as if that's not what we're doing. If you're just going to bleat about civility then I don't have a reason to respond to you. Otherwise there are changes to the article that you can talk about, to me and others. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- There are many Google results for "The Australian newspaper right wing" with reliable sources saying it's a right wing publication. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- I realise we have had conflict over this before onetwothreeip and I see you are very determined to paint our biggest newspaper in Australia as right-wing, but that is just not what the reliable sources say. Could you please provide some reliable sources for your It appears quite fringe to me. The sources say centre-right, not right-wing. We need to be careful we follow policy. Also the section you are defending does not aseem notable enough to include and is more fringe and seems to be receiving undue weight in this section. Right-wing as you describe it while providing no sources to back up your point of view is definitely a minority view. I know you want to just leave this in and pretend it's absurd talking about policy but policy is important fellow editor.Merphee (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- What's your source for "centre-right"? Other than a former editor of The Australian of course. Centre-anything is really unnatural in Australian English and should only be used if that's explicitly what we need to use. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- If you had taken the time to look at the excellent source that Greglocock identified which is the basis for this section 'New source for political alignment' you would have seen it yesterday. IU added it to the article. onetwothreeip.https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-australian/ Would you be comfortable painting the Sydney Morning Herald or The Age as Left-Wing, which in my opinion they definitely are. But of course it has nothing at all to do with my opinion, but everything to do with what the reliable sources call them. You should know that.Merphee (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- I wouldn't consider that a reliable source. By revealing that you think the Fairfax papers are left wing, this shows you have an unordinary orientation towards how to categorise Australian newspapers. This is particularly given that the Fairfax papers often endorse the Liberal Party for government, when this is very rare for The Australian. Obviously the editorial outlook of The Australia, as with most other News Corp papers, ranges from "centre-right" to decidedly not-centre right. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, so you have't read any of the other refs. The Australian typically recommends voting in fed elections EXACTLY the same as all the rest. Go look at the refs. get back to me if you think that is wrong. Greglocock (talk) 07:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- Greglocock Yes, that's wrong. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, so you have't read any of the other refs. The Australian typically recommends voting in fed elections EXACTLY the same as all the rest. Go look at the refs. get back to me if you think that is wrong. Greglocock (talk) 07:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- You have GOT to be kidding. The Age and the SMH are as leftie as you can get. but it has to be what the reliable sources say. Sorry. And the reliable source editor Gregloock introduced is very reliable. Stop being so rude and dismissive of other editors!Merphee (talk) 03:02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- I wouldn't consider that a reliable source. By revealing that you think the Fairfax papers are left wing, this shows you have an unordinary orientation towards how to categorise Australian newspapers. This is particularly given that the Fairfax papers often endorse the Liberal Party for government, when this is very rare for The Australian. Obviously the editorial outlook of The Australia, as with most other News Corp papers, ranges from "centre-right" to decidedly not-centre right. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- If you had taken the time to look at the excellent source that Greglocock identified which is the basis for this section 'New source for political alignment' you would have seen it yesterday. IU added it to the article. onetwothreeip.https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-australian/ Would you be comfortable painting the Sydney Morning Herald or The Age as Left-Wing, which in my opinion they definitely are. But of course it has nothing at all to do with my opinion, but everything to do with what the reliable sources call them. You should know that.Merphee (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- What's your source for "centre-right"? Other than a former editor of The Australian of course. Centre-anything is really unnatural in Australian English and should only be used if that's explicitly what we need to use. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- I realise we have had conflict over this before onetwothreeip and I see you are very determined to paint our biggest newspaper in Australia as right-wing, but that is just not what the reliable sources say. Could you please provide some reliable sources for your It appears quite fringe to me. The sources say centre-right, not right-wing. We need to be careful we follow policy. Also the section you are defending does not aseem notable enough to include and is more fringe and seems to be receiving undue weight in this section. Right-wing as you describe it while providing no sources to back up your point of view is definitely a minority view. I know you want to just leave this in and pretend it's absurd talking about policy but policy is important fellow editor.Merphee (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- There are many Google results for "The Australian newspaper right wing" with reliable sources saying it's a right wing publication. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oh dear, come in swinging with your incivility onetwothreeip. Please read the suggestions and opinions of an independent editor Greglocock. Also show some respect to other editors. And direct your comments to me. Focus on content only. Follow Wiki policy. The sentence is SYNTH. It is exaggerated. It is cherry picked. It is not notable. Thoughts. And keep it civil fellow editor.Merphee (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I think that says it all. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- Greglocock Do you consider the source https://mediabiasfactcheck.com you added at the beginning of this thread reliable? I have listed it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I think it is, but I wanted your opinion as you were the editor who listed here. Thanks.Merphee (talk) 05:18, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Re obfuscating
There's clearly attempts here by Merphee to make The Australian seem less politically to one side. Even if this was not the case, there is still no good reason to only list the Labor politicians that The Australian has praised. I think all other editors are aware of where The Australian is politically. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC) Merphee I've reverted your edits twice now, are you going to come to the talk page or are you going to keep adding in these edits? Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oh no, more bad faith accusations from you. I'm sick of you onetwothreeip ignoring Wiki policy and think you are above our policies. Show some respect for other editors and for Wiki policy. It is as clear as day you are trying to make The Australian out to be a right-wing publication when the reliable sources do not back this up! You also have not provided any reliable sources when I've asked you to do so? Also please respect the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I'm sick of you believing you are right and others are wrong fellow editor. I'm happy to discuss this BOLD edit of yours but don't edit war and show some respect. Please also abide by Wikipedia:Civility Thank you.Merphee (talk) 05:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Please also realise that Wiki editors have lives outside of Wikipedia and we cannot jump to your demands. I will respond in due course. Meanwhile please the long term and well sourced section of the article in while we are discussing the changes you feel are warranted. Also please only discuss content rather than attack other editors and make continual bad faith assumptions. I will not tolerate it. Thank you very muchMerphee (talk) 05:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC).
- Yes, I think you have an agenda that is not simply about the good of the article. Regardless of that, your edits are not appropriate for the article. What I have done is reverted your bold edits, I did not add that information into the article. You had restated your edits into the article twice before I pinged you. Now we're at the D of BRD, so can you justify those edits? Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Cease your incivility and show respect. The section you deleted had been in the article for ages. I didn't write it! You BOLDLY deleted a long standing section that we sourced [7]. I then reverted it. You then need to gain consensus for your actions here on talk. You know that! You also are not showing yourself in positive light by being so rude and accusatory toward fellow editors now are you. Read our policy and get back to me. BUT do not edit war. Thank you.Merphee (talk) 05:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Nonetheless I removed it, no matter who wrote it or when. I have stated in edit summaries and on this talk page why I have removed them, and they are the same reasons. Can you say why you think they should be retained? We will see if there is a consensus for keeping that in the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Just so there is no confusion for other editors to see what you have done, the entire section you boldly deleted from the article was first placed and remained in the article unchallenged, since January 22 2011 [8] You cannot just go deleting entire sections of our articles [9] for abstract reasons like you did today onetwothreeip without consensus and then provoke an edit war by reverting my revert, because I disagreed with you removing it. Goodness me.Merphee (talk) 05:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- I did not remove a section, I removed part of a section. There doesn't seem to be consensus for what was added in 2011 that I've removed. I've given reasons, now can you refute my reasons or provide other reasons for keeping what I've removed? Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sorry onetwothreeip but I completely disagree with your basis for deleting such a long standing and unchallenged section, all well sourced and am at a complete loss as to what your reasoning is. Perhaps we can just wait until other editors join the discussion, or not. That would seem wise. Why are you in such a rush. The section has been there for 8 years!Merphee (talk) 08:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- It's obviously not unchallenged, I'm challenging it. It's also not a rush if it's been there for eight years. Yes, let's see if others contribute to this discussion, but you haven't brought up any reasons why the section should remain, or have refuted any reason I gave. So all anybody would read is my reasons, and there are no reasons from you for them to read. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- I just don't see your reasoning apart from trying to paint The Australian as something other than centrist or centre-right which it certainly is not based on what the reliable sources tell us. Also Bob Brown of the Greens is in that list you boldly deleted and so is barrister Stephen Keim. It is well sourced. Feel free to add others if you like. You have presented no logical argument for its removal apart from trying to delete the fact that The Australian newspaper which is supposedly right wing or favoring the coalition as YOU say (and still with no reliable sources to back up your point of view) has awarded 2 ALP PMs. So what, what is your point?Merphee (talk) 12:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Okay but what are your reasons for having it there? Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- I just don't see your reasoning apart from trying to paint The Australian as something other than centrist or centre-right which it certainly is not based on what the reliable sources tell us. Also Bob Brown of the Greens is in that list you boldly deleted and so is barrister Stephen Keim. It is well sourced. Feel free to add others if you like. You have presented no logical argument for its removal apart from trying to delete the fact that The Australian newspaper which is supposedly right wing or favoring the coalition as YOU say (and still with no reliable sources to back up your point of view) has awarded 2 ALP PMs. So what, what is your point?Merphee (talk) 12:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- It's obviously not unchallenged, I'm challenging it. It's also not a rush if it's been there for eight years. Yes, let's see if others contribute to this discussion, but you haven't brought up any reasons why the section should remain, or have refuted any reason I gave. So all anybody would read is my reasons, and there are no reasons from you for them to read. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sorry onetwothreeip but I completely disagree with your basis for deleting such a long standing and unchallenged section, all well sourced and am at a complete loss as to what your reasoning is. Perhaps we can just wait until other editors join the discussion, or not. That would seem wise. Why are you in such a rush. The section has been there for 8 years!Merphee (talk) 08:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- I did not remove a section, I removed part of a section. There doesn't seem to be consensus for what was added in 2011 that I've removed. I've given reasons, now can you refute my reasons or provide other reasons for keeping what I've removed? Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Just so there is no confusion for other editors to see what you have done, the entire section you boldly deleted from the article was first placed and remained in the article unchallenged, since January 22 2011 [8] You cannot just go deleting entire sections of our articles [9] for abstract reasons like you did today onetwothreeip without consensus and then provoke an edit war by reverting my revert, because I disagreed with you removing it. Goodness me.Merphee (talk) 05:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Nonetheless I removed it, no matter who wrote it or when. I have stated in edit summaries and on this talk page why I have removed them, and they are the same reasons. Can you say why you think they should be retained? We will see if there is a consensus for keeping that in the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Cease your incivility and show respect. The section you deleted had been in the article for ages. I didn't write it! You BOLDLY deleted a long standing section that we sourced [7]. I then reverted it. You then need to gain consensus for your actions here on talk. You know that! You also are not showing yourself in positive light by being so rude and accusatory toward fellow editors now are you. Read our policy and get back to me. BUT do not edit war. Thank you.Merphee (talk) 05:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I think you have an agenda that is not simply about the good of the article. Regardless of that, your edits are not appropriate for the article. What I have done is reverted your bold edits, I did not add that information into the article. You had restated your edits into the article twice before I pinged you. Now we're at the D of BRD, so can you justify those edits? Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Please also realise that Wiki editors have lives outside of Wikipedia and we cannot jump to your demands. I will respond in due course. Meanwhile please the long term and well sourced section of the article in while we are discussing the changes you feel are warranted. Also please only discuss content rather than attack other editors and make continual bad faith assumptions. I will not tolerate it. Thank you very muchMerphee (talk) 05:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC).
Attempts to paint The Australian as right-wing w/out sources
It's becoming quite frustrating to see constant attempts to make The Australian out to be some right-wing publication which is not what the reliable sources say. A recent attempt by onetwothreeip to delete a section of the article which had been there for 8 years and showed The Australian awarding ALP and Australian Green's politicians awards was an example of this. Another example was onetwothreeip putting right-wing into the infobox. However no actual reliable sources have been presented here to support such extreme claims. We obviously need to separate personal points of view from what the reliable sources actually say. If an editor wants to say The Australian is a right wing publication we need quality reliable sources which actually say, The Australian is a right-wing newspaper. Merphee (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- onetwothreeip I reverted the same edit by onetwothreeip who again attempted to paint The Australian as right-wing in the info box without any quality sources which call it a right wing. Please refer to other articles like the Age and SMH which have reliable sources in the infobox. I see this as provoking an edit war. We need to use quality reliable sources onetwothreeip, not your personal point of view. Please engage here on the talk page if you would like to provide the reliable sources which say The Australian is a right-wing publication. I am more than happy discussing it with you in a civil manner instead of you trying to ram your extreme edit into the article with no reliable source.Merphee (talk) 11:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Merphee, mediabiasfactcheck. has it as "right-center bias". In my estimation the site already has a right of centre bias, comparable papers that incontrovertibly 'right-wing' have a similar rating and they must have raised some flags to get this placement. Is that adequate? cygnis insignis 22:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC) I see that this has been interpreted as saying otherwise above. Choose a right or left of center paper in your opinion, or well defined as such, and see what they say. cygnis insignis 22:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Merphee already took "Media Bias Fact Check" to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and it was strongly rejected by the community for being self-published and unreliable. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Onetwothreeip have you got any good quality reliable sources that say The Australian is some extremist right-wing newspaper like you want Wikipedia to label it as. It is simply not an extremist newspaper based on what the reliable sources tell us.Merphee (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- Centrist or possibly centre-right, is all The Australian newspaper is. It is Australia's biggest newspaper read by mums and dads around the country. It is NOT some radical extremist right-wing newspaper like onetwothreeip is trying for some reason to paint it as and with no quality reliable sources. Is centre-right good enough onetwothreeip?Merphee (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- You're the only one talking about extremist. You are constructing a strawman. It is centre-right to right wing. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- Centrist or possibly centre-right, is all The Australian newspaper is. It is Australia's biggest newspaper read by mums and dads around the country. It is NOT some radical extremist right-wing newspaper like onetwothreeip is trying for some reason to paint it as and with no quality reliable sources. Is centre-right good enough onetwothreeip?Merphee (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- Onetwothreeip have you got any good quality reliable sources that say The Australian is some extremist right-wing newspaper like you want Wikipedia to label it as. It is simply not an extremist newspaper based on what the reliable sources tell us.Merphee (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
"Crikey" quote and recent commenting-out
Crikey quote
Historically though,[when?] other independent media observers, like Crikey, have stated that, "it has been in sympathy with the agenda of federal governments of both colours".
There are three problems with this sentence, which Merphee keeps cramming in.
The first is that it's not true. Other independent media observers, plural, have not stated that. It's a direct quote from Crikey.
The second is that the Crikey article is from 2007. It is a bit of a stretch to use it - "Historically" is just a figleaf over the fact the article isn't about The Australian now.
The third is that it is heavily cherry-picked, taking the one sentence that can be seen as painting it as centrist. Why that sentence and not "During the Howard years it has provided both turf and fuel for the culture warriors of the Right"? (The answer is that that one doesn't suit Merphee). Since Howard came to power since 1996, what the article actually says is that in 2007 The Australian had been aligned with the right for over a decade.
This sentence should be removed (or failing that, do what I did; quote the sentence that makes it clear they've actually been aligned with the right from 1996 to at least 2007.) Pinkbeast (talk) 08:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- This is being used as justification for yet more whitewashing. To take a decade-old source that says the paper has "provided both turf and fuel for the culture warriors of the Right" for a decade before that and write based on that "However some other media publications believe The Australian has a centrist approach" is pure invention. Even the bit that suits Merphee doesn't say that; it says The Australian points the way the wind is blowing, which is far from any actual centrist policy. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Merphee has now stuck this in four times in a row with no talk page discussion, while saying "please don't edit war", a startling piece of hypocrisy. I suggest when no other editor agrees with this insertion, we take it out again (and that as normal, we keep the previously stable version during discussion.) Pinkbeast (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
"When" tags
Rather than splattering these tags, it might be better to check the dates on the sources and edit accordingly?Pinkbeast (talk) 08:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Commenting out of "political" field in infobox
I do not think it is sensible to comment this out saying "take it to talk". It has been taken to talk, but for all their high words about compromise, Merphee will IDHT indefinitely.
I support Onetwothreeip's change. There are plenty of sources in the article saying "right-wing" (which is not in fact synonymous with "far right" or "extreme right-wing"); it can go in the infobox. Pinkbeast (talk) 08:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hey Pinkbeast if you don't drop the personal stuff I'm going to report you for continual incivility and bad faith accusations. I've asked you several times now to stop but you've ignored me. I won't tolerate it any longer fellow editor. Got it! There is also a productive discussion going on at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board about this article that onetwothreeip started and hopefully The Age and SMH in the mix. I suggest you read editor's comments over there and focus only on content moving forward. While you're at it please have another read of Wikipedia:Civility.Merphee (talk) 08:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- You're still a fine one to talk about civility.Pinkbeast (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- Pinkbeast While this issue is being discussed amongst the community I find you adding "right-wing" back into the article both combative and highly disrespectful toward myself and the rest of the Wiki community who are partaking in that discussion in a civil and respectful manner over at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board I therefore ask you to please revert this edit [10] you sneakily made to the long standing centre-right position in the info-box until the issue is fully resolved please and consensus has been clearly established. I refuse to edit war with you. Also why have you chosen not to partake in the discussion with other editors and instead go your own way and 'ram in' your preferred version while that discussion is in progress?Merphee (talk) 09:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Given that there was no particular agreement at the noticeboard (and that there was no attempt to proceed with an RfC or similar measure to actually set a policy), and that the cites in the article well support "centre-right to right-wing", I propose we restore it. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
The Australian's Australian of the Year
There was a list of winners that were largely left wing politicians, Gough Whitlam, Bob Brown and Kevin Rudd. There were no right wing politicians listed as winners. This gives a false impression of the award and the newspaper, so I removed the sentence which mentions those winners. This edit was reverted by Merphee but I think the talk page will approve the edit I've made. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- Would you like to add some other winners onetwothreeip, like Steve Smith? You never responded to this question about content I'm baffled as to what point you are trying to make onetwothreeip. This edit was in the article for 8 years after all. Why the focus on left wing right wing politicians now? I thought you've been saying you personally wanted the article to seem to readers as being right wing? So why are you fighting to delete these Australian of The Year winners awarded by The Australian, who were as far as you say are left-wing. I'm all confused as to what you are actually trying to do here.Merphee (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- It just doesn't reflect the newspaper as a whole, it is misleading. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- How is it misleading and again I ask, do you want to add some other winners like Steve Smith? Merphee (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Gives the impression that they like left wing politicians. I don't know who you're talking about. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- I don't get it. We need to ensure a NPOV here and not remove sourced material to give a distorted article. These are actual Australians of the year awarded by The Australian newspaper you do realise don't you? For the fourth time would you like to add some others, like Steve Smith? Merphee (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- And for the second or third time, I don't know who you're talking about. No, these are not the actual Australians of the Year, they are separate. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes I know that onetwothreeip. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/australians-australian-of-the-year Merphee (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- And for the second or third time, I don't know who you're talking about. No, these are not the actual Australians of the Year, they are separate. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- I don't get it. We need to ensure a NPOV here and not remove sourced material to give a distorted article. These are actual Australians of the year awarded by The Australian newspaper you do realise don't you? For the fourth time would you like to add some others, like Steve Smith? Merphee (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Gives the impression that they like left wing politicians. I don't know who you're talking about. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- How is it misleading and again I ask, do you want to add some other winners like Steve Smith? Merphee (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- It just doesn't reflect the newspaper as a whole, it is misleading. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
This discussion is going around in circles, could I suggest that either the entire list of winners is included or no winners are included? Hughesdarren (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- The discussion isn't going anywhere when onetwothreeip refuses to answer a direct question over content. Could you provide reasoning for your suggestion Hughesdarren? It seems reasonable to include a sample of winners including my suggestion of adding 2018 winner Steve Smith. However I would be open to including a full list for sure as it is a major aspect of The Australian newspaper. Maybe we could break the list into sections on sport, education, politics etc for each year? I'm happy to do the work when I've got time.Merphee (talk) 03:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm just waiting for editors other than Merphee. Yes, my view is that all should be included or none should be included. That is why in the meantime I removed those that were there. I'm also not sure if an entire list is noteworthy enough to include in this article. There's also issues about the context of these awards (they may be satirical) so until someone wants to make something comprehensive I don't think we should be keeping what has been put there. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- At least we can agree on all or nothing. Merphee, I have no reasons for my suggestion except that it would avoid further cluttering of the talk page and bring resolution to one source of disagreement. Merphee would you be happy to compile the list and maybe add it here on the talk page when completed? Onetwothreeip, I would think the list will be prominent Australians, once the list is completed let's see if any don't already have there own wiki article. Hows that sound? Hughesdarren (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Merphee - You may find this link useful [11] rather than tracking each winner down individually. Hughesdarren (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Removed section from article (to be expanded to full list)
"Australian of the Year"
- Hughesdarren I do not think that removing this section that had been in the article for 8 years is in any way civil or reasonable. It is not how things are done. We leave disputed sections in until the issue is fully resolved and consensus reached. I politely ask you to restore the long standing section please. I do not want to edit war and this is blatant provocation! Merphee (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hughesdarren If you do not put the long standing section back in while we discuss it in a civil manner I will take it to ANI. I do not want to edit war but we really must follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies and you know you should not be removing long standing sections while the issue is being discussed. As I said, to avoid using the resources of already overworked administrators at ANI over such an easily resolved issue, would you please just put the section you improperly removed back into the article as a good faith gesture and we can continue discussing a mutually acceptable resolution to your issue and develop consensus in a civil manner as editors are asked to do. Does that sound reasonable to you? Merphee (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- I thought that was what we had agreed to in the section above (all or nothing) keeping the both of you happy until the full list is complete. I included it here for you to work on in an attempt to keep everyone happy. Hughesdarren (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, but as you know we need to leave long standing sections in the article until we reach consensus. We have not finished discussing it. Would you please restore the section you deleted while we are doing so? Merphee (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- No, we don't need to leave sections in the article for no reason. You can take it to ANI, it will just boomerang back at you. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Wow, you seem really cocky onetwothreeip as well as combative, similar to another editor who I haven't seen for a while and who was also sure a mention at ANI would boomerang when other editors reported them but it didn't. Anyway I'm pretty confident I've been as civil as I possibly can and have abided by all guidelines, policies and processes at Wikipedia like we all need to do. We have not reached consensus and the section remained for 8 years and until a consensus and solution was established my understanding is we usually leave the original text in the article until it is. I could be wrong. Maybe we could get dispute resolution as I refuse to edit war. Merphee (talk) 06:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- You're the one threatening to take it to ANI if a sentence wasn't restored. There is no amount of making words bold that is going to change what people here think about a consensus. I'm not going to be baited into some personal argument here, I don't care. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Wow, you seem really cocky onetwothreeip as well as combative, similar to another editor who I haven't seen for a while and who was also sure a mention at ANI would boomerang when other editors reported them but it didn't. Anyway I'm pretty confident I've been as civil as I possibly can and have abided by all guidelines, policies and processes at Wikipedia like we all need to do. We have not reached consensus and the section remained for 8 years and until a consensus and solution was established my understanding is we usually leave the original text in the article until it is. I could be wrong. Maybe we could get dispute resolution as I refuse to edit war. Merphee (talk) 06:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- No, we don't need to leave sections in the article for no reason. You can take it to ANI, it will just boomerang back at you. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, but as you know we need to leave long standing sections in the article until we reach consensus. We have not finished discussing it. Would you please restore the section you deleted while we are doing so? Merphee (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- I thought that was what we had agreed to in the section above (all or nothing) keeping the both of you happy until the full list is complete. I included it here for you to work on in an attempt to keep everyone happy. Hughesdarren (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Undecided about this- not sure how notable the award actually is; individual nominations sometimes attract a bit of press, but on the whole, the "official" Australian of the Year award appears to be much more widely discussed. It should be mentioned, but a bullet point or text listing of all recipients is a bit undue, not to mention just a list of names; if you link to that pdf, readers can gt a full listing. Perhaps just a short list of the last 5 recipients? I think they are all wikipedia notable. Curdle (talk) 06:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- We really need more context about this supposed award. I haven't heard of it before, has anyone here? This distinction should be reported in reliable sources other than The Australian. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Merphee, Calling other editors cocky and combative as well as bolding commentary such as blatant provocation is far from civil. Could you please quote the policy you are referring to for not removing text until consensus is reached and provide a link? If not, you should delete or strike out your threats to go to ANI. Then we can move forward. Hughesdarren (talk) 08:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- That's true actually. Sorry onetwothreeip that wasn't too civil of me. Unfortunately The Australian seems to have become one of those Wikipedia:Coatrack articles Merphee (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- At least we have an apology for lack of civility. Are you going to quote that policy now? Hughesdarren (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- There is no point discussing policy with Merphee, they always just insist whoever they disagree with is being uncivil and not following policies. They obviously aren't going to change their mind about The Australian not being generally right wing, so this article will need other Australian editors to form a consensus on certain things. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Haha, and then I just cop this absolute and utter mouthful from onetwothreeip. And Hughesdarren you say nothing. Ha. I think what is happening here is editors of one mind are ganging up and this article has become so incredibly biased and so very very far from NPOV it is ridiculous. It has become a bash The Australian article trying to make our largest newspaper out to be some extrtemist radical right wing nut job only running stories which favour the coalition. What a joke! You cannot use Wikipedia for political agendas. Merphee (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- I brought this article to the attention of the Australian Wikipedia community so that as many interested people as possible would be able to contribute and get some broad consensus going. You're just repeating the same accusations, like that we want to characterise The Australian as extremist right wing, and I urge others to not engage that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- No one is ganging up on you Merphee, it is just that many of us seem not to agree with you. Are you able to quote that policy Merphee? Hughesdarren (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- I brought this article to the attention of the Australian Wikipedia community so that as many interested people as possible would be able to contribute and get some broad consensus going. You're just repeating the same accusations, like that we want to characterise The Australian as extremist right wing, and I urge others to not engage that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Haha, and then I just cop this absolute and utter mouthful from onetwothreeip. And Hughesdarren you say nothing. Ha. I think what is happening here is editors of one mind are ganging up and this article has become so incredibly biased and so very very far from NPOV it is ridiculous. It has become a bash The Australian article trying to make our largest newspaper out to be some extrtemist radical right wing nut job only running stories which favour the coalition. What a joke! You cannot use Wikipedia for political agendas. Merphee (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- There is no point discussing policy with Merphee, they always just insist whoever they disagree with is being uncivil and not following policies. They obviously aren't going to change their mind about The Australian not being generally right wing, so this article will need other Australian editors to form a consensus on certain things. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- At least we have an apology for lack of civility. Are you going to quote that policy now? Hughesdarren (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- That's true actually. Sorry onetwothreeip that wasn't too civil of me. Unfortunately The Australian seems to have become one of those Wikipedia:Coatrack articles Merphee (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Merphee, Calling other editors cocky and combative as well as bolding commentary such as blatant provocation is far from civil. Could you please quote the policy you are referring to for not removing text until consensus is reached and provide a link? If not, you should delete or strike out your threats to go to ANI. Then we can move forward. Hughesdarren (talk) 08:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- We really need more context about this supposed award. I haven't heard of it before, has anyone here? This distinction should be reported in reliable sources other than The Australian. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
The 9 year old media watch section with Paul Barry. How is it notable?
- Hughesdarren How is the 9 year old entire paragraph on a tiny comment on media watch in any way notable enough to be devoting an entire section to. I BOLDLY edited it out and it was placed back in. I won't edit war and will leave it in the article while it is discussed fully here and a consensus is reached. I ask for reasons why you reverted my bold edit and how you see it is notable enough to devote so much space and clutter the article so much? Merphee (talk) 04:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- You criticised the removal of the Australian of the year section as it was there for 8 years but not this one that has been there for 9 years? I thought it notable enough to include as it fit the section above particularly where the paper said that We wear Senator Brown's criticism with pride. We believe he and his Green colleagues are hypocrites; that they are bad for the nation; and that they should be destroyed at the ballot box. Hughesdarren (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think it should be left in; it attracted a large amount of press at the time, making it pretty notable. Curdle (talk) 06:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- I can't see any reliable sources other than this one from 9 years ago. Could you provide some reliable sources to support your statement of it attracting a large amount of press at the time? I can't find anything at all on Google about this media watch drama. There are 1000s of articles, why is this notable? And if we include it, why would it get such a massive part of the article space devoted to it? Really interested in your thoughts on this content questions Curdle? I really don't believe it is notable enough to be cluttering up such a large part of the article. The significance of it and the age of the incident and the relevance don't justify an entire paragraph IMO. Merphee (talk) 06:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Simple solution, just add more to the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- I can't see any reliable sources other than this one from 9 years ago. Could you provide some reliable sources to support your statement of it attracting a large amount of press at the time? I can't find anything at all on Google about this media watch drama. There are 1000s of articles, why is this notable? And if we include it, why would it get such a massive part of the article space devoted to it? Really interested in your thoughts on this content questions Curdle? I really don't believe it is notable enough to be cluttering up such a large part of the article. The significance of it and the age of the incident and the relevance don't justify an entire paragraph IMO. Merphee (talk) 06:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think it should be left in; it attracted a large amount of press at the time, making it pretty notable. Curdle (talk) 06:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- If you read the original Media watch source, it seems to have started on ABC's Lateline, the quote used appeared in the Australian financial Review, and the Australian itself published several articles about it.There is an article about it in "the conversation" [here] and its mentioned by the SMH [here]. That was just a fairly quick search. Curdle (talk) 09:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Removal of The Australian Australia of the Year Award
In the haste to try and make this highly biased article about Australia's largest newspaper out to be some right wing extremist radical publication that only favours the Coalition government, an editor has now entirely removed a very important award from the article about The Australian. That is, The Australian's Australian of the Year award. This article is now so far from presenting a NPOV it is ridiculous and no independent editor is able to make any neutral edits in an attempt to remedy this lack of NPOV without being reverted. What was the reasoning for instance to remove this section?Merphee (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- See discussion above. Let's have one thread not two Hughesdarren (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- There has been classic Wikipedia:Canvassing going on here to create this now highly biased article. There is no neutrality whatsoever. This article has become so incredibly biased it is is ridiculous. There is absolutely no NPOV and all of the bits in the article have been carefully cherry picked to create a coatrack article that conveys The Australian to be something the reliable sources tell us it is not. No neutral editor is able to bring any NPOV to the article as their edits are swiftly reverted. Important sections have been carefully removed to create a POV. The article is now extremist and Wikipedia has blatantly been used to push a personal agenda against The Australian newspaper. And no neutral editor can bring neutrality. Why has The Australian Australian of the Year been removed entirely from the article? What's going on here? Merphee (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- It's not canvassing to ask the attention of others. Before I took it to the noticeboard, it was just you and me and we weren't agreeing on anything. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- This article has to be the most biased article on Wikipedia right now. A complete an utter biased mess filled with POV. It needs attention from editors who are completely neutral and can restore some kind of NPOV. Merphee (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hughesdarren Can you provide reasons as to why you deleted one of the most important sections of the article. That is The Australian's Australian of the Year Award? Seems odd given this is supposed to be an article about The Australian newspaper? Merphee (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- See the discussion above, got that policy yet? Hughesdarren (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hughesdarren You do realise in your haste to remove the fact that The Australian has awarded on multiple occasions their highest annual award to Labor and Greens politicians because that little dirty fact doesn't fit the coatrack narrative that The Australian is some big bad ultra right wing newspaper that only favors the Coalition (which is not what the sources tell us) you actually deleted one of the most important sections of the article? Why did you delete the Australian's Australian of the Year completely? Do you see your error? Merphee (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Explained it in the section above, how are you going with that policy?Hughesdarren (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- I restored the part of this section that was non contentious and I assume (in good faith) had been removed by error. [14] So now as I said I think we need to include a full list of winners. And we simply cannot omit the reality that many of these Australian of the Year award winners were actually Australian Labor Party and Australian Greens Politicians and leaders. It matters nought that this fact does not fit the agenda here IMO of trying to push some point of view that our biggest newspaper is some right wing extremist newspaper who always favors the agenda of the Coalition. What bollocks. That is simply not what the reliable sources tell us. What winners do others want to include and very importantly, why? My suggestion to include all winners in different categories is clearly the most NPOV solution. But interested in other editor's thoughts? Merphee (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- This exactly what we had agreed in the discussion above (at my suggestion) [15][16], I even provided a link for you [17]. Instead you've been intent on cluttering up the talk page with your opinions on some agenda that other editors have. At the moment the award section is fine with me with no winners mentioned as it is fine with me if all winners are mentioned. Once you have compiled the list place it here on the talk page for others to discuss, preferably in the section I had set aside for you. PS: Have you found that policy yet about not removing sections until consensus is reached, still waiting on that link. Hughesdarren (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- This article has to be the most biased article on Wikipedia right now. A complete an utter biased mess filled with POV. It needs attention from editors who are completely neutral and can restore some kind of NPOV. Merphee (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- It's not canvassing to ask the attention of others. Before I took it to the noticeboard, it was just you and me and we weren't agreeing on anything. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- There has been classic Wikipedia:Canvassing going on here to create this now highly biased article. There is no neutrality whatsoever. This article has become so incredibly biased it is is ridiculous. There is absolutely no NPOV and all of the bits in the article have been carefully cherry picked to create a coatrack article that conveys The Australian to be something the reliable sources tell us it is not. No neutral editor is able to bring any NPOV to the article as their edits are swiftly reverted. Important sections have been carefully removed to create a POV. The article is now extremist and Wikipedia has blatantly been used to push a personal agenda against The Australian newspaper. And no neutral editor can bring neutrality. Why has The Australian Australian of the Year been removed entirely from the article? What's going on here? Merphee (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
PAST WINNERS The Australian’s Australian of the Year award has been celebrating our top achievers since 1971. 2017 Cricketer Steve Smith 2016 Tony Morris and the 18C Three 2015 Melbourne Cup-winning jockey Michelle Payne 2014 Doctor and Muslim community leader Jamal Rifi 2013 Warren Mundine, Marcia Langton, Adam Goodes, Andrew Forrest and Noel Pearson for working to transform the future of indigenous Australians. 2012 Cricketer Michael Clarke and hurdler Sally Pearson 2011 Astrophysicist Professor Brian Schmidt 2010 Treasury secretary Ken Henry 2009 Prime minister Kevin Rudd 2008 Bart Cummings and Dame Elisabeth Murdoch 2007 Brisbane solicitor Peter Russo and barrister Stephen Keim SC (Mohamed Haneef case) 2006 The Australian Digger – the men and women of the Australian Defence Force 2005 Medical researchers Ian Frazer, Barry Marshall and Robin Warren 2004 Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson 2003 Actor Nicole Kidman 2002 (Tim Britten, Richard Joyes and all the other) heroes of Bali 2001 Prime minister John Howard 2000 The Australian volunteer (represented by Cherri Southerton) 1999 Actor Cate Blanchett 1998 Australian cricket captain Mark Taylor 1997 World Bank president James Wolfensohn 1996 National Gallery director Betty Churcher 1995 Academics David Penington and Mal Logan 1994 Medical researcher and humanist Gustav Nossal 1993 Salvation Army leader Eva Burrows 1992 Aboriginal land rights activist Eddie Mabo 1991 Former CSIRO chief executive John Stocker 1990 Eye surgeon Fred Hollows 1989 Operatic diva Dame Joan Sutherland 1988 Queensland corruption inquiry head Tony Fitzgerald 1987 TNT boss Peter Abeles, Australian cricket captain Allan Border, dancer Graeme Murphy, wool industry leader David Asimus 1986 Hawke government tourism minister John Brown and comedian/film star Paul Hogan 1985 Mudginberri abattoir owner Jay Pendarvis 1984 Heart surgeon Victor Chang 1983 Prime minister Bob Hawke 1982 Environmentalist Bob Brown 1981 Businessman Keith Campbell 1980 Former CSR chief executive Gordon Jackson 1979 Founder of the bone marrow register Shirley Nolan and governor-general Sir Zelman Cowen 1978 NSW premier Neville Wran 1977 Family Court chief judge Justice Elizabeth Evatt and prime minister Malcolm Fraser 1976 Fraser Island conservationist John Sinclair 1975 Competition did not run 1974 Queensland premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen 1973 Nobel prize-winning author Patrick White 1972 Prime minister Gough Whitlam 1971 Economist and Aboriginal activist H.C. 'Nugget' Coombs
- P.S As far as the policy Hughesdarren it is etiquette that when a bold delete is made, reverted, discussed that you don't go deleting it again while it is being discussed on the talk page. Merphee (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- You were the one constantly referring to a policy, will you now concede that one does not exist? Hughesdarren (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- This can be condensed significantly and perhaps in table form. The award is central to The Australian since 1970 and as such should be allocated a sufficient amount of space in the article. Glad we've reached consensus on that at least. Merphee (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- I suggest for brevity simply the year and name of winner. And as I said in table form again to utilise space. Merphee (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree a table with year, name and (maybe title or position or occupation or reason would be suitable). Are you happy to do the table and repost it here Merphee? Hughesdarren (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- I suggest for brevity simply the year and name of winner. And as I said in table form again to utilise space. Merphee (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- This can be condensed significantly and perhaps in table form. The award is central to The Australian since 1970 and as such should be allocated a sufficient amount of space in the article. Glad we've reached consensus on that at least. Merphee (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Actually we agreed that it should be removed in its then-current form. You were the only one saying otherwise. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Me or Merphee? You also agreed Onetwothreeip [18] - Yes, my view is that all should be included or none should be included were your exact words. Hughesdarren (talk)
- That's right, all or none. My last comment was to Merphee. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yep, and we've agreed on "all" winners onetwothreeip. I'm doing the work so no need to worry yourself. Done. Let's all move on now eh. Merphee (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hughesdarren I had already responded to your question regarding "that policy" here [19] but thanks again for your demeaning and sarcastic comment/assumption onetwothreeip. Merphee (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Merphee You were not quoting a policy, etiquette is not policy. Are you at all curious as to what the MOS dictates for this situation? Hughesdarren (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, I'm always open to learning and I'm not too arrogant to listen. Merphee (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- OK, I don't presume to know every policy but after a decade of editing I have a fairly good idea of WP:MOS requirements. The reason I kept asking you was in the unlikely case there was something out there that contradicts the MOS document I was referring to. If you read through Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Hidden text particularly the section "Appropriate uses for hidden text" you will see the part that says Hiding a portion of the text that has been temporarily removed while consensus is pending. However, it may be preferable to transfer such text onto a subpage of the article's talk page. This is exactly what I did. The MOS documents are a valuable resource and are in my mind the specifics of enacting Wikipedia:Five pillars. I always encourage new editors the read (and follow) the MOS requirements if they are in any doubt as to how to proceed. Hughesdarren (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, I'm always open to learning and I'm not too arrogant to listen. Merphee (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yep, and we've agreed on "all" winners onetwothreeip. I'm doing the work so no need to worry yourself. Done. Let's all move on now eh. Merphee (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- That's right, all or none. My last comment was to Merphee. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Me or Merphee? You also agreed Onetwothreeip [18] - Yes, my view is that all should be included or none should be included were your exact words. Hughesdarren (talk)
- The whole lot is way to much undue weight and really not suitable for what is supposed to be a small subsection of the article.- just look at that great chunk of text! Make it into a spinoff List article and link to it if you need a full list somewhere in Wikipedia. " list of The Australian's Australians of the year award" or something. I suggested just picking the last 5 awardees- that doesn't give so much weight, while providing a presumably random sample of the sort of people the Australian nominates. Curdle (talk) 06:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- What would be better for the article is information about when, and why the award was started up,(why have two awards with pretty much the same title?) not just copying a list of names you can easily get from the Australian's website. Curdle (talk) 06:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think we need the whole list or any part of the list, we just should not have a biased selection of "winners". Otherwise I do not mind. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Could we just wait to see the final table and then go from there? If it ends up with an abbreviated list and a link to a separate full list. At least when the table is completed we have something concrete to discuss further. Hughesdarren (talk) 06:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- If we list it in a table it would be quite condensed. I don't see the problem in listing it as the award seems to be a significant part of what The Australian newspaper is and we have sure given a lot of undue weight Curdle and onetwothreeip to the supposed political alignment of The Australian don't you think, which I don't think benefits readers. I also still do not understand how we had a "biased" (in your opinion) list there before onetwothreeip? You never explained that one when I asked you to explain your reasoning a few times? The full list also gives readers an interesting reference. I thought we had this resolved but I will list it here and we discuss in a couple of days. Merphee (talk) 10:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- You are talking 37? years here..thats a table at least 37 lines long; tables tend to take up more space than plain text- thats why most tables of works/discographies are stashed at the bottom of articles, so they do not distract from the actual writing. In addition, MOS states that text should be preferred to tables. How about
- In 1971, the Australian instituted their own "Australian of the year Award" separate from and often different to the Australian of the Year chosen by the government's National Australia Day Council. Starting in 1968, the official award had long had links to the Victorian Australia Day Council, and at the time there was a public perception it was state based. As the largest national newspaper, The Australian felt they were better situated to create an award that more truly represented all of Australia. Previous recipients have included Steve Smith (2017), Tony Morris and the 18C Three (2016),Michelle Payne(2015),and Jamal Rifi(2014).
- supported by this and https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/australians-australian-of-the-year this]
- I know wording is clumsy and needs work, and refs could be improved, but its actually kind of hard to find independent sources that talk about the award and not just the odd controversial choice. The award may be important to The Australian and Newscorp, but the press only regularly report about the official one. It would be good to write more about it, but unless there are refs signifying as to its importance, its next to impossible to do so. Curdle (talk) 12:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- I totally disagree Curdle. You haven't commented on the fact that there has been way to much weight placed on cherry picked subjective points of view as to what political alignment The Australian has swayed towards over many decades. In fact, at least a third of the entire article is currently out weighted towards this obvious and extreme push to try and make out that The Australian newspaper only favours the agenda of a coalition government. That is definitely NOT what the sources say. Currently the article is extremely biased IMHO and I mean biased. I will shortly be adding more sources to balance this bias and lack of neutrality out as we are supposed to do with presenting all sources and in a neutral way which is not currently the case by any means. How do you possibly justify not including a table of past winners of the award when a third of the article is discussing some constructed political alignment? But if you did put in only handpicked list of winners Curdle, why would you possibly leave out (like onetwothreeip wants so it goes with the biased narrative) all of the strongly left-wing Australian Labor Party and Australian Greens politicians and other left wing community leaders that The Australian have given their highest award to? These winners include Kevin Rudd, Bob Hawke, Neville Wran, Gough Whitlam, John Brown, . What a load of biased rubbish this article is currently pushing that The Australian newspaper favors only a coalition agenda! Wow, no wonder onetwothreeip and you Curdle has been so terribly desperate to delete the reality of these winners of The Australian newspapers highest annual award all being left-wing politicians and leaders. Now I get why you fought so hard onetwothreeip. Sorry I give back as much bad faith as you've given me which I could easily prove. So no onetwothreeip I won't be taking it to ANI but will continue to try and bring some NPOV to this currently wildly biased article. Merphee (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- I don't follow the reasoning that putting in a list of the last 5 recipients of the Australians Australian of the year award is being biased. I picked the "last 5" as being an easy way of being unbiased, as Onetwotreeip's contention was that it was cherrypicked. You wanted to keep some names- ok, last 5 then...you have a couple of sports figures, a muslim doctor, a lawyer...not my fault there are not any politicians in there, but then, I'm not trying to politicise. See my reasons above for objecting to a laundry list of names.
- I totally disagree Curdle. You haven't commented on the fact that there has been way to much weight placed on cherry picked subjective points of view as to what political alignment The Australian has swayed towards over many decades. In fact, at least a third of the entire article is currently out weighted towards this obvious and extreme push to try and make out that The Australian newspaper only favours the agenda of a coalition government. That is definitely NOT what the sources say. Currently the article is extremely biased IMHO and I mean biased. I will shortly be adding more sources to balance this bias and lack of neutrality out as we are supposed to do with presenting all sources and in a neutral way which is not currently the case by any means. How do you possibly justify not including a table of past winners of the award when a third of the article is discussing some constructed political alignment? But if you did put in only handpicked list of winners Curdle, why would you possibly leave out (like onetwothreeip wants so it goes with the biased narrative) all of the strongly left-wing Australian Labor Party and Australian Greens politicians and other left wing community leaders that The Australian have given their highest award to? These winners include Kevin Rudd, Bob Hawke, Neville Wran, Gough Whitlam, John Brown, . What a load of biased rubbish this article is currently pushing that The Australian newspaper favors only a coalition agenda! Wow, no wonder onetwothreeip and you Curdle has been so terribly desperate to delete the reality of these winners of The Australian newspapers highest annual award all being left-wing politicians and leaders. Now I get why you fought so hard onetwothreeip. Sorry I give back as much bad faith as you've given me which I could easily prove. So no onetwothreeip I won't be taking it to ANI but will continue to try and bring some NPOV to this currently wildly biased article. Merphee (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- If we list it in a table it would be quite condensed. I don't see the problem in listing it as the award seems to be a significant part of what The Australian newspaper is and we have sure given a lot of undue weight Curdle and onetwothreeip to the supposed political alignment of The Australian don't you think, which I don't think benefits readers. I also still do not understand how we had a "biased" (in your opinion) list there before onetwothreeip? You never explained that one when I asked you to explain your reasoning a few times? The full list also gives readers an interesting reference. I thought we had this resolved but I will list it here and we discuss in a couple of days. Merphee (talk) 10:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- You were the one constantly referring to a policy, will you now concede that one does not exist? Hughesdarren (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- I havent commented on your other thoughts, as they appear to be a general complaint and so sort of answerless. If you have a specific example, lets sort this issue out first, then continue with that. I was discussing the award, and this appeared to be the section to do that. Curdle (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- I was not the one who wanted politicians in. What I objected to was 'removing' names that had been in there for 8 years just because onetwothreeip didn't want them to support the fact that the sources tell us The Australian newspaper is not a mouthpiece for the agenda of the coalition government especially when the vast majority of their highest annual award winners were left-wing leaders and ALP politicians. Removing this from the article is anti NPOV. Anyway I'm wondering Curdle what you think about the very large weight given to the subjective cherry-picked biased section of the article, specifically its current length and the weight we are giving to discussing politics and political alignment for some reason? It's way too long and overwhelms the article IMO.Merphee (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- CurdleFor the sake of civil discussion and respect for other editors I will explain my edit [20]. I placed this section in date order with the same theme of varying opinions of political alignment parapgraph. The next two paragraphs are different themes. Rather than edit warring could we have a civil discussion here about it and come to a resolution Curdle if you disagree? Rather than just revert a well explained edit. Thank you. Merphee (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- I was not the one who wanted politicians in. What I objected to was 'removing' names that had been in there for 8 years just because onetwothreeip didn't want them to support the fact that the sources tell us The Australian newspaper is not a mouthpiece for the agenda of the coalition government especially when the vast majority of their highest annual award winners were left-wing leaders and ALP politicians. Removing this from the article is anti NPOV. Anyway I'm wondering Curdle what you think about the very large weight given to the subjective cherry-picked biased section of the article, specifically its current length and the weight we are giving to discussing politics and political alignment for some reason? It's way too long and overwhelms the article IMO.Merphee (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- I havent commented on your other thoughts, as they appear to be a general complaint and so sort of answerless. If you have a specific example, lets sort this issue out first, then continue with that. I was discussing the award, and this appeared to be the section to do that. Curdle (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Some media organisations refer to The Australian as centrist
I think that the Crikey source clearly establishes that the Australian in their view is Centrist. Merphee (talk) 02:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- I've detailed why that's nonsense above, please reply there; and it certainly cannot justify a statement that publications _plural_ so regard it. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- If we keep having to deal with these attempts at calling The Australian centrist against every other editor here, I will have to request a topic ban restricting Merphee from editing this article. This hassle is just not worth dealing with. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think you onetwothreeip should have a topic ban quite frankly. There are three like minded editors here who all hate Rupert Murdoch and are trying to make our largest newspaper The Australian out to be some radical extremist publication that only advances the agenda of the Coalition and these editors have cherry picked quotes to try to support this biased point of view. This is certainly not what the sources say. I am attempting to bring some NPOV into the article but are being prevented from doing so. Merphee (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Like-minded editors are a bloody menace to society. cygnis insignis 08:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- They sure are Cygnis insignis. I'm wondering if there is anything in policy which shows where editors hold exactly the same point of view if their opinions can be seen as independent in building consensus. Looks very much like the situation we have here with this small group of identically minded editors working together as a team to prevent any changes or attempts to bring some NPOV to this extremely biased article is what Wikipedia policy refers to as a Wikipedia:Tag team. Not at all helpful. Will need to get some truly independent opinions on this I think. Merphee (talk) 09:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- I have added the https://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/so-who-skews-news-bias-australian-media-revealed/1875830/ research study. Merphee (talk) 09:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm positive another member of this identically minded tag team will come in and revert the inclusion of this study as onetwothreeip did despite the article clearly stating "particularly its flagship newspaper The Australian - of being overly conservative in its political views. At first glance, the findings do not support this assumption". Tag teams seem to be very damaging to achieving articles that are free from POV as an observation. Merphee (talk) 09:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- The giveaway there would be "at first glance". It's clearly an observation of the journalists who work for the newspaper, not the editorial staff. I don't know who this team is supposed to be but that's a ridiculous accusation. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- in this entire matter this is the only bit of empirical research we have available onetwothreeip. The rest is cherrypicked subjective crap. The source clearly states that the research findings do not support The Australian being overly conservative. We can only gp by what the reliable sources tell us. This is what the best reliable source on the matter based on empirical research tells us. You have provided no argument at all for not including this statement. I do not wish to edit war. However I am entitled to add to articles based on what a high quality reliable source explicitly states word for word. And no, my observation of tag teaming is certainly not ridiculous. Merphee (talk) 10:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- It's a bit of empirical research about something else, so it is of no use whatsoever. (And you're a fine one to talk about cherry-picking, given your prolonged desperate search for anything that can be misread into what you'd like.) Pinkbeast (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Ah a member of the tag team right on cue. It certainly is not about something else. What rubbish Pinkbeast. The source says "particularly its flagship newspaper The Australian - of being overly conservative in its political views. At first glance, the findings do not support this assumption". Merphee (talk) 09:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Given the reliable source actually states "The Australian" you are desperately trying to keep any type of objective studies out of the article and only convey an anti Murdoch point of view. We need to ensure a NPOV and use what reliable sources say not what you personally believe. Interested in how you justify reverting my addition to the article please? Merphee (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Doesn't reflect what the source says, as has been said repeatedly. I think we're done discussing this, I certainly am, if you disagree then take it to RfC or drop the stick. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Something needs to be done about this obvious Wikipedia:Tag team behaviour between the two of you to skew consensus and take ownership of this article. Your actions just then onetwothreeip and Pinkbeast, to circumvent the three revert rule is a classic Tag team characteristic. No NPOV can be brought to this highly biased, coatrack of an article. It's a joke. You are using Wikipedia to push your point of view that The Australian is some extremist right wing publication. It's not what the reliable sources say. Merphee (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- "Skew consensus" is a bit rich, since your position is that no-one agrees with you, so we'd better do it your way. Onetwothreeip and I aren't a "tag team"; we just agree with each other that what that article describes is journalists' personal views not editorial policy, and - to quote the article itself - "It is important to note that there is little research showing that journalists' personal political biases affect their work".
- No-one is suggesting it is an extremist publication. As said many times before, you're confusing "right-wing" with "far right" in order to construct a straw man to the effect that we are saying it is far right. We're not. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Something needs to be done about this obvious Wikipedia:Tag team behaviour between the two of you to skew consensus and take ownership of this article. Your actions just then onetwothreeip and Pinkbeast, to circumvent the three revert rule is a classic Tag team characteristic. No NPOV can be brought to this highly biased, coatrack of an article. It's a joke. You are using Wikipedia to push your point of view that The Australian is some extremist right wing publication. It's not what the reliable sources say. Merphee (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Doesn't reflect what the source says, as has been said repeatedly. I think we're done discussing this, I certainly am, if you disagree then take it to RfC or drop the stick. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Given the reliable source actually states "The Australian" you are desperately trying to keep any type of objective studies out of the article and only convey an anti Murdoch point of view. We need to ensure a NPOV and use what reliable sources say not what you personally believe. Interested in how you justify reverting my addition to the article please? Merphee (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Ah a member of the tag team right on cue. It certainly is not about something else. What rubbish Pinkbeast. The source says "particularly its flagship newspaper The Australian - of being overly conservative in its political views. At first glance, the findings do not support this assumption". Merphee (talk) 09:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- It's a bit of empirical research about something else, so it is of no use whatsoever. (And you're a fine one to talk about cherry-picking, given your prolonged desperate search for anything that can be misread into what you'd like.) Pinkbeast (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- in this entire matter this is the only bit of empirical research we have available onetwothreeip. The rest is cherrypicked subjective crap. The source clearly states that the research findings do not support The Australian being overly conservative. We can only gp by what the reliable sources tell us. This is what the best reliable source on the matter based on empirical research tells us. You have provided no argument at all for not including this statement. I do not wish to edit war. However I am entitled to add to articles based on what a high quality reliable source explicitly states word for word. And no, my observation of tag teaming is certainly not ridiculous. Merphee (talk) 10:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- The giveaway there would be "at first glance". It's clearly an observation of the journalists who work for the newspaper, not the editorial staff. I don't know who this team is supposed to be but that's a ridiculous accusation. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm positive another member of this identically minded tag team will come in and revert the inclusion of this study as onetwothreeip did despite the article clearly stating "particularly its flagship newspaper The Australian - of being overly conservative in its political views. At first glance, the findings do not support this assumption". Tag teams seem to be very damaging to achieving articles that are free from POV as an observation. Merphee (talk) 09:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- I have added the https://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/so-who-skews-news-bias-australian-media-revealed/1875830/ research study. Merphee (talk) 09:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- They sure are Cygnis insignis. I'm wondering if there is anything in policy which shows where editors hold exactly the same point of view if their opinions can be seen as independent in building consensus. Looks very much like the situation we have here with this small group of identically minded editors working together as a team to prevent any changes or attempts to bring some NPOV to this extremely biased article is what Wikipedia policy refers to as a Wikipedia:Tag team. Not at all helpful. Will need to get some truly independent opinions on this I think. Merphee (talk) 09:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Like-minded editors are a bloody menace to society. cygnis insignis 08:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think you onetwothreeip should have a topic ban quite frankly. There are three like minded editors here who all hate Rupert Murdoch and are trying to make our largest newspaper The Australian out to be some radical extremist publication that only advances the agenda of the Coalition and these editors have cherry picked quotes to try to support this biased point of view. This is certainly not what the sources say. I am attempting to bring some NPOV into the article but are being prevented from doing so. Merphee (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I just added the whole quote rather than the cherry picked bit that Pinkbeast chose to include and chose to leave out the sentence about Paul Keating (the ALP ) PM. Why did you do that Pinkbeast. That gave a very skewed and biased slant to that section of the article by omitting the other sentence about Paul Keating. Anyway I've added the whole quote to bring a neutral point of view to this bit in the article. " In 2007 Crikey stated that "it has been in sympathy with the agenda of federal governments of both colours". "Under editor Paul Kelly it helped define Paul Keating’s “big picture”. During the Howard years it has provided both turf and fuel for the culture warriors of the Right". Surely you both can understand that this is consistent with our Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. Merphee (talk) 11:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- As has been said before, one problem with this source is that it is over a decade old, necessarily limiting its reliability on what The Australian is like today; but it is even less useful in terms of representing how it is today to take an extract describing the situation before 1996. Additionally, of course - as has also been said before - the Crikey article doesn't say it has a centrist policy; it just says they go whichever way the wind is blowing. A centrist newspaper would criticise both left and right governments, rather than to agree with whatever the flavour du jour is. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't say it was centrist in the edits I made. In fact, the sources say it is centre-right. Never have said it was centrist. So on what grounds did you delete my two edits specifically. Aas I said why did you keep the 2007 quote but not include the bit about Paul Keating but only include the John Howard quote? You avoided that question as you and onetwothreeip both constantly do. Further evidence of tag teaming and tag team characteristics and block any changes and take ownership of the article. Can you please answer the content question? It's only you and onetwothreeip who are tag teaming to block any changes to this highly biased coatrack of an article. Merphee (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, you did. [21] "However some other media publications believe The Australian has a centrist approach". You put this into the article four times in succession, while crying "don't edit war".
- You also said it in the title of this talk page section, just in case there's any doubt.
- Not, of course, that it would make any difference, as already discussed; a source that says it just follows the government of the day doesn't say it's centre-right any more than it says it's centrist.
- You are literally replying to a talk page comment where I explain why its observations on the situation two decades ago are even less use than its observations on the situation one decade ago. Nothing has changed in the last hour. Pinkbeast (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes crikey.com stated that and I summarised. When a newspaper presents both left and right perspectives it is called centrist. My opinion is that it is centre-right. However we need to give a neutral point of view and include major reliable sources like this in the article rather than you blocking good quality sources and what they say. Would you and onetwothreeip be open to dispute resolution in this article. We need independent editors as I've said all along to try and bring some type of NPOV to this highly, biased coatrack article.Would you be open to sorting out our differences of opinion through dispute resolution? Merphee (talk) 04:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Take it to RfC to get more people here if you wish. I don't waste any more time arguing with you. I recommend others don't. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Wow, that really is extremely uncivil onetwothreeip. But this just how you interact with other editors and is all I ever get from you, abuse. I genuinely asked if you would like to use dispute resolution and you abuse me and demean me. I notice you do this a lot with other editors when others disagree with you. Disgusting breach of our civility policy. Sick of it from you. Merphee (talk) 05:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Take it to RfC to get more people here if you wish. I don't waste any more time arguing with you. I recommend others don't. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes crikey.com stated that and I summarised. When a newspaper presents both left and right perspectives it is called centrist. My opinion is that it is centre-right. However we need to give a neutral point of view and include major reliable sources like this in the article rather than you blocking good quality sources and what they say. Would you and onetwothreeip be open to dispute resolution in this article. We need independent editors as I've said all along to try and bring some type of NPOV to this highly, biased coatrack article.Would you be open to sorting out our differences of opinion through dispute resolution? Merphee (talk) 04:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't say it was centrist in the edits I made. In fact, the sources say it is centre-right. Never have said it was centrist. So on what grounds did you delete my two edits specifically. Aas I said why did you keep the 2007 quote but not include the bit about Paul Keating but only include the John Howard quote? You avoided that question as you and onetwothreeip both constantly do. Further evidence of tag teaming and tag team characteristics and block any changes and take ownership of the article. Can you please answer the content question? It's only you and onetwothreeip who are tag teaming to block any changes to this highly biased coatrack of an article. Merphee (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- That is actually the contrary, his comment is not harsh at all, he just asked you to open a Request for comment for a wider view.. You accusing others of uncivilised behavior and yourself being uncivil is in itself, uncivility.. 182.58.230.91 (talk) 06:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
I have requested the community look into a topic ban for Merphee regarding their conduct on this article and its talk page, here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Financial viability
Currently, the article says “From its inception the paper struggled for financial viability and ran at a loss for several decades.[4]”. The paper began in 1964, the citation (which is a deadlink and the archive consists of 3 words, none of which address the topic) is allegedly from 2008. I cannot see how the claim of several decades of loss-making makes any sense. I’d like to remove this unless someone can find a source that can be more explicit about extent of the loss making. Kerry (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Not sure why its not working- was good a couple of weeks back when I checked it. Works on my laptop, but not on the IPad...weird. It's a PDF of the entire preface to the book. Its also availiable via google books.
- [22] pg x
- "The 25 year time frame adopted for the study is important for several reasons, not least because of the newspapers protracted struggle for financial viability. That the Australian ran at a loss for several decades is not widely known and justifies a longer time frame than that of the remarkable volteface during the 1975 political crisis." later in Chapter one..it says "struggled financially for almost two decades before turning the corner in the mid 80's" pg 1 and there is a bit about actual figures on pg 10. I've been working a bit on the refs and the history- still digging up sources though. Curdle (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Crikey.com quote
I recently tried to include the full quote from Crikey.com stating that "it has been in sympathy with the agenda of federal governments of both colours". "Under editor Paul Kelly it helped define Paul Keating’s “big picture”. During the Howard years it has provided both turf and fuel for the culture warriors of the Right". By including the full quote I believe we are giving readers a neutral point of view.
However editor Pinkbeast immediately deleted the middle sentence about Paul Keating who is an Australian Labor Party Prime Minister and only included the sentence about John Howard a Coalition Party PM. So the biased and totally skewed section then read, "it has been in sympathy with the agenda of federal governments of both colours". During the Howard years it has provided both turf and fuel for the culture warriors of the Right" This is the version that remains in the article unchallenged.
Pinkbeast, as you know you actually omitted the middle sentence which gave meaning to Crikey's statement that "it has been in sympathy with the agenda of federal governments of both colours" By you choosing to delete only the sentence in the middle "Under editor Paul Kelly it helped define Paul Keating’s “big picture” you completely skewed the point the source was making and have misrepresented the reliable source. Once again, for clarity, this was the critical sentence in the middle, illustrating a fair and balanced or in other words centrist approach to The Australian's reporting, that the source Crikey.com was making.
On that basis have I got permission please from the 4 editors Onetwothreeip, Hughesdarren Curdle and Pinkbeast to simply include the full quote rather than just the cherry picked bit that once again gives undue weight to The Australian being right-wing? Hope that request is clearly stated. I would appreciate a direct response to this content question please as I do believe there has been a Wikipedia:Tag team operating here. I very much hope I am wrong. Merphee (talk) 07:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Nothing has changed; what you are trying to do is crowbar in something about the situation in 1995, which is not a good guide to the newspaper in 2018. (The source itself, dating from 2007, isn't great there either, but then you picked it...)
- As detailed above the article doesn't support, in any way, the assertion you're trying to make that it's centrist (or "centre-right" when you forget what you wrote beforehand).
- You never actually try to address any of these objections, just spit up your conspiracy theory again - "every other editor disagrees with me, they must be working together!". As such, you should hardly be surprised to find those objections are unchanged. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Please stop being so uncivil and focus only on content. And no, on this particular edit it is only you that disagrees with me. No conspiracy theory. We just disagree that's all. It happens at Wikipedia and we work toward a resolution. Now why then have you still included the quote from Crikey in the article. The quote was from Crikey's 2007 source and is historical. Are you willing to remove the other bit then as a compromise and a resolution?
- The full quote from the Crikey 2007 source is "it has been in sympathy with the agenda of federal governments of both colours". "Under editor Paul Kelly it helped define Paul Keating’s “big picture”. During the Howard years it has provided both turf and fuel for the culture warriors of the Right" You have left the full quote in but removed the Paul Keating bit which is misrepresenting the source, so it now reads, "In 2007 Crikey stated that "it has been in sympathy with the agenda of federal governments of both colours, and hence had provided both turf and fuel for the culture warriors of the Right during the Howard years".["Crikey Bias-o-meter: The newspapers". Crikey. 26 June 2007. Retrieved 23 December 2018.
{{cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|dead-url=
(help)]
- The full quote from the Crikey 2007 source is "it has been in sympathy with the agenda of federal governments of both colours". "Under editor Paul Kelly it helped define Paul Keating’s “big picture”. During the Howard years it has provided both turf and fuel for the culture warriors of the Right" You have left the full quote in but removed the Paul Keating bit which is misrepresenting the source, so it now reads, "In 2007 Crikey stated that "it has been in sympathy with the agenda of federal governments of both colours, and hence had provided both turf and fuel for the culture warriors of the Right during the Howard years".["Crikey Bias-o-meter: The newspapers". Crikey. 26 June 2007. Retrieved 23 December 2018.
- Perhaps we could use proper dispute resolution instead as I suggest a couple of days ago? It is quite an important point and this is an important article about Australia's largest Newspaper. The Australian is centre-right and you are trying to make it seem like a right wing newspaper to our readers, which is not what the sources say. However I strongly believe we need independent Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to resolve this if you are not willing to compromise at all? I think it is best to seek dispute resolution rather than continue to argue over this edit and go around in circles. We can even leave your preferred version in the article while we do so if you like. be Would that be okay with you Pinkbeast? Merphee (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Onetwothreeip and Pinkbeast. Would you like to participate in the independent Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process I am going to initiate to help us resolve our issues in a civil manner focussing only on content? This has been suggested at the recent case at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents which is now closed. This process shouldn't take too long. The proposed edit for resolution would be the one I'm suggesting in this section and is aiming to fix the problem of bias that I have clearly pointed out above. There has been no good reasons provided to reject my proposed edit and other editors apart from Pinkbeast have not commented on this specific edit to date.
- I'm also wondering what other editors think about us removing this subjective and controversial section altogether as another proposed resolution? Seems to have caused a lot of unnecessary debate and I cannot see how it is helpful for our readers as it is largely based on quotes from individual commentators on both sides (left and right wing) rather than any objective research on the topic. Merphee (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- There is no single dispute resolution process. What you keep linking is a summary of all possible means to resolve disputes. I've already said you can take it to RfC if you wish. It's clear you're the one outnumbered here, so you're the one with anything to gain from bringing other people into this dispute. I think I speak for the rest of the consensus here when I say that you should stop telling us about dispute resolution and just start getting on with it if that's what you want to do, you don't need us to start that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Wow. Obviously onetwothreeip you still cannot just focus on content. And you just wish to continue the hostility. The edit I am proposing is new. I've said that multiple times but you keep ignoring this fact and saying there is consensus against it. No one else has commented on it. I will choose an appropriate form of dispute resolution. What are your thoughts on just getting rid of this subjective section entirely? And we can all move on. How does this biased skewed and subjective section benefit our readers? Merphee (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- The quote about Paul Keating is not useful and doesn't help describe the newspaper. You're the only one in support of this edit, and unless that changes, that proposal won't appear on the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Once again, you have not addressed any of my points regarding the quote, just followed what Pinbeast said. This is why we need independent dispute resolution which I will initiate. For the record, only you and Pinkbeast are objecting to it no one else has commented. Please don't misrepresent the facts. Anyway a resolution should not take too long if we focus on content only onetwothreeip and keep things civil through dispute resolution. Leaving the Crikey source in the article in its current wording is breaching policy. No need for us to discuss anything further on this point and waste any space on this page doing so. Merphee (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with Pinkbeast. You do not have consensus. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- That's not how consensus works. Especially when you are both identically minded. It's not as simple as 2 against one. You should know that. Merphee (talk) 05:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- And as a general reminder, consensus is not the product of single minded persistence on a minor potential improvement over an extended period of time. At some point the discussion becomes disruptive or obstructive, yet there is other, quieter, ways of engaging the community. cygnis insignis 10:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Cygnis insignis, duly noted. And a very good point and have learnt a lot from this and hope to improve my editing. I'm never too arrogant to accept feedback and advice from genuine editors. I have backed off completely and was simply waiting for the recent ANI case to close. I do not wish to take up any more space here on the talk page and will in future use "other, quieter, ways of engaging the community" like you suggested. I can see that this dispute here between myself and several like-minded editors has been disruptive. However we all need to accept collective blame for any disruption and move on. Having said that, The Australian is Australia's largest newspaper and the section of the article in dispute does still need to be resolved. Merphee (talk) 06:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Merphee, it is very good of you to take my comment in the vein it was intended and I recognise where I too was not especially helpful in seeking resolution. Giving coverage to these things is a slippery business, if it appears balanced to some then others will see that as exceptions to an absolute political position on a spectrum rather than the realpolitik of creating stories and spin as they attempt to retain readership. The subjectivity on others views can be presented fairly, but those facts are more likely to stray from the plainer summation of factual information and become a timesink for contributors. cygnis insignis 06:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- And as a general reminder, consensus is not the product of single minded persistence on a minor potential improvement over an extended period of time. At some point the discussion becomes disruptive or obstructive, yet there is other, quieter, ways of engaging the community. cygnis insignis 10:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- That's not how consensus works. Especially when you are both identically minded. It's not as simple as 2 against one. You should know that. Merphee (talk) 05:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with Pinkbeast. You do not have consensus. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Once again, you have not addressed any of my points regarding the quote, just followed what Pinbeast said. This is why we need independent dispute resolution which I will initiate. For the record, only you and Pinkbeast are objecting to it no one else has commented. Please don't misrepresent the facts. Anyway a resolution should not take too long if we focus on content only onetwothreeip and keep things civil through dispute resolution. Leaving the Crikey source in the article in its current wording is breaching policy. No need for us to discuss anything further on this point and waste any space on this page doing so. Merphee (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- The quote about Paul Keating is not useful and doesn't help describe the newspaper. You're the only one in support of this edit, and unless that changes, that proposal won't appear on the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Wow. Obviously onetwothreeip you still cannot just focus on content. And you just wish to continue the hostility. The edit I am proposing is new. I've said that multiple times but you keep ignoring this fact and saying there is consensus against it. No one else has commented on it. I will choose an appropriate form of dispute resolution. What are your thoughts on just getting rid of this subjective section entirely? And we can all move on. How does this biased skewed and subjective section benefit our readers? Merphee (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- There is no single dispute resolution process. What you keep linking is a summary of all possible means to resolve disputes. I've already said you can take it to RfC if you wish. It's clear you're the one outnumbered here, so you're the one with anything to gain from bringing other people into this dispute. I think I speak for the rest of the consensus here when I say that you should stop telling us about dispute resolution and just start getting on with it if that's what you want to do, you don't need us to start that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Infobox political alignment
Rather than leaving long comments in the article space can we have a conversation here please? @Reginaldarnold: @Merphee: @Onetwothreeip: are all the involved editors that are making edits on political alignment since the page has been unblocked. Hughesdarren (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- This newspaper is known for its political views, not merely bias. Any decent encyclopaedic article about the newspaper would reflect that. "Centre-right" was what Merphee pleaded for the article to describe the newspaper as, after initially being described as generally right wing, though not "extreme right" or "far right" as Merphee has claimed. After that it was agreed that the newspaper would be described as both centre-right and right wing, as other things are. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- There has been an extensive discussion as you both are fully aware over at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board. Many very experienced well respected editors made some excellent points as you both know. So why are you going against this now? Why go against what was decided? And it has nothing to do with our previous interactions about other issues here onetwothreeip. So please don't rehash that. It's really not helpful. The Drover's Wife summarised other editor's perspectives particularly well I thought in her comments here. [23]. Do you both disagree with the consensus established over there? Do you disagree with the The Drover's Wife's excellent summation? By the way Onetwothreeip, you even stated you didn't care about the infobox and did not really participate in the active discussion that was had over the issue. So why now? Very importantly, we also have no such political alignment in any of our Australian or indeed USA article infoboxes on major newspaper publications. Would you both please respond specifically to these questions relating entirely and only to the previous discussion under The Australian at the Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board the end of December 2018. Merphee (talk) 08:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- And Hughesdarren why did you not ping all of the editors who took their precious time discussing this precise issue over at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board rather than a couple of editors (onetwothreeip and Reginaldarnold) who support your point of view? That would seem neutral. The majority editors formed consensus not to include political alignment in any of our articles on Australian newspapers. In my opinion that is Wikipedia:Canvassing. I think all involved editors in the previous discussion should be pinged. Would you like to do that please? Merphee (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- As I explained above, these were the editors who had contributed since the page was unblocked. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Merphee, hello again. What is the correlation between: the amount of discussion you generate and perpetuate and the actual, desirable, and pretty much uncontestable content that appears in mainspace as a result. Content is not created by debate. cygnis insignis 13:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- I have no idea what discussion you're talking about, or to which of my comments you are referring to. You are claiming I was aware of a discussion that I did not participate in? I'm not sure what you're asking me, so I ask you to ask your questions again but clearer. It was proper that the infobox reflected the political views of the newspaper, as it is a strong theme of the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- And Hughesdarren why did you not ping all of the editors who took their precious time discussing this precise issue over at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board rather than a couple of editors (onetwothreeip and Reginaldarnold) who support your point of view? That would seem neutral. The majority editors formed consensus not to include political alignment in any of our articles on Australian newspapers. In my opinion that is Wikipedia:Canvassing. I think all involved editors in the previous discussion should be pinged. Would you like to do that please? Merphee (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- There has been an extensive discussion as you both are fully aware over at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board. Many very experienced well respected editors made some excellent points as you both know. So why are you going against this now? Why go against what was decided? And it has nothing to do with our previous interactions about other issues here onetwothreeip. So please don't rehash that. It's really not helpful. The Drover's Wife summarised other editor's perspectives particularly well I thought in her comments here. [23]. Do you both disagree with the consensus established over there? Do you disagree with the The Drover's Wife's excellent summation? By the way Onetwothreeip, you even stated you didn't care about the infobox and did not really participate in the active discussion that was had over the issue. So why now? Very importantly, we also have no such political alignment in any of our Australian or indeed USA article infoboxes on major newspaper publications. Would you both please respond specifically to these questions relating entirely and only to the previous discussion under The Australian at the Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board the end of December 2018. Merphee (talk) 08:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- remove My firm preference is that the infobox field for 'political alignment' should not be used, it is not the business of wikipedia to assign that as a bare declaration not matter how much special pleading takes place. The more discussion that is unrelated to our methods of improving content, the more certain that it is a bad idea. cygnis insignis 13:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'm in favour of making the description as broad as possible, i.e. "centre-right to right wing". I don't see why we can do that for political parties but not newspapers, and we describe the newspaper as that throughout the article anyway. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- "and become a timesink for contributors. cygnis insignis 06:54, 31 January 2019 " & cygnis insignis 08:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC) …
- I'm in favour of making the description as broad as possible, i.e. "centre-right to right wing". I don't see why we can do that for political parties but not newspapers, and we describe the newspaper as that throughout the article anyway. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- remove I also strongly oppose it's re-inclusion. There were also at least 6 other editors who supported removing 'political alignment' in the infobox from all of our articles on Australian newspaper. Onetwothreeip don't you remember? The consensus was established inthe discussion you started at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board in December 2018 titled The Australian. Regardless of you remembering your own discussion onetwothreeip, a clear consensus has already been established on all articles on Australian newspapers, not just The Australian. The Drover's Wife summed it up in her excellent comment here. [24]. Adding it to the infobox of this one article is disruptive and goes against consensus and does not improve our articles. Merphee (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Merphee, the whole discussion was about confirming that The Australian has a broadly right wing agenda, despite edits and comments you've made. It was not about an infobox or an infobox parameter, and it is puzzling why you think what The Drover's Wife had said there is relevant to your argument. All this about the infobox is really not important, I would prefer it being there but others may disagree. What's important is that the political orientation of the newspaper be reflected in the article. I think we should keep that in the infobox but seriously let's not make a mountain of a molehill. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- This edit is extremely curious, replacing "Centre-right to right wing" with "Centre-right" (abusing the minor edit facility).
- It is curious both because the only time the added cite actually says "centre-right" is a quote from the editor of the paper (hardly an unbiased observer) and because the edit summary links to Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Political_alignment_of_Aus_newspapers where Reginaldarnold, who made this edit, argues strongly that it is "right-wing", then comes here and removes it.
- I feel both that "Centre-right to right wing" is justified and that it can stay in the infobox. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
While there will always be disagreement on the the wording for "alignment", the fact that we show News Corp as the owner tells most informed media observers an awful lot about what its political alignment will be. HiLo48 (talk) 03:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think we can rely on a reader's preconceptions of News Corp Australia, particularly non-Australian readers. To avoid the issue of working out exactly which flavour of right wing the newspaper has, we can simply say "centre-right to right wing", which I think is an objective view supported by reliable sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- TBH I was hoping Reginaldarnold would shed some light on why they first argued it was "right-wing" then removed that expression, but I'm happy with the change you have made. Pinkbeast (talk) 04:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- The whole point here is that there has been a consensus on not including political alignment in the infobox of any of our articles on Australian newspapers. We need consistency with articles. We need to focus on improving our articles for our readers. All of our articles on Australian newspapers have not got the political alignment in the infobox. Neither have any of our articles on USA newspapers. This discussion involved many experienced and well respected editors each providing strong reasons for their conclusions. Consensus was then reached. We can't just insert a political alignment in the infobox for one article on one newspaper while all of our other articles on newspapers do not have this in the infobox. This is the specific point we are talking about. The Drover's Wife commented here in relation to this precise point. [25]. Can editors address this point I have made please. Merphee (talk) 06:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- This is clearly an attempt as hiding behind someone else's credibility. No, there was no consensus made there about infobox parameters, and the discussion was not mainly about infobox parameters either. The Australian has among the strongest political alignment of Australian newspapers, so it's no surprise that this article would have that in the infobox while other newspapers wouldn't. I think you would be best advised to adhere to this point, by The Drover's Wife. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- These comments by The Drover's Wife this point, were obviously saying if you want to go against the consensus of us not having political alignment in the infobox of any of our articles on Australian newspapers go ahead and open a new discussion elsewhere, but on the extensive discussion on the Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board in December/January consensus certainly was established. Can you please answer to the points I've raised on content onetwothreeip. All of our other articles on Australian and USA newspapers do not include political alignment in the infobox. We are aiming for consistency in our articles. I will add all of the other editors who overwhelmingly supported the proposal to drop the political alignment from infoboxes to clearly show the consensus and their reasons. We can't ignore consensus onetwothreeip. That discussion formed the consensus as it was an improvement to the project. This now includes Cygnis insignis very well reasoned (as usual) comments on why they also support not including political alignment in the infobox. Merphee (talk) 07:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- I've already made my points, including why some newspapers would have a political alignment expressly listed and others may not. Consensus is not whatever you want it to be. You can ask me questions if you want me to clarify something further. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- If your position is that we can't rely on readers, to gather facts and make up their minds or bolster their pov, to place the readership/journalists/columists/editors/megalomaniac complex under their own labelling, classification, boxification and political-spectrographs, that is, if they have them? We must instead contest or affirm a position before the reader begins reading, with an unstable label that triggers something and says nothing? Would you care to discuss what you think the the purpose of this page, this site, is? cygnis insignis 08:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- I have another question, that is, what benefit is there to our readers in including this in the infobox when it was decided by about 8 to 3 editors on the Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board not to include political alignment in any of our articles on Australian newspapers and consistent with our articles on USA newspapers which also do not include this in the infobox? It's also going to cause so much unnecessary conflict over an issue already dealt with by consensus. On that basis and unless there can be some sound reasoning and benefits to our readers produced here, I think it is very disruptive move placing this back into this one article's infobox. Merphee (talk) 11:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- That is not my position. I think the purpose of the article is to provide encyclopaedic information about the subject.
- Merphee, you are lying. That discussion was not about the infobox and what to include in the infobox, the discussion was about characterising the newspaper's political views throughout the article. There is no such consensus there about the infobox, and it only goes to show how ridiculous that idea is when you say that the consensus on the Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board created a consensus for articles about American newspapers. It's clear that you oppose summarising the political views of the newspaper in the infobox, but please stop lying about previous discussions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- If your position is that we can't rely on readers, to gather facts and make up their minds or bolster their pov, to place the readership/journalists/columists/editors/megalomaniac complex under their own labelling, classification, boxification and political-spectrographs, that is, if they have them? We must instead contest or affirm a position before the reader begins reading, with an unstable label that triggers something and says nothing? Would you care to discuss what you think the the purpose of this page, this site, is? cygnis insignis 08:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- I've already made my points, including why some newspapers would have a political alignment expressly listed and others may not. Consensus is not whatever you want it to be. You can ask me questions if you want me to clarify something further. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- These comments by The Drover's Wife this point, were obviously saying if you want to go against the consensus of us not having political alignment in the infobox of any of our articles on Australian newspapers go ahead and open a new discussion elsewhere, but on the extensive discussion on the Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board in December/January consensus certainly was established. Can you please answer to the points I've raised on content onetwothreeip. All of our other articles on Australian and USA newspapers do not include political alignment in the infobox. We are aiming for consistency in our articles. I will add all of the other editors who overwhelmingly supported the proposal to drop the political alignment from infoboxes to clearly show the consensus and their reasons. We can't ignore consensus onetwothreeip. That discussion formed the consensus as it was an improvement to the project. This now includes Cygnis insignis very well reasoned (as usual) comments on why they also support not including political alignment in the infobox. Merphee (talk) 07:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- This is clearly an attempt as hiding behind someone else's credibility. No, there was no consensus made there about infobox parameters, and the discussion was not mainly about infobox parameters either. The Australian has among the strongest political alignment of Australian newspapers, so it's no surprise that this article would have that in the infobox while other newspapers wouldn't. I think you would be best advised to adhere to this point, by The Drover's Wife. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- The whole point here is that there has been a consensus on not including political alignment in the infobox of any of our articles on Australian newspapers. We need consistency with articles. We need to focus on improving our articles for our readers. All of our articles on Australian newspapers have not got the political alignment in the infobox. Neither have any of our articles on USA newspapers. This discussion involved many experienced and well respected editors each providing strong reasons for their conclusions. Consensus was then reached. We can't just insert a political alignment in the infobox for one article on one newspaper while all of our other articles on newspapers do not have this in the infobox. This is the specific point we are talking about. The Drover's Wife commented here in relation to this precise point. [25]. Can editors address this point I have made please. Merphee (talk) 06:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- TBH I was hoping Reginaldarnold would shed some light on why they first argued it was "right-wing" then removed that expression, but I'm happy with the change you have made. Pinkbeast (talk) 04:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
It seems fairly supportable to mention the political bias of the newspaper in the article, as we do for many of our articles on media. I'd prefer to see it explained in the lede rather than the infobox, but both are fine. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- We don't include it in the infobox of any articles on any USA newspapers and now no Australian newspapers either. That's the whole point here. A consensus was established not to. Merphee (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm wondering what you do in this situation as I sure as f... don't want any more drama over something done and dusted or get into an edit war over it. Cygnis insignis do you know what the best way forward is to resolve this. The issue here is not whether the Australian is centre right or The Age or SMH is centre left it is solely whether a newspaper's supposed political alignment should be included in the info box on any article? Merphee (talk) 12:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- We don't include it in the infobox of any articles on any USA newspapers and now no Australian newspapers either. That's the whole point here. A consensus was established not to. Merphee (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- I removed the infobox field mentioned above, and that accords with my position above. This is not a close to the discussion, a new consensus is possible for: 1. inclusion of the parameter that must have 2. an incontestable summation of the content. Just doing 1. is also possible, with the community's consent to have this goad another series of contentious changes and interminable discussion. cygnis insignis 13:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- It's clear that this talk page is preferring that some sort of political orientation description be retained in the infobox. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Referring back to the extensive conversation held at all support the very wise revert Cygnis insignis made yesterday which I fully support too. Onetwothreeip can you please just Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass now. Merphee (talk) 04:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- It astounds me that you of all people can claim that anyone besides yourself is beating a dead horse. The consensus is clearly not on your side here, all you've linked are people's comments at the Australian Wikipedians' noticeboard. This talk page section is not on your side. Are you telling me this because earlier I told you not to make a mountain out of a molehill? I suggest you take your own advice. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Referring back to the extensive conversation held at all support the very wise revert Cygnis insignis made yesterday which I fully support too. Onetwothreeip can you please just Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass now. Merphee (talk) 04:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- It's clear that this talk page is preferring that some sort of political orientation description be retained in the infobox. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
PeterTheFourth, I suggest keeping your emotions in check please and focus on content, not the contributor. Now as far as your bold edit in the lede, I reverted it, now let's discuss it without your insults. Also the discussion thread should be at the base of the page as it is confusing for editors. Merphee (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- I agree users are occasionally overstating each point and contribution with some colourful language, but others like "very wise revert" are only slightly exaggerated. cygnis insignis 06:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Seeing as the consternation seems to relate to having it in the infobox as opposed to the information being included, I've added it to the lede. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- @PeterTheFourth: As I see that as effectively the same thing, is there any chance you might not casually create another point of consternation and undo that? cygnis insignis 10:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Cygnis insignis: I don't believe it's effectively the same thing. Merphee wrote
We don't include it in the infobox of any articles on any USA newspapers and now no Australian newspapers either. That's the whole point here. A consensus was established not to.
- we actually do include political orientation in a number of articles about newspapers etc. in the lede, which is where I'd recommend political orientation be placed. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)- PeterTheFourth, I totally agree with Cygnis insignis. And I definitely believe it is effectively the same thing. Now if we can have a civil discussion over your suggestion firstly could you please provide examples of your statement above "we actually do include political orientation in a number of articles about newspapers etc. in the lede". It's best we deal with these content issues objectively in my opinion at least. Merphee (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Merphee: Sure, here's some examples.
- ...is a far-right syndicated American news, opinion and commentary website...
- ...is an American far-right news and opinion website
- ...is a far-right American conspiracy theory and fake news website...
- ...is an American far-right media website founded by former Breitbart News employees.
- The magazine employs a liberal political stance.
- Would you like more? PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Many more publications have this information in the infobox, including:
- *...Conservative]
- *...Euroscepticism, Right-wing populism, Conservative
- *... Conservative
- *... Conservative
- *...Labour
- *...Centre-Left
- *...Conservative, Centre-right
- *...Classical liberalism, Social liberalism, Economic liberalism, Radical centrism
- *...Globalism, Economic liberalism
- *...Centre-left Hughesdarren (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- What would be helpful is if you could provide some examples of any mainstream newspapers in Australia or the USA not far right extremist publications like the ones you have listed or far left wing publications for that matter. I mean articles on newspapers that mums and dads of Australia read in Australia and the USA like the Australian, The Age, the SMH and so on and equivalents on USA newspapers. We need to compare like for like. Merphee (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- And why not UK papers as provided above? Where the political orientation is in the infobox? Hughesdarren (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Because on our newspapers consensus was gained to not include them. Merphee (talk) 12:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- And really the UK articles should also follow the lead of all of the USA articles as Wikipedia is based mainly on United States direction. If anything the UK articles should not include these in the infobox either. Some really strong reasons were provided by the editors at the extensive conversation held at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board in December 2018 this comment [26] and this one [27] and this one [28] and this one [29] Merphee (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Don't you think consistency across our like for like articles is important? That's what my understanding is at least of the direction and approach Wikipedia is trying to take for the benefit of our readers. Merphee (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I do think consistency is important which is why I'm pointing out that nearly all the UK papers have this information in the infobox. Hughesdarren (talk) 13:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Merphee: You appear to be shifting the goal posts - earlier it was 'no media have their political leanings in the lede, so we can't have it' - now it appears to be 'some media don't have their political leanings in the lede, so we can't have it' which is far less persuasive. And, y'know, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We'd need an actual reason to exclude it rather than just pointing to articles where no political leanings are included. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- After having checked out several US publications it appears that the assumption that none of these have political alignment in the infobox is also false. After a quick search it appears at least some do:
- *...Liberal
- *...Centre-left, populist
- *...Centre-right, populist Hughesdarren (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Don't you think consistency across our like for like articles is important? That's what my understanding is at least of the direction and approach Wikipedia is trying to take for the benefit of our readers. Merphee (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- And really the UK articles should also follow the lead of all of the USA articles as Wikipedia is based mainly on United States direction. If anything the UK articles should not include these in the infobox either. Some really strong reasons were provided by the editors at the extensive conversation held at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board in December 2018 this comment [26] and this one [27] and this one [28] and this one [29] Merphee (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Because on our newspapers consensus was gained to not include them. Merphee (talk) 12:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- And why not UK papers as provided above? Where the political orientation is in the infobox? Hughesdarren (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- What would be helpful is if you could provide some examples of any mainstream newspapers in Australia or the USA not far right extremist publications like the ones you have listed or far left wing publications for that matter. I mean articles on newspapers that mums and dads of Australia read in Australia and the USA like the Australian, The Age, the SMH and so on and equivalents on USA newspapers. We need to compare like for like. Merphee (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Merphee: Sure, here's some examples.
- PeterTheFourth, I totally agree with Cygnis insignis. And I definitely believe it is effectively the same thing. Now if we can have a civil discussion over your suggestion firstly could you please provide examples of your statement above "we actually do include political orientation in a number of articles about newspapers etc. in the lede". It's best we deal with these content issues objectively in my opinion at least. Merphee (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Cygnis insignis: I don't believe it's effectively the same thing. Merphee wrote
PeterTheFourth I did not say that all! What? Where did I just say 'no media have their political leanings in the lede, so we can't have it' - now it appears to be 'some media don't have their political leanings in the lede, so we can't have it' Could you provide quotations otherwise please don't provide words I didn't say and distort our discussion. I will wait for your answer? Thank you. Merphee (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that discretionary sanctions are active on discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- NinjaRobotPirate could you please provide some direction here. My only point has been that my understanding was consensus was developed whereby no political alignment, left, right or upside down would be included in the infobox of our articles on mainstream newspapers. Many experienced editors provided some sound reasons for this. I just think we go with all articles or no articles for the benefit of our readers. Is there any direction on this matter you could provide? Some very good reasons were provided. I also think its an improvement. Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board in December 2018 [30] [31] [32] [33] :To help reach resolution here what do you suggest please, particularly given there are discretionary sanctions in place for discussions regarding infoboxes? I just want a resolution to this one issue of consensus. If there was no consensus then how can we set up a vote to resolve this issue and have consistency across our like for like articles and for reader's benefit? Any direction would be welcome and would be helpful to a resolution. Merphee (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- If you want to set up a vote, see WP:RFC. WP:DR lists other options. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Merphee: If your only point is that they are not allowed in infoboxes, why did you instantly revert this information being added in the lede? PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks NinjaRobotPirate. My understanding is that we agreed on no political alignment in any infoboxes on our articles on Australian mainstream articles to avoid long drawn out discussions like this one and for the benefit of readers and for consistency across like for like articles. PeterTheFourth have you got that quote as yet please? I don't appreciate being misrepresented as blatantly as you did. That is not helpful and creates unnecessary hostility. Let's work toward a civil resolution.Thank you. Merphee (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well you clearly understood incorrectly. Nowhere here is there any such consensus. Actually more people are indicating they support including this in the infobox. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- No I have not misunderstood onetwothreeip. You seem to have. What the consensus established at the extensive discussion on the topic of not including political alignment in any of our articles on Australian newspapers (obviously this includes The Australian) was not to include it in the infobox. Please see Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board in December 2018 and The Drover's Wife's most recent comment [34] So why are you going against that consensus on this article? The Australian is in fact a mainstream Australian newspaper is it not. Could you reply to that specific question? Merphee (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- A quick run through the discussion yields edits such as this which urges case by case [35] and this which suggests if there was any consensus it is quite meaningless. [36] Hughesdarren (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- What is the question you want me to answer? Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- No I have not misunderstood onetwothreeip. You seem to have. What the consensus established at the extensive discussion on the topic of not including political alignment in any of our articles on Australian newspapers (obviously this includes The Australian) was not to include it in the infobox. Please see Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board in December 2018 and The Drover's Wife's most recent comment [34] So why are you going against that consensus on this article? The Australian is in fact a mainstream Australian newspaper is it not. Could you reply to that specific question? Merphee (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well you clearly understood incorrectly. Nowhere here is there any such consensus. Actually more people are indicating they support including this in the infobox. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks NinjaRobotPirate. My understanding is that we agreed on no political alignment in any infoboxes on our articles on Australian mainstream articles to avoid long drawn out discussions like this one and for the benefit of readers and for consistency across like for like articles. PeterTheFourth have you got that quote as yet please? I don't appreciate being misrepresented as blatantly as you did. That is not helpful and creates unnecessary hostility. Let's work toward a civil resolution.Thank you. Merphee (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
RFC proposed to be held at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians'notice board
To help us resolve this issue relating to political alignment in infoboxes, as per NinjaRobotPirate's suggestion and if anyone had any issue with the majority of editors who supported a removal of political alignment in the infobox of all Australian articles on our mainstream newspapers I will open a WP:RFC at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board. I will ping all of the involved editors, without exception, who took part during the last extensive discussion on the topic. Hoping this will provide a final resolution covering all of our articles on mainstream newspapers in Australia, in a neutral and objective manner and be based on solid reasons why or why not a political alignment should be included in their infoboxes. I ask please that while this RFC takes place no editors revert Cygnis insignis's edit [37] whereby they restored the status quo of the previous two months on this article. I welcome any input in the wording of the RFC and wish only to work collaboratively with other editors so we may achieve a broad consensus covering all of our articles which will also reduce further disruption to the project and any conflict between editors. Merphee (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think it is wise to notify all the participants from that. It would probably be best to create a new section there that notifies editors that you would like more people to discuss it here. There is no point in making a consensus for all articles about newspapers, or even only about Australian newspapers. There are many different newspapers and some are appropriately labelled with political orientation while others are not. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- This seems the only objective and neutral way forward and notifying all of the previous editors involved in that previous discussion at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board including you and Hughesdarren is only fair. There were few who disagreed with the consensus, as you both know, and far more who agreed that the political alignment in the infobox and for very good reasons be removed in all of our articles on Australian newspapers. We are aiming for consistency in our articles. Would you like to be involved in the wording of the RFC onetwothreeip? We can all work together if you like. Also we can cast the net wider in addition to all of those who previously participated. That's why I have made a notification on this talk page. I will make a similar notification on each of our articles on our mainstream newspapers too. Any suggestions how we can make the RFC even wider and more encompassing? Merphee (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- That wasn't a discussion about the infobox though. It was mentioned by some people, especially yourself, but it wasn't the focus of the discussion. I said earlier this shouldn't be a big deal but if you insist on making this a big deal then it would be better just to make a post there. Notifying specific people can lead to the appearance of canvassing if there are a lot of people and some may be forgotten or omitted. The greater concern I have is your inclination to erase any indication of the newspaper's politician orientation throughout the article. It's also important that how we use the infobox on this article does not bind us on how we use it on other articles about newspapers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- What I am trying to do is establish some objective rules on 'like for like' articles, to avoid endless arguments over subjective points of view. Wastes everyone's time and creates unnecessary conflict. The topic of infoboxes and political alignment became the whole topic of discussion on the Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board and took over entirely your vain attempts to bring something forward that had no real basis it turned out. Lots of editors expressed their credible points of view and it became a discussion of real value and consensus was formed. I just facilitated it. Notifying all people involved in the discussion, including you and Hughesdarren, not just some and then casting the net wider through the strategies I've outlined still will be the aim of the RFC and my wording will certainly be not including the infoboxes for all of our articles on Australian newspapers and see what the community vote for. Merphee (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think your assurances that you will also notify me among others is as gracious as you think, given that I am already aware of this matter. You're the one looking to have these arguments, this doesn't really interest me. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Nothing to do with being gracious it's about being even handed and fair and neutral and getting everyone's opinion on this matter, given you have been so very very loud in your belief there was no previous consensus at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice boardwhich there was obviously was. Interesting how now you don't want a proper RFC but only want to do your own thing. Well that's not how Wikipedia works. Anyhow I'm done discussing this with you. We'll see what the community wants. This is the only reason we need to have another extensive discussion because you and Hughesdarren couldn't accept the previous consensus even though you both participated! Merphee (talk) 09:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Merphee: Are you going to start an RfC or not dude? That's the best way to establish a consensus for this thing. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- chill out dude. Merphee (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Merphee: It's been a few days. Are you going to start that RfC you were talking about in all those reverts you made? PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- @PeterTheFourth: I think this is it Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Political_alignment_of_Aus_newspapers, but I did not read the above very closely cygnis insignis 14:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Cygnis insignis: Unfortunately not, as that was started on Feb 24th, and is not an RfC. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- That is what it looks like to me. A formal process would be site wide, and I expect it would address every nation's media. And then sanctions would apply, then the interpretation of sanctions, and so on. Sound like your cup-of-tea? With the same amount of effort there could be properly referenced section on this matter, in every major newspaper in the world, or a convoluted and divisive discussion on how to reduce this to a data point. Pick one? cygnis insignis 15:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Cygnis insignis: I haven't been consistently reverting edits to the article based on an RfC that is allegedly just over the horizon. PeterTheFourth (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- What outcome are you seeking? cygnis insignis 16:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- It would only be binding on this article. There wouldn't be any new sanctions that apply as a result. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Cygnis insignis: I haven't been consistently reverting edits to the article based on an RfC that is allegedly just over the horizon. PeterTheFourth (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- That is what it looks like to me. A formal process would be site wide, and I expect it would address every nation's media. And then sanctions would apply, then the interpretation of sanctions, and so on. Sound like your cup-of-tea? With the same amount of effort there could be properly referenced section on this matter, in every major newspaper in the world, or a convoluted and divisive discussion on how to reduce this to a data point. Pick one? cygnis insignis 15:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Cygnis insignis: Unfortunately not, as that was started on Feb 24th, and is not an RfC. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Nothing to do with being gracious it's about being even handed and fair and neutral and getting everyone's opinion on this matter, given you have been so very very loud in your belief there was no previous consensus at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice boardwhich there was obviously was. Interesting how now you don't want a proper RFC but only want to do your own thing. Well that's not how Wikipedia works. Anyhow I'm done discussing this with you. We'll see what the community wants. This is the only reason we need to have another extensive discussion because you and Hughesdarren couldn't accept the previous consensus even though you both participated! Merphee (talk) 09:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think your assurances that you will also notify me among others is as gracious as you think, given that I am already aware of this matter. You're the one looking to have these arguments, this doesn't really interest me. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- What I am trying to do is establish some objective rules on 'like for like' articles, to avoid endless arguments over subjective points of view. Wastes everyone's time and creates unnecessary conflict. The topic of infoboxes and political alignment became the whole topic of discussion on the Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board and took over entirely your vain attempts to bring something forward that had no real basis it turned out. Lots of editors expressed their credible points of view and it became a discussion of real value and consensus was formed. I just facilitated it. Notifying all people involved in the discussion, including you and Hughesdarren, not just some and then casting the net wider through the strategies I've outlined still will be the aim of the RFC and my wording will certainly be not including the infoboxes for all of our articles on Australian newspapers and see what the community vote for. Merphee (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- That wasn't a discussion about the infobox though. It was mentioned by some people, especially yourself, but it wasn't the focus of the discussion. I said earlier this shouldn't be a big deal but if you insist on making this a big deal then it would be better just to make a post there. Notifying specific people can lead to the appearance of canvassing if there are a lot of people and some may be forgotten or omitted. The greater concern I have is your inclination to erase any indication of the newspaper's politician orientation throughout the article. It's also important that how we use the infobox on this article does not bind us on how we use it on other articles about newspapers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- This seems the only objective and neutral way forward and notifying all of the previous editors involved in that previous discussion at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board including you and Hughesdarren is only fair. There were few who disagreed with the consensus, as you both know, and far more who agreed that the political alignment in the infobox and for very good reasons be removed in all of our articles on Australian newspapers. We are aiming for consistency in our articles. Would you like to be involved in the wording of the RFC onetwothreeip? We can all work together if you like. Also we can cast the net wider in addition to all of those who previously participated. That's why I have made a notification on this talk page. I will make a similar notification on each of our articles on our mainstream newspapers too. Any suggestions how we can make the RFC even wider and more encompassing? Merphee (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
@Cygnis insignis: I believe that, like many other articles on media (please see numerous examples in above section), we should have the political alignment in the lede. This has been repeatedly reverted by Merphee because he was allegedly going to have an RfC about it. Now there's no RfC and he's not engaging on talk, so... what do I do? PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- PeterTheFourth, does a sourced section in the article give an obvious formulation that can be summarised in the lead. My approach is to source, check and expand the content and the lead sentences become obvious. I think this a more productive method. cygnis insignis 06:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Could you restate that in simpler terms? I'm not sure I understand when you say things like 'I think this a more productive method'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- I read books. I see interesting information. I wonder if it included where people can share this information (for whatever purpose). If I see a void and add that information, I know how to do so from a careful examination of npov and the means to verify that when I communicate a 'fact'. I don't look at content here and think it ought to state X, then find a means to do so, that is not operating with npov. I think this is crucial to 'anyone can edit', I'm not alone. I've replied to you in a blind way, that is, I am replying to the request for elaboration on 'I think this a more productive method'. cygnis insignis 14:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- I completely agree cygnis insignis. And sorry I have not created the RFC as yet. Have had real world issues to deal with of late. What's the rush PeterTheFourth. I notice onetwothreeip has added it to the article again. Merphee (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- I reverted this back to Cygnis insignis' last edit and the status quo. Will get the RFC underway soon. Merphee (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- You boldly removed the infobox parameter, which is apparently against an Arbitration Committee decision. I restored it since I disagree with the removal. This is such a pointless controversy here, and obviously you're just obstructing in the hopes that it would be removed during a discussion that never ends or never gains a consensus. If there really was a consensus about this that was decided on another discussion page, there would be multiple people here advocating that it be removed, but it's just you. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- I reverted your bold move to include this in the infobox Onetwothreeip. For the past two months none of our articles on Australian newspapers have included this in their infobox. And why are you so hell bent on just including it in The Australian, as a side point. no need to answer that. Anyway there is much support and bloody good reasoning provided by some very seasoned editors who have supported us leaving this out of the infobox as the status quo has been for a few months. The most recent discussion was here. Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Political_alignment_of_Aus_newspapers. I mean do we even need a formal RFC is what I'm now wondering. Seems like it is decided. I think Cygnis insignis' comment to have a "properly referenced section on this matter, in every major newspaper in the world, or a convoluted and divisive discussion on how to reduce this to a data point" says it all. I choose the "properly referenced section" over a divisive datapoint in the infobox and not too big section on political alignment of each article either. In my opinion we are, for some reason, providing far too much weight to whether a newspaper is left wing, right wing or whatever. How about we just move on? Merphee (talk) 04:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Merphee: WP:DEADHORSE WP:FILIBUSTER. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Inserting such an extreme statement in the opening sentence of the article using a 13 year old source is not on. Would you be cool putting that in let's say the SMH or The Age. That is in the opening sentence say, The Age is a Left Wing newspaper and use a single 13 year old source to back it up? Serious question? Merphee (talk) 07:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Merphee: Would you be okay with having the political orientation of the newspaper in the lede if we were using more recent sources? Yes or no. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- @PeterTheFourth: Would you be cool with putting that the SMH or The Age are Left Wing publications in the opening sentence of the lead? Yes or No? Merphee (talk) 07:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- @PeterTheFourth: Or the ABC? Merphee (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- The Australian Broadcasting Corporation would be the easiest to select reliable sources stating it is Left Wing. But should that strong overriding political alignment be boldly stated in the opening sentence of the ABC's article? Serious question? The Australian, The Age and the SMH are centre-right, centre-left, centre-left. Again, should that be stated in each of the articles? Personally I don't think it should in any of the articles just mentioned. What are you and Onetwothreeip trying to do here? Seriously? Merphee (talk) 07:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- @PeterTheFourth: Or the ABC? Merphee (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- @PeterTheFourth: Would you be cool with putting that the SMH or The Age are Left Wing publications in the opening sentence of the lead? Yes or No? Merphee (talk) 07:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Merphee: Would you be okay with having the political orientation of the newspaper in the lede if we were using more recent sources? Yes or no. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Inserting such an extreme statement in the opening sentence of the article using a 13 year old source is not on. Would you be cool putting that in let's say the SMH or The Age. That is in the opening sentence say, The Age is a Left Wing newspaper and use a single 13 year old source to back it up? Serious question? Merphee (talk) 07:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Merphee: WP:DEADHORSE WP:FILIBUSTER. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- I reverted your bold move to include this in the infobox Onetwothreeip. For the past two months none of our articles on Australian newspapers have included this in their infobox. And why are you so hell bent on just including it in The Australian, as a side point. no need to answer that. Anyway there is much support and bloody good reasoning provided by some very seasoned editors who have supported us leaving this out of the infobox as the status quo has been for a few months. The most recent discussion was here. Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Political_alignment_of_Aus_newspapers. I mean do we even need a formal RFC is what I'm now wondering. Seems like it is decided. I think Cygnis insignis' comment to have a "properly referenced section on this matter, in every major newspaper in the world, or a convoluted and divisive discussion on how to reduce this to a data point" says it all. I choose the "properly referenced section" over a divisive datapoint in the infobox and not too big section on political alignment of each article either. In my opinion we are, for some reason, providing far too much weight to whether a newspaper is left wing, right wing or whatever. How about we just move on? Merphee (talk) 04:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- You boldly removed the infobox parameter, which is apparently against an Arbitration Committee decision. I restored it since I disagree with the removal. This is such a pointless controversy here, and obviously you're just obstructing in the hopes that it would be removed during a discussion that never ends or never gains a consensus. If there really was a consensus about this that was decided on another discussion page, there would be multiple people here advocating that it be removed, but it's just you. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- I reverted this back to Cygnis insignis' last edit and the status quo. Will get the RFC underway soon. Merphee (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- I completely agree cygnis insignis. And sorry I have not created the RFC as yet. Have had real world issues to deal with of late. What's the rush PeterTheFourth. I notice onetwothreeip has added it to the article again. Merphee (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- I read books. I see interesting information. I wonder if it included where people can share this information (for whatever purpose). If I see a void and add that information, I know how to do so from a careful examination of npov and the means to verify that when I communicate a 'fact'. I don't look at content here and think it ought to state X, then find a means to do so, that is not operating with npov. I think this is crucial to 'anyone can edit', I'm not alone. I've replied to you in a blind way, that is, I am replying to the request for elaboration on 'I think this a more productive method'. cygnis insignis 14:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Could you restate that in simpler terms? I'm not sure I understand when you say things like 'I think this a more productive method'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
what question? Merphee (talk) 07:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Merphee:
Would you be okay with having the political orientation of the newspaper in the lede if we were using more recent sources? Yes or no.
PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::@PeterTheFourth: is this now the RFC you were demanding others open? cygnis insignis 07:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Cygnis insignis: Here is what an RfC is - WP:RFC. Please note that Merphee was constantly saying he would start an RfC, and I was just asking where it was. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- PeterTheFourth, what is stopping you? Why is the onus on another to open yet another discussion, when you are the one going against the result of the previous discussions? cygnis insignis 07:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Cygnis insignis: Because Merphee has been consistently reverting because they claim they will start an RfC. I have not been reverting claiming I will start an RfC. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Rubbish PeterTheFourth. I haven't been constantly reverting anything. We are discussing these issue here and while doing so isn't it fair to request that we don't go adding the contentious edits to the article until it is resolved and a consensus reached. Merphee (talk) 08:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- It cuts both ways. Some users are sure it should be there, and I acknowledge that my previous removal accords with my contrary view and interpretation of consensus. Not a productive line of inquiry, I think, the sparring buries the objective points and outcomes. If someone sticks it in again (I deliberately avoided looking at the current state), the onus is clearly on them to re-open the very recent discussions and risk looking tendentious, exhausting, and petty, objecting to that is a huge waste of time and I refocus on something substantive. cygnis insignis 08:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Cygnis insignis: Hi Cygnis; is English your first language? I'm having a lot of trouble understanding the turns of phrase you use, but that may just be my own stupidity. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Merphee: Hi Merphee, please answer the question.
Would you be okay with having the political orientation of the newspaper in the lede if we were using more recent sources? Yes or no.
PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC) - @PeterTheFourth: I found your question to Cygnis insignis asking them if English is their first language very rude and condescending. Would you consider apologising please. There is no room here in this discussion for that type of comment. Merphee (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- It cuts both ways. Some users are sure it should be there, and I acknowledge that my previous removal accords with my contrary view and interpretation of consensus. Not a productive line of inquiry, I think, the sparring buries the objective points and outcomes. If someone sticks it in again (I deliberately avoided looking at the current state), the onus is clearly on them to re-open the very recent discussions and risk looking tendentious, exhausting, and petty, objecting to that is a huge waste of time and I refocus on something substantive. cygnis insignis 08:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Rubbish PeterTheFourth. I haven't been constantly reverting anything. We are discussing these issue here and while doing so isn't it fair to request that we don't go adding the contentious edits to the article until it is resolved and a consensus reached. Merphee (talk) 08:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Cygnis insignis: Because Merphee has been consistently reverting because they claim they will start an RfC. I have not been reverting claiming I will start an RfC. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- PeterTheFourth, what is stopping you? Why is the onus on another to open yet another discussion, when you are the one going against the result of the previous discussions? cygnis insignis 07:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- @PeterTheFourth: What I want is consistency on all of our articles on Australian newspapers for the benefit of readers. We also need to be guided by policy on what we include in the opening paragraph of an article. I think this dispute over political alignment is giving it undue weight. Also you cannot possibly determine objectively and definitively what The Australian's, SMH's, The Age's or any other newspaper's political alignment is the infobox or the lede. What criterion are we using to start with? Can you see that point so many editors have already made in the other discussions on this topic? If you really want me to open the RFC then yep I'll do it. Merphee (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
I reverted your bold move to include this in the infobox Onetwothreeip. For the past two months none of our articles on Australian newspapers have included this in their infobox.
And before those two months it was there in the infobox. You actually removed it in the same edit where you added paragraphs to the article. The nonsense about saying the ABC or Sydney Morning Herald is left wing just makes the already obvious motivations for your editing more obvious. There is no need to be definitive about The Australian's orientations if we continue describing it broadly, as "centre-right to right wing", which is obviously supported by reliable sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Onetwothreeip, can you please explain exactly what you mean by "makes the already obvious motivations for your editing more obvious". Thank you. Merphee (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Despite any new RFC or not, there is clearly no consensus here on the talk page to be reducing The Australian's supposed political alignment to any single label or 'wing' in either the infobox or lede. And even if there was there is clearly no consensus as to what that wing would be. However the rude comments and accusations of bad faith from both Onetwothreeip and Peter the Fourth need to stop. I've asked Peter The Fourth to apologise to Cygnis insignis. Merphee (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- It is very clear there is no consensus for the inclusion in the lede or infobox. I think Wikipedia:Dispute resolution may help resolve this impasse in a civil manner and stop further pointless discussion or potential conflict. Merphee (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- More importantly there's no consensus for removing it, which was the trigger for all this since it was in the article for a long time until you removed it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Nonsense. It's been out of all of our articles on Australian newspapers for almost 3 months now based on two extensive talk page discussions. We need Wikipedia:Dispute resolution here as there clearly is no consensus and dispute resolution is the next step to us. Also Onetwothreeip, can you please explain exactly what you mean by "makes the already obvious motivations for your editing more obvious"? Just more accusations of bad faith and incivility from you. At some stage an administrator has to take action to stop you. Merphee (talk) 03:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- And before that three months it was on the article, the controversy here is that it was removed rather than being included. You have demonstrated by your comments that your motivation is to make The Australian appear less right wing of a newspaper than reliable sources say. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please focus only on content Onetwothreeip. And please follow our policy Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I have had to bite my 'typing finger' many times here with you and not react to your blatant provocations and incivility or comment on my belief as to what yours and Peter The Fourth's motive is here with this edit. Would you be interested in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to help resolve this content dispute or not? Merphee (talk) 03:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- You keep insisting there should be some grand discussion about this but there's barely been any discussion at all. I'm completely uninterested in all this furore for a short infobox parameter. So I'm notifying every person who has commented on this talk page, although they may have already decided that this is a pointless exercise. @Merphee, HiLo48, Greglocock, Curdle, Skyring, Pinkbeast, Hughesdarren, Cygnis insignis, Kerry Raymond, PeterTheFourth, and NinjaRobotPirate:. I'm personally tired of continuing the matter further. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- I agree. There is no point continuing. HiLo48 (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Your edits show you certainly do care Onetwothreeip. Anyway for the sake of inclusion and neutrality onetwothreeip don't you think notifying all other editors who have ever commented on both of the discussions regarding the inclusion of a single 'label' on political alignment in any of our articles on Australian newspapers would have been better. After all the Australian is not the only newspaper in Australia and I want a proper resolution to this issue whereby everyone agrees and true consensus is formed. Otherwise this ridiculous issue is going to arise again on another article on another Australian newspaper which is not helpful and is quite disruptive. Merphee (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- I agree. There is no point continuing. HiLo48 (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- You keep insisting there should be some grand discussion about this but there's barely been any discussion at all. I'm completely uninterested in all this furore for a short infobox parameter. So I'm notifying every person who has commented on this talk page, although they may have already decided that this is a pointless exercise. @Merphee, HiLo48, Greglocock, Curdle, Skyring, Pinkbeast, Hughesdarren, Cygnis insignis, Kerry Raymond, PeterTheFourth, and NinjaRobotPirate:. I'm personally tired of continuing the matter further. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please focus only on content Onetwothreeip. And please follow our policy Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I have had to bite my 'typing finger' many times here with you and not react to your blatant provocations and incivility or comment on my belief as to what yours and Peter The Fourth's motive is here with this edit. Would you be interested in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to help resolve this content dispute or not? Merphee (talk) 03:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- And before that three months it was on the article, the controversy here is that it was removed rather than being included. You have demonstrated by your comments that your motivation is to make The Australian appear less right wing of a newspaper than reliable sources say. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Nonsense. It's been out of all of our articles on Australian newspapers for almost 3 months now based on two extensive talk page discussions. We need Wikipedia:Dispute resolution here as there clearly is no consensus and dispute resolution is the next step to us. Also Onetwothreeip, can you please explain exactly what you mean by "makes the already obvious motivations for your editing more obvious"? Just more accusations of bad faith and incivility from you. At some stage an administrator has to take action to stop you. Merphee (talk) 03:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- More importantly there's no consensus for removing it, which was the trigger for all this since it was in the article for a long time until you removed it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- It is very clear there is no consensus for the inclusion in the lede or infobox. I think Wikipedia:Dispute resolution may help resolve this impasse in a civil manner and stop further pointless discussion or potential conflict. Merphee (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Despite any new RFC or not, there is clearly no consensus here on the talk page to be reducing The Australian's supposed political alignment to any single label or 'wing' in either the infobox or lede. And even if there was there is clearly no consensus as to what that wing would be. However the rude comments and accusations of bad faith from both Onetwothreeip and Peter the Fourth need to stop. I've asked Peter The Fourth to apologise to Cygnis insignis. Merphee (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- I am notifying all of the other editors on top of the editors Onetwothreeip chose to notify, who have ever discussed the inclusion of a single 'label' stating the political alignment in any of our articles on Australian newspapers (including The Australian). Although these editors may have already decided not to provide further comment on this issue regarding the inclusion in our articles of Australian newspapers, it is important that this specific issue is discussed as widely as possible to develop true consensus. @Reginaldarnold, Paul Benjamin Austin, The Drover's Wife, Paul Benjamin Austin, Aoziwe, Gnangarra, ScottDavis, Paul Benjamin Austin, Bahnfrend, and Whats new?:. That's everyone I think? Merphee (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
@Merphee: Consensus is not a vote, and it's not proper to be asking people to 'offer their vote'. Regardless, if you'd like to summon all these people to the discussion, the correct path would probably be to start that RfC you have repeatedly said you would - there's advice on doing so at WP:RFC that you may find helpful. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- "Your edits show you certainly do care Onetwothreeip." Merphee, I recommend you stick to discussing articles, and issues with them, rather than other editors. 04:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- No worries. Merphee (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Peter the Fourth, if you feel so strongly about it why don't you start a RFC regarding whether or not we should include a single 'label' on the supposed political alignment within the infobox of each of our articles on Australian newspapers. I really don't think we should be as there is no criterion set for doing so and a wide range of other reasons. Worth noting is the fact that our articles on USA newspapers also do not have this unitary and subjective label in their infoboxes. And some really strong reasons have already been provided by other experienced editors at extensive conversation held on this topic in the past at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board including this comment [38] and this one [39] and this one [40] and this one [41]. More comments and discussion on the topic can also be found here Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Political_alignment_of_Aus_newspapers. Merphee (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- We're not going to argue about what other people's comments mean on another discussion page. Let them speak for themselves, and in the context of this discussion. I don't think I'm the only one who is tired of you brandishing links from other editors as if they are agreeing with what you say, or as if we disagree with them. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sick to death of talking about this issue and having to listen to your constant lack of civility. I've had enough of biting my keyboard finger. I'll be lashing back from here on. For someone who says they don't care about this, you sure do 'go on' don't you Onetwothreeip. Haha. Merphee (talk) 07:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Time to drop the stick 123IP. Consensus appears to not have perceived political alignment in the infobox. Perhaps time to fight another battle?
- The big problem as I see it is finding reliable sources. The Australian has undoubtedly moved to the right over the years, but that's just my opinion. Is there any objective way of determining political viewpoint, other than quoting somebody's opinion? This whole debate has gone on for too long, and I think a consensus has been established. Wasting valuable editing time on pages and pages of talk over some minor point is counterproductive and I am dead against it. --Pete (talk) 09:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not the one fighting anything, this is acting like this is a discussion about including the parameter. The parameter has been there for a long time, until a couple of months ago when Merphee removed it. It's only two people here who are saying there shouldn't be something like that, hardly a consensus against. My preference is for it to be retained but as I said before, I will continue to keep well out of this argument and will let others debate that. The objective way of determining political views is through the reliable sources, which indicate what pretty much everybody thinks the newspaper's political views are. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well add me to the tally. And it's not a matter of counting noses, it's a matter of wikipolicy. On that note, you seem to be causing disruption for no good reason, and if you get other editors riled up and distracted, there will be consequences. --Pete (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- The only person getting riled up by my comments is Merphee. Please tell me either here or on my talk page which comments of mine that you may find objectionable. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well add me to the tally. And it's not a matter of counting noses, it's a matter of wikipolicy. On that note, you seem to be causing disruption for no good reason, and if you get other editors riled up and distracted, there will be consequences. --Pete (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not the one fighting anything, this is acting like this is a discussion about including the parameter. The parameter has been there for a long time, until a couple of months ago when Merphee removed it. It's only two people here who are saying there shouldn't be something like that, hardly a consensus against. My preference is for it to be retained but as I said before, I will continue to keep well out of this argument and will let others debate that. The objective way of determining political views is through the reliable sources, which indicate what pretty much everybody thinks the newspaper's political views are. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- We're not going to argue about what other people's comments mean on another discussion page. Let them speak for themselves, and in the context of this discussion. I don't think I'm the only one who is tired of you brandishing links from other editors as if they are agreeing with what you say, or as if we disagree with them. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Peter the Fourth, if you feel so strongly about it why don't you start a RFC regarding whether or not we should include a single 'label' on the supposed political alignment within the infobox of each of our articles on Australian newspapers. I really don't think we should be as there is no criterion set for doing so and a wide range of other reasons. Worth noting is the fact that our articles on USA newspapers also do not have this unitary and subjective label in their infoboxes. And some really strong reasons have already been provided by other experienced editors at extensive conversation held on this topic in the past at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board including this comment [38] and this one [39] and this one [40] and this one [41]. More comments and discussion on the topic can also be found here Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Political_alignment_of_Aus_newspapers. Merphee (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- No worries. Merphee (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Please no body ping me again on this subject. We do not need an RFC to apply the fundementals of wikipedia, in this case, for example, statements and quotes must be derived from IRS, and be NPOV, ie, all such positions over time, but with DUEWEIGHT. If a summary, latest position, data point is to appear in an infobox it also needs to be NPOV, ie, as at date and IRSed. And of course no OR, ie, an editor cannot use a position label unless it is in an IRS. These fundementals apply to all articles. Aoziwe (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- The infobox entry seems well-derived from sources in the article, so on that basis it can be restored. (And, let's face it, it wouldn't even be an issue except for Merphee's desire to IDHT everyone to death.) Pinkbeast (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- I would be willing to restore it but if Merphee would remove it again I would rather someone else restore it immediately after. I have no desire for an edit war. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- I support adding the political alignment to the article, preferably in the lede as opposed to infobox but not a big deal. We have the political alignment of media in many other articles - as long as we have the sources for it there is no problem with including these things. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- I have no objection to (sourced) discussion in the text of any newspaper's political position in general or on particular issues. I feel it is probably inappropriate to try to capture a single position on a one-dimensional spectrum for any long-lived major newspaper (such as The Australian), especially without a globally agreed mid-point between "left" and "right". It might be valid to claim that company F is "more left" than company N, but are they really left and right in a global sense over all time, or might they be "right" and "more right" or "left" and "more left" depending on what the comparison is, and perhaps even on whether the issue under consideration is social, economic or something else? My impression is that some mainstream newspapers in Australia appear to support "the opposition", regardless of which party in in government. --Scott Davis Talk 01:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- I support adding the political alignment to the article, preferably in the lede as opposed to infobox but not a big deal. We have the political alignment of media in many other articles - as long as we have the sources for it there is no problem with including these things. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- I would be willing to restore it but if Merphee would remove it again I would rather someone else restore it immediately after. I have no desire for an edit war. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Howdy all, as you're probably aware I'm very much in favour of keeping the political alignment in the infobox. It'd be good if this could be a standard but I understand that good sources detailing this for smaller newspapers would make this non-viable. But it is entirely possible for The Oz. It could also be in the lede. I would reiterate that we should not be looking to American newspapers or news sources for comparison as Australia's media landscape bears a far stronger resemblance to UK media, owing to Australia's media culture being primarily derived from the British's. UK Wikipedians have decided on keeping political alignment in the infoboxes. Any consensus previously reached on this issue seems to be from primarily from a small number of people in vigorous agreement with themselves.Reginaldarnold (talk) 06:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- The current article discusses political positions in the History, Coverage and Editorial and opinion pages sections. Reading those, it is not presently clear that the paper is at any particular single point on a Left–right political spectrum. If it is to appear in the infobox, then it must be much clearer in the text, and whether the position has been constant since 1964 or has moved over time. Citing the newspaper itself or its editors only tells us what the editorial staff think its position is, not an absolute answer. Do we have any independent (not related to either the owners or opposition of The Australian) reliable sources for the political position of The Australian? If anyone has some, lets list them here and see if they show consensus. --Scott Davis Talk 06:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Here's an article from roughly 2 years ago by some guy called Denis Muller who seems to have a fair amount of experience in journalism. It takes a bit of a long view on multiple sources, but explicitly describes The Australian and News Corp papers as biased to the right. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Then there are other reliable sources which say it is more centre. What is the objective criterion here for establishing this single unitary political alignment? And at what point in time is this single data point? So the debate goes on. Is this based on policy? Merphee (talk) 09:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm completely against including a single subjective data point of political alignment in the infobox of this article. And there is no consensus to do so. This endless debate is becoming extremely disruptive to the project. Merphee (talk) 09:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- OMG Peter the Fourth the Conversation article source you just quoted can hardly be seen as reliable or in any possible way definitive. Merphee (talk) 09:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Merphee: The intent is not for it to be definitive, just for it to be part of the conversation. Why do you think it's not reliable? Dennis Muller seems to be an expert in the field of journalism, and I think we'd be fine using his expert opinion on media bias. Additionally, would you please answer that question I asked earlier about whether you'd be fine with the political orientation of The Australian being included in the article if we had more recent sources than the interview? PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Obviously without any type of objective criterion a single data point in the lede is exactly the same as the infobox. So Peter the Fourth the answer to your question is obviously no. And this endless discussion going around in circles is getting very disruptive to the project. There is no consensus here for adding this to the infobox.Merphee (talk) 12:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- So you would not be okay with adding political orientation to the lede, even if we had more recent sources. I think this position is at odds with our policies on reliable sources, as is your constant reverting. I think there's plenty of support here for adding this information to the lede, and as such I will do so. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Like Scott (and Peter), I'm also very much in favour of keeping the political alignment in the infobox, but including the sourced text in the lede would be a suitable alternative. Given the amount of discussion generated this is clearly an important point and the information should be included in one or the other. Hughesdarren (talk) 12:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ummm. I didn't intend to say that I was in favour of keeping it in the infobox unless the WP:RELIABLE sourced text is unequivocal. I don't think it is at present, and is unlikely to ever be for a long-running popular-appeal newspaper. Even The Conversation article says that "... it became increasingly conservative." which means that Muller considers that it has changed its own position over time. --Scott Davis Talk 13:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- This Peter is not in favour of assigning a specific left-right point. Where do we find a reliable source that is not opinion? And if we can somehow find a whole bunch of opinions, that's no good, it would be synthesis for us to amalgamate them and say in wikivoice something that no external source has actually stated. The position of the paper has changed over time, and is in fact never constant; it espouses a variety of views. --Pete (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Exactly. There is certainly no unequivocal source. And the political alignment 'over time' has obviously changed and will continue to change. What's wrong with us just providing a properly sourced discussion of any supposed political alignment of The Australian (over time) within the body of the article. Merphee (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- It's unequivocal among reliable sources that The Australian is broadly a right wing newspaper. That is what infoboxes display, their current ideology and position. Many articles about newspapers display political orientations in the infobox despite shift in their views historically. I would rather it was displayed in the infobox rather than the lead, but I'm not going to be goaded into an edit war over it, so that leaves it to be placed in the lead. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- There is absolutely no consensus whatsoever on this talk page or any other discussion elsewhere about using a unitary subjective descriptor. None. Yet you and Peter the Fourth keep provoking an edit war and inserting it into the article anyway. Please stop edit warring. Reliable sources have called The Australian centre, centre right, and right wing. Depending on the point in time the source that is used. You both know full well that there is no consensus here for adding right wing or in fact centre or indeed centre-right. None. So why are you edit warring? Merphee (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- So let's just call it centre-right to right wing, since that's what sources say, ideally in the infobox. The point in time is now. Nobody here is seriously arguing that The Australian should be considered "centre". Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I would not revert or disagree with any change of the orientation from lede to infobox - somebody mention that many major UK papers have their political orientation in the infobox, it appears having it in the lede is a US thing mostly. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- There is absolutely no consensus whatsoever on this talk page or any other discussion elsewhere about using a unitary subjective descriptor. None. Yet you and Peter the Fourth keep provoking an edit war and inserting it into the article anyway. Please stop edit warring. Reliable sources have called The Australian centre, centre right, and right wing. Depending on the point in time the source that is used. You both know full well that there is no consensus here for adding right wing or in fact centre or indeed centre-right. None. So why are you edit warring? Merphee (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Like Scott (and Peter), I'm also very much in favour of keeping the political alignment in the infobox, but including the sourced text in the lede would be a suitable alternative. Given the amount of discussion generated this is clearly an important point and the information should be included in one or the other. Hughesdarren (talk) 12:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- So you would not be okay with adding political orientation to the lede, even if we had more recent sources. I think this position is at odds with our policies on reliable sources, as is your constant reverting. I think there's plenty of support here for adding this information to the lede, and as such I will do so. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Obviously without any type of objective criterion a single data point in the lede is exactly the same as the infobox. So Peter the Fourth the answer to your question is obviously no. And this endless discussion going around in circles is getting very disruptive to the project. There is no consensus here for adding this to the infobox.Merphee (talk) 12:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Merphee: The intent is not for it to be definitive, just for it to be part of the conversation. Why do you think it's not reliable? Dennis Muller seems to be an expert in the field of journalism, and I think we'd be fine using his expert opinion on media bias. Additionally, would you please answer that question I asked earlier about whether you'd be fine with the political orientation of The Australian being included in the article if we had more recent sources than the interview? PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- OMG Peter the Fourth the Conversation article source you just quoted can hardly be seen as reliable or in any possible way definitive. Merphee (talk) 09:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm completely against including a single subjective data point of political alignment in the infobox of this article. And there is no consensus to do so. This endless debate is becoming extremely disruptive to the project. Merphee (talk) 09:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Obviously the 3 of us are going to be dragged to the edit warring noticeboard very soon. Just because the two have you have taken turns putting it back in the article right in the middle of the discussion in bad faith and when absolutely no consensus has been established you are both edit warring just the same as I am! Merphee (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- I have not been edit warring. You're admitting that you were edit warring on purpose, and that you knew you were edit warring when you made those reverts, and you know that edit warring is against the rules. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Seriously is this still going, I think its time to put this bone down and back away slowly. Attrition is not consensus building. You all have an unshakable opinion regardless of what is being provided. Going for an RFC now, will only see this end at WP:ANI & ARBCOM Gnangarra 03:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Fox News claims to be fair and balanced, so I guess that is evidence that The Australian is left-wing by comparison :-P Both are News/Murdoch controlled. I'd rather see more detail in this article about how the newspaper has responded over time to particular situations and issues. reference 2 is not online, but is used in the Coverage section to identify topics of significant coverage, without telling us if the treatment is biased towards left/right/conservative/small-l liberal or anything else. The next section says The Australian was anti-Australian Greens, bu so is the ALP sometimes, so that doesn't tell us much either. --Scott Davis Talk 04:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Stop the edit-war
This keeps up, there'll be a whole heap more eyes on this article. The sources used to support the claim that this newspaper is right-wing are inadequate. Both are from political media and are personal opinions. One dates from 2008! I don't care if they are right or wrong. They are not good enough. If the paper has a solid political view, then it shouldn't be too hard to find some solid source, hey? --Pete (talk) 10:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- I have full-protected the article for 12 hours so everyone can calm down and stop reverting each other. I'll keep an eye on this talk page, and if I can see a general consensus on what to do with the lead, I can unprotect then. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- I too believe the sources used here are quite inadequate. That is probably because there are so few reliable sources on this controversial aspect of the article and then such variation within the few sources that are available. HiLo48, may I suggest you please stop commenting on Skyring's valid 'content related' comment and stop the incivility toward this editor. It is not helpful. Merphee (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- There would be very few people who would claim that describing The Australian as at least a little bit right wing is controversial. And I hardly think my comment to Pete was uncivil. Let him judge that, if he chooses to. HiLo48 (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with what you think people you know would claim about The Australian and everything to do with what good quality reliable sources say. As far as your comment above to Pete all I can say is please focus on content only. Merphee (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but over the several months since I first shocked you by stating what to most Australians is the obvious fact that The Australian is right wing (see WP:BLUE), you have frantically rejected every possible source for and logical basis to that fact. Why are you so desperate to protect the paper from being described as it so obviously is? We all know it won't stop you reading it. It won't hurt you. Honestly. Have you actually reflected on your own motives here? HiLo48 (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Assume good faith and focus on content only please HiLo48. I will not tolerate this kind of incivility and bad faith assumptions from you. However I refuse to retaliate. Please apologise or I will need to seek administrator action. All I asked you to do was stop focusing and attacking other editors like you did with Pete directly above and focus only on content. I think that is a reasonable request. It is disruptive and not at all helpful to the project. Please refer to our policies and principles on Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Etiquette. Merphee (talk) 02:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, I assume good faith in your original belief that The Australian was a wonderfully balanced, middle of the road journal. I just cannot comprehend, with good faith, how you can possibly now still think that. Wikipedia works on the basis of sensible mature discussion. Part of that is trying to understand why people take positions I see as rather odd. That way I can work out how to discuss this with you. But I really am struggling here. Again, why are you so desperate to prevent the paper from being described as it so obviously is? (See WP:BLUE). HiLo48 (talk) 02:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- That was not my belief on this article at all. That's an absurd assumption. However I am talking about you reading our policies and principles please and assuming good faith when interacting with other editors. Also focus on 'content only' please in our article talk page discussions rather than trying to belittle other editors or second guess their hidden motives. It is not helpful and is very disruptive. I'm not sure if anyone has picked you up on this type of stuff before here at Wikipedia. Merphee (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- I am not trying to second guess your motives. I can't figure them out at all, and have given up. That's why I'masking you what they are. Why are you so desperate to prevent the paper from being described as it so obviously is? (See WP:BLUE) HiLo48 (talk) 03:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- I suggest you just move on and drop the stick now and always try and focus on content here at Wikipedia. Otherwise you may find yourself at ANI for this type of behaviour. It wastes everyone's time and is very disruptive. Merphee (talk) 03:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- I am not trying to second guess your motives. I can't figure them out at all, and have given up. That's why I'masking you what they are. Why are you so desperate to prevent the paper from being described as it so obviously is? (See WP:BLUE) HiLo48 (talk) 03:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- That was not my belief on this article at all. That's an absurd assumption. However I am talking about you reading our policies and principles please and assuming good faith when interacting with other editors. Also focus on 'content only' please in our article talk page discussions rather than trying to belittle other editors or second guess their hidden motives. It is not helpful and is very disruptive. I'm not sure if anyone has picked you up on this type of stuff before here at Wikipedia. Merphee (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, I assume good faith in your original belief that The Australian was a wonderfully balanced, middle of the road journal. I just cannot comprehend, with good faith, how you can possibly now still think that. Wikipedia works on the basis of sensible mature discussion. Part of that is trying to understand why people take positions I see as rather odd. That way I can work out how to discuss this with you. But I really am struggling here. Again, why are you so desperate to prevent the paper from being described as it so obviously is? (See WP:BLUE). HiLo48 (talk) 02:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Assume good faith and focus on content only please HiLo48. I will not tolerate this kind of incivility and bad faith assumptions from you. However I refuse to retaliate. Please apologise or I will need to seek administrator action. All I asked you to do was stop focusing and attacking other editors like you did with Pete directly above and focus only on content. I think that is a reasonable request. It is disruptive and not at all helpful to the project. Please refer to our policies and principles on Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Etiquette. Merphee (talk) 02:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but over the several months since I first shocked you by stating what to most Australians is the obvious fact that The Australian is right wing (see WP:BLUE), you have frantically rejected every possible source for and logical basis to that fact. Why are you so desperate to protect the paper from being described as it so obviously is? We all know it won't stop you reading it. It won't hurt you. Honestly. Have you actually reflected on your own motives here? HiLo48 (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with what you think people you know would claim about The Australian and everything to do with what good quality reliable sources say. As far as your comment above to Pete all I can say is please focus on content only. Merphee (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- There would be very few people who would claim that describing The Australian as at least a little bit right wing is controversial. And I hardly think my comment to Pete was uncivil. Let him judge that, if he chooses to. HiLo48 (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- I too believe the sources used here are quite inadequate. That is probably because there are so few reliable sources on this controversial aspect of the article and then such variation within the few sources that are available. HiLo48, may I suggest you please stop commenting on Skyring's valid 'content related' comment and stop the incivility toward this editor. It is not helpful. Merphee (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
HiLo's comment was uncivil. I stopped taking even the Weekend Australian and its treasure of features years ago because the paper was becoming more of a comfort blanket for the right wing than the reliable and objective chronicle it had been. I don't think that there's any doubt that we can agree in our own views that the paper is well to the right of centre. My problem in saying this in wikivoice is finding a sufficiently authoritative source. A few comments on a talk show doesn't give me much confidence. Is there perhaps some recent academic study on Australian media we can use? --Pete (talk) 03:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- WP:BLUE HiLo48 (talk) 04:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, you've said that several times. You say we don't need a solid source, because everyone sees the same thing. Problem is that there are any number of excellent sources saying the sky is blue, and that's why we don't need to cite our statement to that effect. As I said earlier if the paper has a solid political view, then it shouldn't be too hard to find some solid source, hey? Where's your solid source, HiLo? --Pete (talk) 04:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- No, WP:BLUE speaks of using common knowledge, not "any number of excellent sources". HiLo48 (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- WP:COMMONKNOWLEDGE cygnis insignis 06:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes Pete thank you it sure was uncivil of HiLo48 and I asked him to apologise but he has yet to do so. Lashing out at other editors and making bad faith assumptions about other editors which disagree with his point of view is not at all helpful and is quite disruptive to say the least. As far as having an academic study relating to the political alignment or bias in any of our Australian newspapers I don't believe there is and therefore all of this is terribly subjective and The Australian's political alignment is not at all obvious based on the extensive discussion on this talk page despite HiLo48 'saying' he personally thinks it is. I also have a problem with us placing so much 'weight' on the supposed subjective political alignment of The Australian in this article. I think we should all just drop the stick on this one and walk away. Merphee (talk) 04:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- I quite often find in online discussions (not here) that people trying to make an extreme political point provide a link to an article in a journal I'm not familiar with. It's helpful to be able get some quick indication of the usual political alignment of that journal, to see what one might normally expect that journal to say. It's frustrating when no such alignment is provided by Wikipedia. But, as I said earlier on on this page, I think dropping the stick would be a great idea, so long as the article returns to the state it was in before you picked up the stick in the first place. HiLo48 (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- You miss the point, HiLo. We can find excellent sources for the statement "The sky is blue". I have yet to see an excellent source for the statement "The Australian is a right-wing newspaper." If it is impossible to find a single good source, then we should not be making the statement at all, let alone claiming that it's a part of the universe that everybody knows without question. Where is your source, HiLo? --Pete (talk) 06:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- YOU miss the point Pete. WP:BLUE is not about sources. HiLo48 (talk) 07:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- I totally agree with Pete. Your 'sky is blue' argument is completely irrelevant here on Wikipedia HiLo48 can't you see that. We need high quality reliable sources, not your opinion or what you think. The essay WP:COMMONKNOWLEDGE that Cygnis insignis provided earlier today and you ignored, sums this up beautifully. I'd give it a read if I were you. But anyway. Merphee (talk) 07:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Why is it irrelevant? I see complete relevance. You saying it's not doesn't make it so. HiLo48 (talk) 07:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- HiLo, I ask for external sources because I get the feeling that if you personally believe something is a fact, that's all you need to push your point of view strongly, and when others question your belief, you get all offended and take it as a personal attack. WP:BLUE is not a wiki blanket endorsement of your beliefs; you might feel that something or other is at the core of your personal belief system, but the strength of your personal belief isn't what Wikipedia works on.
- Your beliefs frequently accord with mine, as they do in this case, but that doesn't mean we can combine our inner dogma to make some exterior truth that can stand alone. Nor can we rope in others of similar strong belief. That's not how Wikipedia works. At some point we need exterior sources.
- So, if I ask for a solid source, my request is based on wikipolicy, not some personal attack on your deepest philosophical core. --Pete (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Your response IS about me. You are editing today in the same way you have since you first disagreed with me many years ago. I am quite certain that if my comment had come from someone you didn't know, your response would have been vary different. But I shall leave that path, and simply repeat - WP:BLUE is perfectly applicable here, and it doesn't require sources. Now, please discuss that, and not me. HiLo48 (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Off you go again HiLo48, once again attacking the other editor (in this case Pete) and bringing up old arguments you've had with many other editors years ago on other article talk pages. Please just focus on content only. As far as your perpetual posting of WP:BLUE of course it is not applicable here. Not even in the slightest. I totally agree with Pete on this one. Wikipedia is about us using what quality reliable sources say on a given topic. That's it nothing else. Your personal opinions don't matter. Not in the slightest. Nether do mine, or any other editors. Merphee (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Why does WP:BLUE not apply? HiLo48 (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- It's that pesky sourcing thing. Leaving out any discussion of the private souls of those editors - those esteemed editors - participating here, imagine if Don Trump were a Wikipedia editor. He states things that he regards as true, and gives every appearance of believing to be true, and assures us are true, but provides no sources for his view. We can check reliable sources and find that his apparent belief in his veracity is misplaced, but pointing this out has no effect, and he merely acts aggrieved, maybe ejects them from the press room, maybe drops a few bombs on them, refuses to admit any error.
- Why does WP:BLUE not apply? HiLo48 (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Off you go again HiLo48, once again attacking the other editor (in this case Pete) and bringing up old arguments you've had with many other editors years ago on other article talk pages. Please just focus on content only. As far as your perpetual posting of WP:BLUE of course it is not applicable here. Not even in the slightest. I totally agree with Pete on this one. Wikipedia is about us using what quality reliable sources say on a given topic. That's it nothing else. Your personal opinions don't matter. Not in the slightest. Nether do mine, or any other editors. Merphee (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Your response IS about me. You are editing today in the same way you have since you first disagreed with me many years ago. I am quite certain that if my comment had come from someone you didn't know, your response would have been vary different. But I shall leave that path, and simply repeat - WP:BLUE is perfectly applicable here, and it doesn't require sources. Now, please discuss that, and not me. HiLo48 (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Why is it irrelevant? I see complete relevance. You saying it's not doesn't make it so. HiLo48 (talk) 07:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- I totally agree with Pete. Your 'sky is blue' argument is completely irrelevant here on Wikipedia HiLo48 can't you see that. We need high quality reliable sources, not your opinion or what you think. The essay WP:COMMONKNOWLEDGE that Cygnis insignis provided earlier today and you ignored, sums this up beautifully. I'd give it a read if I were you. But anyway. Merphee (talk) 07:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- YOU miss the point Pete. WP:BLUE is not about sources. HiLo48 (talk) 07:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes Pete thank you it sure was uncivil of HiLo48 and I asked him to apologise but he has yet to do so. Lashing out at other editors and making bad faith assumptions about other editors which disagree with his point of view is not at all helpful and is quite disruptive to say the least. As far as having an academic study relating to the political alignment or bias in any of our Australian newspapers I don't believe there is and therefore all of this is terribly subjective and The Australian's political alignment is not at all obvious based on the extensive discussion on this talk page despite HiLo48 'saying' he personally thinks it is. I also have a problem with us placing so much 'weight' on the supposed subjective political alignment of The Australian in this article. I think we should all just drop the stick on this one and walk away. Merphee (talk) 04:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, you've said that several times. You say we don't need a solid source, because everyone sees the same thing. Problem is that there are any number of excellent sources saying the sky is blue, and that's why we don't need to cite our statement to that effect. As I said earlier if the paper has a solid political view, then it shouldn't be too hard to find some solid source, hey? Where's your solid source, HiLo? --Pete (talk) 04:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- The sky is blue, nobody doubts it, we don't have to provide sources, but the thing is that there are sources, and if somebody questions the statement, then we don't have to wave our hands around and get emotional and nukey, we just have to provide a reliable source, and say, well, I'm just repeating what a whole bunch of people say, people who know what they are talking about and have doctorates in blue sky analysis and have published books on the subject. The system works, and you are reading the proof of it in the world's most used encyclopaedia. --Pete (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Not an answer. WP:BLUE only requires that something be common knowledge. Sourcing is irrelevant. I have only ever encountered one Australian who doesn't (or at least didn't) know or believe that The Australian has a right wing slant. And I've met a lot of people. Please stop deflecting discussions of WP:BLUE to one about sources. HiLo48 (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- WP:NOTBLUE makes the point, mentiond previously, that if something is common knowledge, it shouldn't be too hard to source. --Pete (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Not an answer. WP:BLUE only requires that something be common knowledge. Sourcing is irrelevant. I have only ever encountered one Australian who doesn't (or at least didn't) know or believe that The Australian has a right wing slant. And I've met a lot of people. Please stop deflecting discussions of WP:BLUE to one about sources. HiLo48 (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Fantastic and well constructed comment Skring Pete! At least it's not lost on me and I would say anyone else who reads it would also agree, even though HiLo48 has once again ignored how our policy works in this instance and your correct interpretation. As for your WP:BLUE HiLo48 and you saying you've only "encountered one Australian who doesn't (or at least didn't) know or believe that The Australian has a right wing slant". Well, I have asked a bunch of people from all different walks of life lately and in the real world, and many of them actually believed The Australian newspaper to be left-wing! Guess it depends who you talk to hey HiLo48. Maybe and I say this in the nicest possible way but maybe you need to widen your circle of friends HiLo48. That's why WP:BLUE doesn't apply here at all and that's why we use verifiable high quality sources for contentious (non sky is blue) stuff like we are talking about. You are way off the mark as far as policy goes. So I'd listen to Pete if I were you and read up on WP:COMMONKNOWLEDGE. Merphee (talk) 04:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- You and Pete agreeing to condemn me on what I wrote is not going to convince me I'm wrong. I have made my point. Goodbye. HiLo48 (talk) 06:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- HiLo, nothing ever convinces you that you are wrong. Especially when you are. Now I happen to agree with you about The Australian being on the right side of the political centre, and looking at the history of the infobox affiliation statement, "centre-right" seems to be one of the two consensus positions, the other being that we shouldn't have an infobox statement at all, because people get all disruptive over it. Sourcing this sort of statement is problematic, but surely not insoluble, and it's kind of weird that you want to avoid discussing the issue at all. This is Wikipedia, after all, and while WP:BLUE is an essay, WP:NOR is about as fundamental a piece of wikilaw as you can get. --Pete (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Pete after all the drama here I really think we should leave it out and walk away. I also have a serious issue with putting the terms right wing / left wing in our articles on Australian newspapers, given that this is an international encyclopedia and the terms left wing, right wing, liberal, progressive, conservative and so on have different meanings in different countries. I cannot see how it benefits our readers. But that's just my opinion and I'm sick to death of discussing it. Merphee (talk) 11:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- "I'm sick to death of discussing it." You keep saying that, while keeping on discussing it. HiLo48 (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- HiLo48 just because you were proven to be completely wrong with your little WP:BLUE essay and thinking it applied in any way here in this instance, and you were shown it obviously didn't based on our sound reasoning ands policy, please don't continue it on, unless you have something new to add to our content discussion or a new reason why you think it applies. Thank you. Merphee (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC) .
- "I'm sick to death of discussing it." You keep saying that, while keeping on discussing it. HiLo48 (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Pete after all the drama here I really think we should leave it out and walk away. I also have a serious issue with putting the terms right wing / left wing in our articles on Australian newspapers, given that this is an international encyclopedia and the terms left wing, right wing, liberal, progressive, conservative and so on have different meanings in different countries. I cannot see how it benefits our readers. But that's just my opinion and I'm sick to death of discussing it. Merphee (talk) 11:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- HiLo, nothing ever convinces you that you are wrong. Especially when you are. Now I happen to agree with you about The Australian being on the right side of the political centre, and looking at the history of the infobox affiliation statement, "centre-right" seems to be one of the two consensus positions, the other being that we shouldn't have an infobox statement at all, because people get all disruptive over it. Sourcing this sort of statement is problematic, but surely not insoluble, and it's kind of weird that you want to avoid discussing the issue at all. This is Wikipedia, after all, and while WP:BLUE is an essay, WP:NOR is about as fundamental a piece of wikilaw as you can get. --Pete (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Additional sources on The Australian's' politics
I agree that the current sourcing isn't sufficient; but I also think that a quick Google Scholar search for "The Australian" newspaper or "The Australian" "Rupert Murdoch" shows that its politics and the influence it has had on politics is one of the most noteworthy things about the newspaper, at least in academia. I think that it might be worth going into more detail than just "right-wing" (there's a lot that these sources say), but most of them are pretty clear that Murdoch uses the paper to influence politics and spread his views; and most of them treat this as one of the most important aspects things about it. A few possible sources at a quick glance: [42][43][44][45][46] (Search Google Scholar with their titles for the full citations; these are just a few I grabbed quickly, but they're pretty representitive.) I feel like, rather than left-right, the lead (and the article) should make it clear that Murdoch uses The Australian to influence politics both within Australia and abroad, with specific examples. What the sources say is not just that the The Australian presents a right-wing political view (although there's that), but that it exists primarily to present Rupert Murdoch's political views, which, of course, happen to mostly be right-wing... though some of those sources emphasize 'libertarian.' That is the much more important part of what the sources say and what should be covered somewhere in the lead and at much greater length in the article itself - there is extremely extensive academic sourcing discussing the role The Australian has played in Australian politics, which are almost entirely absent from the article. --Aquillion (talk) 07:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm wondering what left-wing and right wing and centre-left and centre right and centre and extreme right and extreme left and extreme centre and so on and so forth actually mean in Australia or to Australians compared with other parts of the world? Problem is these terms mean different things to different people and between countries the meaning also differs. Them we have political alignment. Would the ALP call itself left wing? Would the coalition call itself right wing? So many questions, so few sources, so much confusion, so much disruption over this ridiculous subjective question. Given Wikipedia is global how is this pointless debate possibly good for our readers who may view right wing left wing differently in the USA than here in Australia. Or what does it mean in every other country? I really do not see how there is ever going to be consensus on this when there is no set criteria and objectivity. Merphee (talk) 07:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- That is potentially an issue. I linked this source below, which is possibly the best one I found (as an in-depth analysis of the politics of The Australian, published in a reputable journal about journalism.) It traces how they changed over time - they haven't remained the same - but as it says in abstract, libertarianism has been a common theme (and of course it also emphasizes neo-liberalism.) We would probably have to read papers like that in more depth to be able to boil them down to a clear takeaway; probably, before putting something in the lead, the thing to do is to use them to write a larger section (where we can go into lots of depth on the paper's politics, how it changed over time, what influence it had on politics and so on, as well as what various sources have said.) Then we can come up with a summary of that section to put in the lead (possibly much more than a snappy one-word descriptor.) I feel like the people focusing on that one-word descriptor are getting lost in the weeds a bit - they're not entirely wrong (in the sense that there's a lot of sourcing supporting the idea that The Australian clearly has a perspective and used to advance it, one that perhaps some sources or people might view as right-wing), but the broader in-depth story of that political focus is both more relevant and more useful to readers. I think we might come up with an answer to whether to call them right-wing while digging through sources like those, but I think it's secondary to the more overarching story covered by sources like those. --Aquillion (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, Aquillion, but how do we avoid synthesis? We need someone who isn't a Wikipedia editor to make the points you are making and to do it in a reliable source. --Pete (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Those points are a broad summary of the important points from the sources I linked in my post. --Aquillion (talk) 07:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Of course. But we need someone else to do the summarising. We can't say things that nobody else has said. We can't ask our readers to connect the dots. We can't just hint and wink. That's WP:SYNTH in a nutshell. --Pete (talk) 07:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Skyring: Did you read any, or just respond by suggesting what they stated is possibly synth? User is providing a solution, it is worth pointing out, good for them! cygnis insignis 07:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- You are mistaken. First, we can (and, in fact, are expected to) summarize our sources. Otherwise we'd end up with an infinite regression where we need a source to summarize our sources, then need another source to summarize that source, and so on. Obviously my description was just a quick hand-wavy summary of what I came across in order to give people a general heads-up about what they say in general, not something intended to be immediately inserted into the article; but it is broadly based on what one of them says. Second, more specifically, it was broadly based on this part of the final source:
The following year, he founded the new national daily broadsheet, The Australian, which was to be a loss-maker but which gave its owner political clout at the national level. It allowed him, for example, to strongly back the leader of the Country Party, John McEwen, whose protectionist economic policies he then supported (Cryle, 2008, pp. 17-20). By the 1972 election Murdoch switched the support of his newspapers to the Labor leader, Gough Whitlam, not only making financial donations but actively assisting with party publicity and speeches by Whitlam (Oakes & Solomon, 1973, p. 278). Murdoch himself later admitted: ‘we all really threw ourselves into the fight, to get a change. It did break twenty years of conservative government. Not a bad thing to do’ (Shawcross, 1992, pp. 162-163). Three years later, his newspapers turned on the government and campaigned for its defeat. The conservative parties precipitated a constitutional crisis that culminated in the dismissal of the Whitlam government by the Governor-General, with Murdoch later admitting that his newspapers played a central role in the affair (Kelly, 1995, p. 244).
That's the sort of in-depth blow-by-blow thing that the article needs to cover. Also see this source, which has an extensive section about the evolution of Murdoch's politics and how The Australian's reporting was used to advance them. Third, you need to actually read the sources someone provides (or at least do a quick skim and search for the words relevant to the topic), not just leap to the conclusion that "summarize" means "synthesis" rather than "condense what they literally say to something readable". Highlighting specific aspects that you feel are synthesis unsupported by the individual sources would be fine (obviously, as I said, it's a quick hand-wavy summary and will need considerable refinement, more examination of the sourcing, and so on, so I'd expect there's a lot of room to improve it) - but just dismissively saying "yeah, but that's just a summary of the sources and therefore WP:SYNTH!" is both wrong on several levels and completely unhelpful. I can't even identify what part you feel is synthesis or what aspects you don't feel are directly sourced, so how can I possibly address it? --Aquillion (talk) 08:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yeees, but how do you fit all that into a couple of words in an infobox, which is basically what the discussion is about? Are you saying that there is some objective way to do this that might overcome what we've seen so far? Could you outline the process, please. --Pete (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- I think you need to read the comments again, and a bit of civility wouldn't go astray. You made an accusation above, based on nothing, the user is clearly discussing the improvement of content. cygnis insignis 12:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- That is why I suggested, above, that we start by making a section in the article devoted to this (I think we definitely have or can find enough sources for that.) A section like that can have a lot more nuance and context. Then, once we've fleshed out that section and spent more time going over sources, reading and comparing them and boiling them down into stuff that can go into a section, we can consider what it says and summarize the key takeaways from the section into the lead per WP:LEAD. But I think that the abstract from the McKnight paper might give a very general idea of what the addition to the lead could eventually look like. --Aquillion (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- OK. I think I'm distracted by the edit-war raging on this point. Yes. Heartily endorse this approach as a section in the article, but I think the abstract mentioned is way too wordy for the lead, and certainly not appropriate for the one or two words an infobox would require. My concern is that any such statement of political orientation is going to be sourced from Wikipedia editors either direcly or through synthetic confection, rather than attributable to a reliable source that a consensus of editors endorse. --Pete (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yeees, but how do you fit all that into a couple of words in an infobox, which is basically what the discussion is about? Are you saying that there is some objective way to do this that might overcome what we've seen so far? Could you outline the process, please. --Pete (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Of course. But we need someone else to do the summarising. We can't say things that nobody else has said. We can't ask our readers to connect the dots. We can't just hint and wink. That's WP:SYNTH in a nutshell. --Pete (talk) 07:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Those points are a broad summary of the important points from the sources I linked in my post. --Aquillion (talk) 07:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Aquillion. @Merphee, Skyring, HiLo48, Cygnis insignis, PeterTheFourth, Onetwothreeip, and Hughesdarren: Do we look like we have finally reached some consensus here? My proposed consensus position is "The infobox should not contain a political position (for now), and neither should the lead section. There are reliable third-party academic sources available to write much better sections on history and political interactions of The Australian over time. Once these sections have been created and expanded, the lead section should be expanded to summarise the article in accordance with WP:LEAD. If and only if the lead summary points to a clear position suitable for two words in the infobox, it may be appropriate to add that position as a summary of the lead." --Scott Davis Talk 01:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- This is an excellent way forward. Thank you. My wholeheartd endorsement. --Pete (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- I personally find it disturbing, and puzzling, that supporters of the kind of politics The Australian presents have worked so hard to keep an obvious fact about its political leanings out of the article. I truly don't understand why. However, in the interests of progress here, I will agree with the proposal. HiLo48 (talk) 03:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Does anybody object to an infobox description of "centre-right to right wing", on a basis other than any description shouldn't be included in the infobox at all? Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- No, this is ludicrous. Flagrantly edit war and break 3RR all you want, I do not and will not agree with this nonsense conviction that we can't include a political orientation in the lede or infobox. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Like Skyring/Pete, I too support what Aquilion has proposed and thank them for their efforts. Like most editors who have commented on this talk page however I strongly oppose any listing in the infobox or in the lede of any single, subjective and ridiculous label of The Australian's supposed political alignment which has caused the trouble here and am perplexed as to the motive of editors who have wanted to put it in. It makes no sense. Anyway hope this proposal Aquillion has provided may settle things and we can move on now consensus is formed. Merphee (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- "...The Australian's supposed political alignment..." It's that third word that is causing all the problems here. I only agree with Aquilion because it will hopefully allow sensible discussion on other matters to proceed. You rudely question "the motive of editors who have wanted to put it in". I can assure you my motive is nothing more than to have this encyclopaedia reflect common sense, common knowledge in this country, and truth. Please stop the insults, and go away and think about this calmly for a while. The Australian simply IS a right wing publication. Even Pete agrees with that. But I will agree to not telling anyone if it will shut you up for a while. THERE is my current motive. HiLo48 (talk) 06:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- The only one here insulting and abusing specific editors is YOU HiLo48. And you sure do have a very long history of attacking editors and abusing editors who don't agree with your extremist points of view. With such strong personal points of view here about this and other controversial topics, I am not sure you should be editing. We need to go by what the sources say. That's all. That's it. And in this case the sources do not support in any way your extreme point of view. Please stop causing conflict here and go away now. And read up on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. You constantly talk of how much you hate Wikipedia and the hard working administrators here so why are you here. Seriously. All you do is attack other good faith editors trying to follow policy and build an encyclopedia. Merphee (talk) 06:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- You do realise, I hope, that you are the only editor here trying to deny the right wing position of The Australian. That hardly makes my position extreme. If you weren't here, there would be no argument as to the paper's position. So, answer me please, whose position is extreme? HiLo48 (talk) 07:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- OMG HiLo48, Wikipedia is not about what you or I or any other editor 'thinks' about a topic, especially a controversial one like this. It is about what the sources say about a topic. And some sources say centrist, some say centre right, some say right and some even say more left leaning. Please just go away and read up on our policies that Pete and others have directed you to and you will see. Thank you. Now can we just move on, this is becoming very disruptive. Think whatever you want in your personal world HiLo48 but don't try to insert your point of view into our articles, that's all I'm saying. Geez. Merphee (talk) 07:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- You do realise, I hope, that you are the only editor here trying to deny the right wing position of The Australian. That hardly makes my position extreme. If you weren't here, there would be no argument as to the paper's position. So, answer me please, whose position is extreme? HiLo48 (talk) 07:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- The only one here insulting and abusing specific editors is YOU HiLo48. And you sure do have a very long history of attacking editors and abusing editors who don't agree with your extremist points of view. With such strong personal points of view here about this and other controversial topics, I am not sure you should be editing. We need to go by what the sources say. That's all. That's it. And in this case the sources do not support in any way your extreme point of view. Please stop causing conflict here and go away now. And read up on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. You constantly talk of how much you hate Wikipedia and the hard working administrators here so why are you here. Seriously. All you do is attack other good faith editors trying to follow policy and build an encyclopedia. Merphee (talk) 06:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- "...The Australian's supposed political alignment..." It's that third word that is causing all the problems here. I only agree with Aquilion because it will hopefully allow sensible discussion on other matters to proceed. You rudely question "the motive of editors who have wanted to put it in". I can assure you my motive is nothing more than to have this encyclopaedia reflect common sense, common knowledge in this country, and truth. Please stop the insults, and go away and think about this calmly for a while. The Australian simply IS a right wing publication. Even Pete agrees with that. But I will agree to not telling anyone if it will shut you up for a while. THERE is my current motive. HiLo48 (talk) 06:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Like Skyring/Pete, I too support what Aquilion has proposed and thank them for their efforts. Like most editors who have commented on this talk page however I strongly oppose any listing in the infobox or in the lede of any single, subjective and ridiculous label of The Australian's supposed political alignment which has caused the trouble here and am perplexed as to the motive of editors who have wanted to put it in. It makes no sense. Anyway hope this proposal Aquillion has provided may settle things and we can move on now consensus is formed. Merphee (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I mean really, c'mon, for goodness sake, this is obvious!!! I'm rigid with disgust at the abomination above, and think my indignation is entirely justified in this situation; an apology would be appropriate. Maybe a block? I don't think that would be too harsh. I just find it infuriating that users are not addressing the real problem here, and cannot take any of this seriously while this glaring error is being ignored: the apostrophe in the heading above. I will comment after I have calmed down a bit, it might take a week or two. Please continue the discussion without me until I have returned from a 'sabbatical', because I am almost persuaded that seeing what emerges from research and sourced content is hard and boring and it is simpler to perpetuate a slanging match on the talk page. cygnis insignis 09:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- HiLo48, my position is as Pete pointed out to you. It is based on what the the sources say for the 1000th time. At not everyone here has said The Australian newspaper is hard right wing like your personal belief! Stop trying to distort things please. As I pointed out to you today many in the general community believe it to be left wing for goodness sakes! My opinion is that is centre to centre right. But you are missing the point. And I am not going to continue with this with you. It is about what the reliable sources tell us and it matters nought what your opinion or my opinion or any of our opinion's are. Just what the sources tell us. Some say centrist, some say right wing wing, some say centre left and some say other things. Merphee (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Anyway I don't appreciate being told by you HiLo48 that my view which is based squarely on our policy is "nonsensical". That seems like a personal attack to me. I've given my support to Aquillion's solution and have got nothing more to say on this matter for fear of copping more abuse from HiLo48. You've successfully chased yet another editor away Hilo48 who dared to disagree with you. Merphee (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- "...my position is...based on what the the sources say" No it's not. I remember how this all began. You simply didn't even know that most people see The Australian as right wing. The vast majority of sources describe The Australian as right wing.
- "At not everyone here has said The Australian newspaper is hard right wing like your personal belief!" That's not what I said. I simply said "right wing". Not HARD right wing. Please don't misrepresent me.
- "many in the general community believe it to be left wing". I've seen no evidence of "many".
- "I don't appreciate being told...that my view..is nonsensical." What I described as nonsensical was your view that mine was an extreme position, while you are the only editor here who doesn't see the paper as right wing. I see no reason to retract that statement. It simply is nonsensical.
- "I am not going to continue with this with you" Good. While I am happy to continue refuting your poor logic and misrepresentation, it is very time consuming, and not at all productive for this encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hilo48 please focus on content. You said you were in favour of Aquillion's proposal as a solution here and a resolution to this ridiculous situation. There is no consensus whatsoever for anything else. My personal opinion is The Australian is centre to centre right. However my opinion or your opinion or anyone else's opinion do not matter. only what the reliable sources say and they vary depending on the year and the source. Merphee (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Anyway I don't appreciate being told by you HiLo48 that my view which is based squarely on our policy is "nonsensical". That seems like a personal attack to me. I've given my support to Aquillion's solution and have got nothing more to say on this matter for fear of copping more abuse from HiLo48. You've successfully chased yet another editor away Hilo48 who dared to disagree with you. Merphee (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- HiLo48, my position is as Pete pointed out to you. It is based on what the the sources say for the 1000th time. At not everyone here has said The Australian newspaper is hard right wing like your personal belief! Stop trying to distort things please. As I pointed out to you today many in the general community believe it to be left wing for goodness sakes! My opinion is that is centre to centre right. But you are missing the point. And I am not going to continue with this with you. It is about what the reliable sources tell us and it matters nought what your opinion or my opinion or any of our opinion's are. Just what the sources tell us. Some say centrist, some say right wing wing, some say centre left and some say other things. Merphee (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
A Modest proposal
I posted a brief summary of the page edit history on when this article has had a political affiliation label in the lead material.[47] Mostly it has been (by duration)
- stable without any statement
- stable with a label of "centre-right"
- unstable as conflicting views vie for ascendancy.
Stability would be best, I suggest. May I also suggest that until such time as a consense emerges on what the label might be, and that it is adequately-sourced, we do not have a label at all in the lead material?
I think the way forward proposed by Aquillion above is a good one; to examine the various positions in the body of the paper, supported by good sources, of which there seems to be a sufficiency, and to base our deliberations on the facts. As opposed to inner certainties and partisan mentions on talk shows and the like. --Pete (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- A Modest Proposal? cygnis insignis 21:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- "Centre-right" without anything expressing that it is further right than that would be weasel words. I feel that this is a result of Merphee's extreme insistence that The Australian isn't right wing at all, in order to settle on the false compromise of "centre-right". Is there seriously anybody who objects to the infobox calling the newspaper "centre-right to right wing", except for the reason that there shouldn't be any political description in the infobox? Anybody? Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- No objections here, my preference all along. Hughesdarren (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Are the two of you in support of Aquillion's proposal. I am. That seems like the best way forward. There is no consensus whatsoever for anything else. This just goes on and on doesn't it! Merphee (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Once again I feel I need to point out that it is our policy, that we need to follow not what an editor wants something to be. It is the reliable sources we need to follow. The reliable sources say centrist, some say centre right, some say right wing. It depends on what source, what period in time and so on. Can someone also define what right wing or left wing or centrist is here in this instance? In each country these terms mean different things. Given this is an international encyclopedia we need tho think about that point which has remained unanswered. Merphee (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- If the two of you don't want to consider Aquillion's well thought out proposal this will obviously need to go to some other Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. I thought it seemed like a good resolution. we need to compromise here and focus on content only not on other editors as people here keep doing and us seeking a resolution. Currently there is no consensus. Merphee (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- I am thinking this would only be resolved if we make a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/ArbCom and get someone else to arbitrate on this ridiculous stalemate. Merphee (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- You have now said, just above in the previous section, "The Australian is centre to centre right." That concession seems to remove the stalemate. HiLo48 (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Are you serious? That is my opinion. However some reliable sources say centrist, some say centre right, some say right, some even say left wing at times. We go by the reliable sources HiLo48 not our opinions. I think we need to get this arbitrated. There is no consensus here. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/ArbCom HiLo48 have you changed your position about supporting Aquillion's proposal? Please respond to the question? Also what is your definition of right wing left wing, centrist? It differs between countries. Merphee (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- You have now said, just above in the previous section, "The Australian is centre to centre right." That concession seems to remove the stalemate. HiLo48 (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- I am thinking this would only be resolved if we make a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/ArbCom and get someone else to arbitrate on this ridiculous stalemate. Merphee (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- If the two of you don't want to consider Aquillion's well thought out proposal this will obviously need to go to some other Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. I thought it seemed like a good resolution. we need to compromise here and focus on content only not on other editors as people here keep doing and us seeking a resolution. Currently there is no consensus. Merphee (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Once again I feel I need to point out that it is our policy, that we need to follow not what an editor wants something to be. It is the reliable sources we need to follow. The reliable sources say centrist, some say centre right, some say right wing. It depends on what source, what period in time and so on. Can someone also define what right wing or left wing or centrist is here in this instance? In each country these terms mean different things. Given this is an international encyclopedia we need tho think about that point which has remained unanswered. Merphee (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Geez. Round and round we go. Look, we're not getting anywhere by everyone shouting at each other. The lead - and infobox - needs to be based on the body of the article, specifically in the "Editorial and opinion pages" section, or maybe a subsection devoted to political orientation, not what someone can achieve by editwarring, not what someone's opinion here is. The Australian has supported different political views over the years. They supported Rudd over Howard IIRC, and they were certainly boosting Keating and the republic in the last age. Why not set to doing some actual bloody research, finding some actual sources, and getting in touch with some actual facts? You know, this is an encyclopaedia, and we owe to our readers to give them the good guff. My position is that I'm going to remove any political affiliation statement in lede or infobox until we have a clear consensus over what that might be in the body of the article. --Pete (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Some very good points Pete and all well based on our policies and principles not our personal opinions or what we would like to see in the article. We need to look at The Australian historically, not just the present day. Over time political alignment has shifted quite a bit as you say. Interestingly The Australian's Australian of the Year Award has been given to more ALP politicians than Liberal politicians. All of this needs to be reflected. Merphee (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Ya'll should consider either an RFC or the Dispute Resolution Board. So far, things are going as smoothly as Brexit sailing through the British House of Commons. GoodDay (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@Merphee: do you have any sources that describe The Australian as centrist or left wing that describe the newspaper currently? Otherwise I think "centre-right to right wing" is broadly agreed by everybody else as a decent and encompassing description fit for the infobox, with the only possible objection being that there shouldn't be a description at all. I don't care if this is added into the lead/infobox before or after it is discussed in the body of the article, but my understanding is that it is already discussed there. As for The Australian's Australian of the Year Award, other editors have raised that this is not a serious award and has been awarded satirically, or only to indicate a person's influence in that year and not an endorsement of their views or actions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- As GoodDay has just stated and I've stated before we need to take this to the Dispute Resolution Board to resolve differences. There have been many editors involved yet no consensus has been achieved and the level of conflict needs to be reduced. I personally think this should be dealt with through a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/ArbCom. Merphee (talk) 04:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Would other editors be in support of dispute resolution? The very good proposal by Aquillion has been completely ignored by several editors such as Onetwothreeip and PeterTheFourth, which in of itself seems pretty uncivil. A lot of work went into that proposal toward a resolution and I think it is still the best way forward. I think the page needs protection for a week while this situation is resolved. The Australian is our country's most widely read national newspaper and this an important article. Merphee (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- ARBCOM doesnt make content decisions, the article has been at this dispute since 2009, the only time there has been stability is when it says nothing in the lead nor infox. There is no way to reliably keep it current without dispute as political leaning shifts with the editor, owner, and the times. Having nothing as suggested many time of the last 10 years is the only solution, obviously leanings can be included in relation to Editor, Owner, and Time period discourse. The age is a highly used source so we shouldn't influence other articles by unintentionally stating something relates to now when it didnt relate to an earlier time. Gnangarra 05:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comments about the position of the paper in the past are irrelevant, unless we have a section labelled "Positions of the paper in the past". That's something that could be interesting, but it's really not what this discussion is all about. It's the current position of the paper the article should describe, and that's what readers would be looking for. It's what I look for when I go to articles about journals I'm not familiar with. HiLo48 (talk) 11:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- "history is irrelevant" words to live by? cygnis insignis 14:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- The infobox in particular, and also the lead, are for current facts unless otherwise designated. The body of the article already describes the newspaper as currently a broadly right wing newspaper anyway, but it seems that further insistence about this is just a matter of stalling. It's not like we talk about the address of the newspaper's office in the body of the article, but it's still in the infobox. It's also irrelevant if the office used to be at a different address, we just report what is the current address. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- "history is irrelevant" words to live by? cygnis insignis 14:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- I totally agree with Gnangarra's very sensible comments on this 10 year long issue and dispute and also strongly support leaving any type of unitary, subjective label of supposed political alignment out of the lede and out of the infobox for the reasons Gnangarra and many others have already provided on this page and other talk pages.
- @Onetwothreeip: are you in support of Aquillion's proposal as a possible resolution here? Secondly are you in support of us using some type of dispute resolution to try and resolve this? Please respond to these questions. Merphee (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Gnangarra: Can you suggest any way forward here to resolve this decade old debate and the current editor conflict here? Is page protection for a week possible while it is resolved? Merphee (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- @HiLo48: yes currency and history are relevant, so is maintaining it, as we know(assuming) with changes to editor or owner will shift or society(less likely these days) can shift the views of the paper. Every reference use in Wikipedia from the paper links back here so history is relevant as we dont know why the reader is here. Aquillion's proposal is a way forward, maybe we need to think differently and attribute it to editorial period, with sections for the editor in chief of the paper, even if it become daughter articles because of size issues Editors in chief of The Australian. So we say in the lead something like ..under the current Editor in chief Christopher Dore The Australian has a right of centre political view in the info box we have nothing or Centre Right(EiC Dore). Then when Dore leaves it can be changed to initially ''..under the previous editor in chief Christopher Dore The Australian has more right of centre political view until we have reliable source to support any change. This will define the when so as not to impact the past, present as changes occur, and enable future shifts.
- That seems like a reasonable compromise to me.Hughesdarren (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- More important surely than editor is the ownership of the paper - Rupert Murdoch/News Ltd. I'm not aware of Rupert publishing a left wing paper anywhere in the world, no matter who the editor is. HiLo48 (talk) 03:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Seems like a reasonable approach. Can someone address the question of what right wing and left wing and centrist and liberal and conservative and so on means in different countries and to different people. We must consider our readers from all over the world, not just in Australia. I think we would need to be defining these abstract terms for pur readers and what they mean in Australia compared to what they mean in the USA for instance rather than just state centre right or centre left. Are we talking about political party alignment or ideology or what? Merphee (talk) 04:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Meprhee, please, stop wriggling. Find us one editor here, apart from yourself, who would not describe the paper as right wing. (And even you seem to have accepted that it's at least a little bit right wing.) International definitions are not sought for every other paper in the country. You really are looking obstructionist now. HiLo48 (talk) 04:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- @HiLo48: please focus on content. Your constant belittling and bullying of anyone who disagrees with you needs to stop and I've warned you. You have a very long history of attacking and belittling other editors who disagree with your point of view. I could so easily attack you personally but I won't. Back to content. There have been so many editors on this talk page and other talk pages who have commented on this topic of political alignment and have strongly disagreed with us including any political alignment in the lede and/or the infobox. There is definitely no consensus whatsoever on doing so. Are you supportive of Aquillion's proposal or not? Merphee (talk) 04:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Again, can someone/anyone here address the question of what right wing and left wing and centrist and liberal and conservative and so on means in different countries and to different people. We must consider our readers from all over the world, not just in Australia. I think we would need to be defining these abstract terms for pur readers and what they mean in Australia compared to what they mean in the USA for instance rather than just state centre right or centre left. Are we talking about political party alignment or ideology or what? Maybe it would be better to be saying The Australian supports the Coalition or the ALP or the Greens but it might change next year. I mean what the f... are we actually trying to say here? Merphee (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Merphee: unneeded discourse, obviously a link to a page that describes the leaning would be appropriate from the lead if its not in the infobox Gnangarra 04:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Agree. Also right wing or left wing politics are well understood regardless of nationality. Notice that the wikipedia articles Right-wing politics and Left-wing politics are not rewritten for all nationalities, these are not abstract concepts they are universally understood. Hughesdarren (talk) 05:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- @HiLo48: please focus on content. Your constant belittling and bullying of anyone who disagrees with you needs to stop and I've warned you. You have a very long history of attacking and belittling other editors who disagree with your point of view. I could so easily attack you personally but I won't. Back to content. There have been so many editors on this talk page and other talk pages who have commented on this topic of political alignment and have strongly disagreed with us including any political alignment in the lede and/or the infobox. There is definitely no consensus whatsoever on doing so. Are you supportive of Aquillion's proposal or not? Merphee (talk) 04:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Meprhee, please, stop wriggling. Find us one editor here, apart from yourself, who would not describe the paper as right wing. (And even you seem to have accepted that it's at least a little bit right wing.) International definitions are not sought for every other paper in the country. You really are looking obstructionist now. HiLo48 (talk) 04:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Seems like a reasonable approach. Can someone address the question of what right wing and left wing and centrist and liberal and conservative and so on means in different countries and to different people. We must consider our readers from all over the world, not just in Australia. I think we would need to be defining these abstract terms for pur readers and what they mean in Australia compared to what they mean in the USA for instance rather than just state centre right or centre left. Are we talking about political party alignment or ideology or what? Merphee (talk) 04:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- More important surely than editor is the ownership of the paper - Rupert Murdoch/News Ltd. I'm not aware of Rupert publishing a left wing paper anywhere in the world, no matter who the editor is. HiLo48 (talk) 03:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- That seems like a reasonable compromise to me.Hughesdarren (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- @HiLo48: yes currency and history are relevant, so is maintaining it, as we know(assuming) with changes to editor or owner will shift or society(less likely these days) can shift the views of the paper. Every reference use in Wikipedia from the paper links back here so history is relevant as we dont know why the reader is here. Aquillion's proposal is a way forward, maybe we need to think differently and attribute it to editorial period, with sections for the editor in chief of the paper, even if it become daughter articles because of size issues Editors in chief of The Australian. So we say in the lead something like ..under the current Editor in chief Christopher Dore The Australian has a right of centre political view in the info box we have nothing or Centre Right(EiC Dore). Then when Dore leaves it can be changed to initially ''..under the previous editor in chief Christopher Dore The Australian has more right of centre political view until we have reliable source to support any change. This will define the when so as not to impact the past, present as changes occur, and enable future shifts.
- @Gnangarra: Can you suggest any way forward here to resolve this decade old debate and the current editor conflict here? Is page protection for a week possible while it is resolved? Merphee (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. Merphee (talk) 05:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- You forgot your apology to me for saying exactly what three other editors have now said and that you have agreed with. HiLo48 (talk) 06:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- HiLo48 it's an effort as I'm sure it has been with so very many other editors that have had to deal with your abrasive uncivil conduct, not to give you a mouth full to be honest and make things really personal with you and your comments. But given no administrator seems to give a shit how uncivil you are I will certainly give it back to you pretty soon as hard as you dish it out champ. Merphee (talk) 06:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- But I was right, and you were wrong. For the past nine months. You seem incapable of acknowledging that reality. That obviously leads to the abuse you throw at me. HiLo48 (talk) 06:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- You're a funny little person. Childlike I'd say in your comments. You're like a primary school teacher I know who is as immature as the kids he teaches. They call it transference I think. lol. Now back to this 'content' dispute are you on board with Aquillion's proposal or not? And no one is saying right wing, FYI. Because the reliable sources don't say that. And we need to go by what the reliable sources say. Some reliable sources say centrist. Some say centre-right. Some say right. There's a few that have even said left wing a couple of decades ago when Rupert Murdoch was handing out his newspaper's highest annual award to ALP left wing politicians! So we need to go by what the sources tell us silly. Merphee (talk) 06:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Twenty years ago is clearly irrelevant. My personal position remains that it is bloody obvious to all broadly-informed Australian readers that The Australian is right wing. That's what should be in both the Infobox and the text. Anything less than that is hiding factual and useful information from readers. I am happy that, finally, after nine months, you are willing to concede that the word "right" in some from can be used for the paper. That is what I have been trying to convince you of for all that time. Had you not been so stubborn for so long, insisting that it is not right wing, I may not have had the ammunition to "belittle" you, if you really think promoting a truthful position to a denier is belittling. As for what goes in the article, remember that consensus does not mean the same thing as unanimity. My position is above. I shall let other editors decide what to do with it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Blah, blah, blah. So that means no you're not supportive of Aquillion's proposal. Fine. And there has been a stack of other editors who, for very good reasons has suggested we just leave this subjective and supposed political label out of the infobox and the lede. I mean some sources say centrist, some say centre right. Some say right. Some have even said left wing as in support of ALP left wing governments in times gone by. Given this conflict has apparently been going on for over 10 years now with no consensus reached, leaving a unitary data point / 'label' out of the lede and infobox seems the most stable solution. Merphee (talk) 07:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- ...and the one that would perfectly suit the editor who is only here because nine months ago I dared to point out that The Australian is generally seen a right wing paper, and who neither knew that, nor wanted to believe it. HiLo48 (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merphee, it sounds like you're agreeing that the paper is considered centre-right to right wing in 2019. Can you show us sources that consider it currently centrist? Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Nobody cares what is "bloody obvious", HiLo. Get some sources to support a political viewpoint section in the body of the article, and we can then use that to put something in the lede. If we can all agree on it. As per wikiprocedure. Quit yapping here, get to work. --Pete (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Highly uncivil, Skyring. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Pete, I have made my point, AND defended myself against nine months of attacks from another editor who somehow didn't know The Australian was right wing, and still hates me for pointing it out, even though he has now accepted the truth of what I said, but won't admit it in so many words. I think I had a right to defend myself. My position is clear. Wikipedia doesn't require everyone to agree, and I will never agree to leaving the paper's political leaning out of the article. The rest of you can deal with that, I'm sure. HiLo48 (talk) 07:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Pete is just frustrated like the other 10 or so editors including myself that have commented on this ridiculous issue and have opposed putting any single, subjective label of supposed political alignment in the lede or the infobox. As far as being uncivil, you've got to be kidding Onetwothreeip and HiLo48. I laughed so hard I fell off my chair at that one after the amount of abuse and personal attacks you have both made. Anyway back to the content issue. You have NO QUALITY RELIABLE SOURCES HiLo48 or Onetwothreeip to paint The Australian to our readers how you want to paint it. Full stop. Doesn't matter what you both think or your personal views are about the newspaper. The only thing that matters at Wikipedia are quality reliable sources. And the sources provided thus far are crap, quite frankly. And even then some say centrist, some say right, some say centre-right and some say the Australian has supported ALP (left wing) governments in the past. Pleae let it go and just move on. This is highly disruptive and there is definitely no consensus apart from leaving it out. Merphee (talk) 09:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Blah, blah, blah. So that means no you're not supportive of Aquillion's proposal. Fine. And there has been a stack of other editors who, for very good reasons has suggested we just leave this subjective and supposed political label out of the infobox and the lede. I mean some sources say centrist, some say centre right. Some say right. Some have even said left wing as in support of ALP left wing governments in times gone by. Given this conflict has apparently been going on for over 10 years now with no consensus reached, leaving a unitary data point / 'label' out of the lede and infobox seems the most stable solution. Merphee (talk) 07:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Twenty years ago is clearly irrelevant. My personal position remains that it is bloody obvious to all broadly-informed Australian readers that The Australian is right wing. That's what should be in both the Infobox and the text. Anything less than that is hiding factual and useful information from readers. I am happy that, finally, after nine months, you are willing to concede that the word "right" in some from can be used for the paper. That is what I have been trying to convince you of for all that time. Had you not been so stubborn for so long, insisting that it is not right wing, I may not have had the ammunition to "belittle" you, if you really think promoting a truthful position to a denier is belittling. As for what goes in the article, remember that consensus does not mean the same thing as unanimity. My position is above. I shall let other editors decide what to do with it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- You're a funny little person. Childlike I'd say in your comments. You're like a primary school teacher I know who is as immature as the kids he teaches. They call it transference I think. lol. Now back to this 'content' dispute are you on board with Aquillion's proposal or not? And no one is saying right wing, FYI. Because the reliable sources don't say that. And we need to go by what the reliable sources say. Some reliable sources say centrist. Some say centre-right. Some say right. There's a few that have even said left wing a couple of decades ago when Rupert Murdoch was handing out his newspaper's highest annual award to ALP left wing politicians! So we need to go by what the sources tell us silly. Merphee (talk) 06:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- But I was right, and you were wrong. For the past nine months. You seem incapable of acknowledging that reality. That obviously leads to the abuse you throw at me. HiLo48 (talk) 06:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- HiLo48 it's an effort as I'm sure it has been with so very many other editors that have had to deal with your abrasive uncivil conduct, not to give you a mouth full to be honest and make things really personal with you and your comments. But given no administrator seems to give a shit how uncivil you are I will certainly give it back to you pretty soon as hard as you dish it out champ. Merphee (talk) 06:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
HiLo48, those who learn from history are doomed to repeat it? cygnis insignis 12:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- HiLo48 You're the only one who views the history as irrelevant. We're going in circles. Let it go. Merphee (talk) 13:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- We can write about the history of The Australian if you like. It would be of some interest to some people. It would take some work to do it in a thorough and meaningful way. I can provide some OR that in the 1960s The Australian was a major part of my political awakening because it told the truth about the Vietnam War. It was definitely leftist in those days. Research would easily confirm that reality. However, it's the current political position of the paper that the vast majority of readers will be interested in, and is far more important now. Oh, and Merphee, , please provide the sources that say it's centrist. HiLo48 (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm finding it hard to believe that Merphee and Cygnis insignis don't understand that HiLo48 and myself are saying that only the current position of the newspaper is right wing. Instead we keep hearing about how history is important but that is not relevant to the current position. There are several sources in the article that indicate that the newspaper is right wing, and there are no sources either in the article or in the talk page that call the newspaper left wing or centrist. Can we all move on now? The newspaper is right wing, let's just accept that and move on from there. Historically it's had different views and this is reflected in the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- No, 'you think' the Australian is right wing. That is not what the reliable sources say and we go by reliable sources. And history and currency does matter in our articles as Gnangarra and other editors have explained. Please Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass now this is very disruptive. Merphee (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Then show us one single source that says The Australian isn't right wing, in the last few years. Nobody is saying that the history of the newspaper shouldn't be reflected in the article, and you obviously know that. This is entirely about the current position. Again, show us a single source that says The Australian isn't currently right wing. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- There have been many sources provided to you Onetwothreeip, but you have ignored them and refused to allow them into the article. There is no consensus for how you want to paint The australian. I am becoming increasingly concerned that the article is extremely biased with cherry picked low quality sources used and has become one of Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Coatrack articles We need to ensure the article complies with our policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It does not matter how strong an editor 'feels' about something or how strong their personal opinion is about a topic as you and HiLo48 obviously do. Our articles need to be balanced. I do not believe the current section on political alignment is balanced. Merphee (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merphee, this is simple. Right now you need to provide just one high quality, independent source that says The Australian is centrist. You are the only editor claiming it is, so YOU need to show us a source. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- As Pete and others have asked you can you provide one high quality reliable source that actually states The Australian is a right wing newspaper? And not a low quality biased source such as an opinion piece . I refer to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. This is a very contentious point of view you are both trying to shove into the article with no high quality reliable source. Have you got any empirical data on this or any studies? Is there any academic consensus on this contentious topic? If it was so obvious as you say, surely you could provide a number of high quality reliable sources which state 'The Australian is in 2019 a right wing newspaper' or even one high quality and neutral reliable source which states that as a fact? Merphee (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- You see, this is where we differ here. I am not wanting to make a statement of fact that The Australian is a centrist newspaper or centre-left or right or left. However you and Onetwothreeip want to be stating as a fact The Australian is a right-wing newspaper, without any quality reliable source to support that supposed fact of yours. I realise you both may personally believe that, but then many other people don't personally believe that. It just doesn't matter what individuals personally believe. That's not how Wikipedia works. I have stated the sources used in this article on defining the newspaper's political alignment are low quality reliable sources. We cannot be making such massive statements of fact based on low quality sources. Most of the crap sources currently in the article are drawn mostly from opinions of individual commentators. We cannot rely on opinion pieces to support statements of a fact such as what you want us to include. That is just another reason on a long list of reasons so many editors have provided you both, as to why we cannot possibly state as a fact in the lede or the infobox that The Australian i a right wing newspaper. Merphee (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- "We cannot rely on opinion pieces..." Actually, we can and we do, in many articles, so long the opinions are those of reliable, respected commentators, and we attribute them appropriately. Right now you need to provide just one high quality, independent source that says The Australian is centrist. HiLo48 (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- PKB, HiLo. How are you in a position to demand good sources from others when the only source you provide is between your ears? Be fair.
- One thing I am not seeing is any consensus. You all know the way forward, and it has been outlined several times now. Put your best sources in the article not the talk page. --Pete (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- All editors here but one have agreed that The Australian is right wing. If Merphee wasn't here, the article would have had a WP:BLUE addition saying just that long ago. HiLo48 (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Can you see the point I'm making about sources? You demand high-quality sources, while at the same time, you refuse to supply any yourself. It doesn't really matter if the opinions you pull out of your bum match reality or not. We have a long-established policy of using checkable sources to back up our material, and if you insist on your opinions - right or wrong - being used as a basis for supplying our readers with information, you have missed the point entirely. --Pete (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- All editors here but one have agreed that The Australian is right wing. If Merphee wasn't here, the article would have had a WP:BLUE addition saying just that long ago. HiLo48 (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- "We cannot rely on opinion pieces..." Actually, we can and we do, in many articles, so long the opinions are those of reliable, respected commentators, and we attribute them appropriately. Right now you need to provide just one high quality, independent source that says The Australian is centrist. HiLo48 (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- You see, this is where we differ here. I am not wanting to make a statement of fact that The Australian is a centrist newspaper or centre-left or right or left. However you and Onetwothreeip want to be stating as a fact The Australian is a right-wing newspaper, without any quality reliable source to support that supposed fact of yours. I realise you both may personally believe that, but then many other people don't personally believe that. It just doesn't matter what individuals personally believe. That's not how Wikipedia works. I have stated the sources used in this article on defining the newspaper's political alignment are low quality reliable sources. We cannot be making such massive statements of fact based on low quality sources. Most of the crap sources currently in the article are drawn mostly from opinions of individual commentators. We cannot rely on opinion pieces to support statements of a fact such as what you want us to include. That is just another reason on a long list of reasons so many editors have provided you both, as to why we cannot possibly state as a fact in the lede or the infobox that The Australian i a right wing newspaper. Merphee (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- As Pete and others have asked you can you provide one high quality reliable source that actually states The Australian is a right wing newspaper? And not a low quality biased source such as an opinion piece . I refer to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. This is a very contentious point of view you are both trying to shove into the article with no high quality reliable source. Have you got any empirical data on this or any studies? Is there any academic consensus on this contentious topic? If it was so obvious as you say, surely you could provide a number of high quality reliable sources which state 'The Australian is in 2019 a right wing newspaper' or even one high quality and neutral reliable source which states that as a fact? Merphee (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merphee, this is simple. Right now you need to provide just one high quality, independent source that says The Australian is centrist. You are the only editor claiming it is, so YOU need to show us a source. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- There have been many sources provided to you Onetwothreeip, but you have ignored them and refused to allow them into the article. There is no consensus for how you want to paint The australian. I am becoming increasingly concerned that the article is extremely biased with cherry picked low quality sources used and has become one of Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Coatrack articles We need to ensure the article complies with our policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It does not matter how strong an editor 'feels' about something or how strong their personal opinion is about a topic as you and HiLo48 obviously do. Our articles need to be balanced. I do not believe the current section on political alignment is balanced. Merphee (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Then show us one single source that says The Australian isn't right wing, in the last few years. Nobody is saying that the history of the newspaper shouldn't be reflected in the article, and you obviously know that. This is entirely about the current position. Again, show us a single source that says The Australian isn't currently right wing. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Back-and-forth between HiLo48 and Merphee ~Awilley (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Pete, and Merphee - You two have made this discussion toxic. I have said my piece. Goodbye. HiLo48 (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC) |
@Merphee: There have been many sources provided to you Onetwothreeip
. Then show us where these sources are provided that say The Australian is centrist or left wing or centre-left. Here are three reliable sources that describe the newspaper as right wing. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Onetwothreeip: I'm not sure what part of "there is no consensus" you don't understand. But there is NO CONSENSUS. That means the changes don't happen. Full stop. Let it go. Move on. This very disruptive. I refuse to be part of this circular crap with you any longer and take space up on the talk page. I'm convinced you are just taking the piss now too! Merphee (talk) 04:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hilo48, let it go and stop being so uncivil toward other editors who are just trying to follow policy in our editing. You don't seem to get how this consensus building process works and us needing to use high quality sources despite us explaining it several times. So there's no point discussing this anymore. There is certainly no consensus for the edits you and Onetwothreeip want to make and you were both unwilling to engage with everyone on a very reasonable proposal that Aquillion suggested a few days ago. Just as I said to onetwothreeip I'm convinced now that you've purposely wasted everyone's time here and you are taking the piss which I don't appreciate as I genuinely tried to resolve this issue. In fact, I offered several times for us to use dispute resolution which you both ignored but continued on with this ridiculous circular crap taking up space on the article talk page. I've lost my patience with you. Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Merphee (talk) 10:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- After the mess you made of my Talk Page I'm tempted to report you for incompetence. A simple apology for your stuffup might have helped, but if you made one I must have missed it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hilo48, let it go and stop being so uncivil toward other editors who are just trying to follow policy in our editing. You don't seem to get how this consensus building process works and us needing to use high quality sources despite us explaining it several times. So there's no point discussing this anymore. There is certainly no consensus for the edits you and Onetwothreeip want to make and you were both unwilling to engage with everyone on a very reasonable proposal that Aquillion suggested a few days ago. Just as I said to onetwothreeip I'm convinced now that you've purposely wasted everyone's time here and you are taking the piss which I don't appreciate as I genuinely tried to resolve this issue. In fact, I offered several times for us to use dispute resolution which you both ignored but continued on with this ridiculous circular crap taking up space on the article talk page. I've lost my patience with you. Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Merphee (talk) 10:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@Merphee: So where are the sources that say The Australian is currently a left wing or centre left or centrist publication? Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Cherry picking remarks from a long and repetitive conversation:
- You said the owner is more important than the editor in chief. The owner has been Murdoch for the entire life of the newspaper.
- Someone pointed out that many citations form the newspaper link to this article. That means that whatever is in the infobox and lead will be seen by people following links from references of any age, not just recent ones.
- The Australian supported the election of Whitlam, that's at least one data point for it being left-wing. I suspect that more often, it could be described as "anti-government", regardless of which party is presently in power. Why not put more effort into adding to the text of the article, instead of continuing to argue about the infobox? The IB should summarise the lead, should summarise the article. Let's expand the article to provide a better breadth of text to try to summarise. --Scott Davis Talk 14:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Whitlam was 47 years ago. Completely irrelevant to the leanings of the paper today. "Anti-government" is ridiculous. Check its editorial advice at elections, and tell me how many times in the past 30 years it has told its readers to vote against the Liberal Party. It would be a very small number. HiLo48 (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@Merphee: You want sources? How about Roy Morgan Research, good enough for you? See this press Release. - Nick Thorne talk 23:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @HiLo48: Yes, Whitlam was a long time ago. That doesn't mean there won't be people following links to The Australian from citations for newspapers from that era. It also wasn't me that asserted that the leaning of the paper followed its owner more than its Editor-in-Chief. The infobox has to summarise the entire article. If there isn't a single position over the life of the newspaper, it needs qualification in the infobox with more detail in the text. So far, nobody (me included) has felt inclined to write about the political positions of the newspaper over time. --Scott Davis Talk 00:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- @ScottDavis: I said currently left wing, centre-left or centrist. Supporting Whitlam in 1972 is very much historical and not current, and also doesn't prove that the newspaper was in any way left wing even in 1972. I have asked Merphee, and it is open to others, specifically about the current orientation of the newspaper and sources that indicate it is currently left wing, centre-left or centrist. Infoboxes rarely characterise historical views, they document present views. Certainly the changing orientation of the newspaper should be documented in the body of the text, but the newspaper is certainly placed in the right of the political spectrum today, which is what the infobox is there to summarise. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- That's as may be, but you're not going to get to the infobox from the talk page, and you aren't going to get there by edit-warring over it. Follow wikiprocess instead, hmmmmm? --Pete (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Let all ignore the infobox and the lead section (with no mention of a position on a one-dimensional scale), and write some meaningful content for the body of the article. Once there is a sizable content covering both present and past positions on the major topics of the day, then we can revisit a summary for the lead, and an even tighter summary for the infobox. Whether that says leftish for these issues and rightish for those issues, or leftish prior to the mid 1970s and rightish since then, or something else can be determined once there is more content available to review and summarise, such as how and why it changed position (for example did The Australian move, or did "the centre" move?). --Scott DavisTalk 11:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- There's a bit of a false dichotomy there. Improving the body of the article is no barrier to restoring a simple statement (which is well-supported by the cites presently in the article) to the infobox. "Merphee doesn't like it" is not a sufficient reason for removal. Pinkbeast (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- I totally agree with Scott Davis, Pete and about 10 other editors who all have said this highly subjective label is not to be included in the infobox or lede. There is clearly no consensus either. Rather than causing further disruption and as I've suggested before Wikipedia:Dispute resolution or Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass is required to resolve this. Merphee (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- There's a bit of a false dichotomy there. Improving the body of the article is no barrier to restoring a simple statement (which is well-supported by the cites presently in the article) to the infobox. "Merphee doesn't like it" is not a sufficient reason for removal. Pinkbeast (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Let all ignore the infobox and the lead section (with no mention of a position on a one-dimensional scale), and write some meaningful content for the body of the article. Once there is a sizable content covering both present and past positions on the major topics of the day, then we can revisit a summary for the lead, and an even tighter summary for the infobox. Whether that says leftish for these issues and rightish for those issues, or leftish prior to the mid 1970s and rightish since then, or something else can be determined once there is more content available to review and summarise, such as how and why it changed position (for example did The Australian move, or did "the centre" move?). --Scott DavisTalk 11:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- That's as may be, but you're not going to get to the infobox from the talk page, and you aren't going to get there by edit-warring over it. Follow wikiprocess instead, hmmmmm? --Pete (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- @ScottDavis: I said currently left wing, centre-left or centrist. Supporting Whitlam in 1972 is very much historical and not current, and also doesn't prove that the newspaper was in any way left wing even in 1972. I have asked Merphee, and it is open to others, specifically about the current orientation of the newspaper and sources that indicate it is currently left wing, centre-left or centrist. Infoboxes rarely characterise historical views, they document present views. Certainly the changing orientation of the newspaper should be documented in the body of the text, but the newspaper is certainly placed in the right of the political spectrum today, which is what the infobox is there to summarise. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- @HiLo48: Yes, Whitlam was a long time ago. That doesn't mean there won't be people following links to The Australian from citations for newspapers from that era. It also wasn't me that asserted that the leaning of the paper followed its owner more than its Editor-in-Chief. The infobox has to summarise the entire article. If there isn't a single position over the life of the newspaper, it needs qualification in the infobox with more detail in the text. So far, nobody (me included) has felt inclined to write about the political positions of the newspaper over time. --Scott Davis Talk 00:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Off-topic bickering ~Awilley (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- And I agree with Pinkbeast, HiLo48 and 100 other editors who have all said that we should call The Australian what it is! There is no point to carry on as if there is a consensus that thinks The Australian is not considered right wing by reliable sources, or that the infobox shouldn't describe current political orientation. Now with regards to the sort of thing we're hearing from Skyring, I can't recall a time when there was some extra requirement in order to put something in the infobox, but that seems simple enough. All we would then need is a statement about as simple as "The Australian is generally considered right wing.[1][2][3]" and then suddenly it's a good enough fact for the infobox. Personally I would much rather we had it detailed in the body of the article than have it in the lead or infobox, but these are not mutually exclusive. What I have found more important though is removing the bias where elements of the article were selectively added in to make the newspaper seem not as ideological as it is. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes. HiLo48 (talk) 05:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Neither of you have answered the question. Why don't you do what policy tells us to do and initiate Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. One thing for sure is that there is zero consensus here for the changes you want to make and you have both made no attempt to be involved in any resolution process or proposals editors like Aquillion have made. All you do is avoid other editors attempts to resolve this in the way we are supposed to. That is through dispute resolution. Merphee (talk) 05:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- I keep hoping for sanity here. But I guess your behaviour over the past 48 hours has proven that's unlikely. I'm a positive thinker though. HiLo48 (talk) 05:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- What is the question? Now, where are these sources that say The Australian isn't right wing? Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Neither of you have answered the question. Why don't you do what policy tells us to do and initiate Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. One thing for sure is that there is zero consensus here for the changes you want to make and you have both made no attempt to be involved in any resolution process or proposals editors like Aquillion have made. All you do is avoid other editors attempts to resolve this in the way we are supposed to. That is through dispute resolution. Merphee (talk) 05:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes. HiLo48 (talk) 05:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- And I agree with Pinkbeast, HiLo48 and 100 other editors who have all said that we should call The Australian what it is! There is no point to carry on as if there is a consensus that thinks The Australian is not considered right wing by reliable sources, or that the infobox shouldn't describe current political orientation. Now with regards to the sort of thing we're hearing from Skyring, I can't recall a time when there was some extra requirement in order to put something in the infobox, but that seems simple enough. All we would then need is a statement about as simple as "The Australian is generally considered right wing.[1][2][3]" and then suddenly it's a good enough fact for the infobox. Personally I would much rather we had it detailed in the body of the article than have it in the lead or infobox, but these are not mutually exclusive. What I have found more important though is removing the bias where elements of the article were selectively added in to make the newspaper seem not as ideological as it is. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Why don't you do what policy tells us to do and initiate Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to resolve this impasse. There is no consensus for the changes you want make? Merphee (talk) 06:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Off-topic back-and-forth ~Awilley (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- None of you have bothered to write a new section for the article about its political position. Most of the so-called WP:BLUE references have been from other newspapers which probably have Spin motives to label The Australian. Someone here claimed that it follows its owner, but Rupert Murdoch ("Red Rupert") does not appear to have always only been "right wing" by any stretch. None of the other major newspapers in Australia seem to have a political position in their infobox or lead either. Let's focus on adding content, not arguing about labels. Incidentally, there are four references in the lead of Sky for the sentence that says it is blue, hence why that fact need not be cited in other articles. --Scott Davis Talk 10:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, FFS, why do those who seem to want to hide The Australian's obvious leanings leap to this historical nonsense? When I go to the article on a journal I'm not familiar with, to find out it's political leanings, I'm NEVER trying to find out what they were 40 years ago. It's the current position I seek. HiLo48 (talk) 10:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- I believe what the esteemed brain genius is trying to say is indeed that because he has heard some people say the newspapers articles represent the views of its owners, it must then represent the views its owner had... over 60 years ago (before the newspaper was even founded). Damn, you can't fault that logic. Clearly The Australian is a centrist, if not hard communist, newspaper. And we also need to cite that the sky is blue (???) PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- If I am "the esteemed brain genius" I am trying to say that we should not put the cart before the horse. Write some content about the political position of The Australian. If that content can be sensibly summarised in a sentence or paragraph, do so in the lead. If that paragraph can be accurately summarised into a few words, then they can be in the infobox. If it turns out to be more complex than can be summarised into a few words, then don't try. Also, don't write the summary first then expand it into so detail of you ever get round to it. For media that is cited over its entire life as sources for other Wikipedia articles, it is not "historical nonsense", it is part of the necessary background to those citations. --Scott Davis Talk 12:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- But it's not complex. The Australian simply IS a right wing publication. Only one editor is denying that. And he came to Wikipedia nine months ago not even being aware that anyone thought it was right wing. His views are so far from mainstream, it's perfectly valid to ignore them. They are not relevant to informed consensus. Consensus already exists here. HiLo48 (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Just because you SAY the newspaper is supposedly that way, does not make it so HiLo48. Don't you see. We need reliable sources and high quality ones that all consistently state exactly that very clearly. And unfortunately some sources say centrist, or swings both ways, some say centre-right, same say right wing. Others say they have been in support of ALP (left wing) policies and governments and and in recent decades too. We cannot just go with one of those single descriptors. And HiLo48 there sure hasn't been only one editor opposed to the edits you want to make and you know it. There is no consensus here. And you keep ignoring the options of dispute resolution or to drop the stick. I think admins need to get involved if not and protect this page indef if no resolution is reached. And by the way HiLo48 stop the focus on personal stuff and focus on content and adding well sourced content to the body of the article only please. Merphee (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- But it's not complex. The Australian simply IS a right wing publication. Only one editor is denying that. And he came to Wikipedia nine months ago not even being aware that anyone thought it was right wing. His views are so far from mainstream, it's perfectly valid to ignore them. They are not relevant to informed consensus. Consensus already exists here. HiLo48 (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- If I am "the esteemed brain genius" I am trying to say that we should not put the cart before the horse. Write some content about the political position of The Australian. If that content can be sensibly summarised in a sentence or paragraph, do so in the lead. If that paragraph can be accurately summarised into a few words, then they can be in the infobox. If it turns out to be more complex than can be summarised into a few words, then don't try. Also, don't write the summary first then expand it into so detail of you ever get round to it. For media that is cited over its entire life as sources for other Wikipedia articles, it is not "historical nonsense", it is part of the necessary background to those citations. --Scott Davis Talk 12:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- I believe what the esteemed brain genius is trying to say is indeed that because he has heard some people say the newspapers articles represent the views of its owners, it must then represent the views its owner had... over 60 years ago (before the newspaper was even founded). Damn, you can't fault that logic. Clearly The Australian is a centrist, if not hard communist, newspaper. And we also need to cite that the sky is blue (???) PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, FFS, why do those who seem to want to hide The Australian's obvious leanings leap to this historical nonsense? When I go to the article on a journal I'm not familiar with, to find out it's political leanings, I'm NEVER trying to find out what they were 40 years ago. It's the current position I seek. HiLo48 (talk) 10:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- None of you have bothered to write a new section for the article about its political position. Most of the so-called WP:BLUE references have been from other newspapers which probably have Spin motives to label The Australian. Someone here claimed that it follows its owner, but Rupert Murdoch ("Red Rupert") does not appear to have always only been "right wing" by any stretch. None of the other major newspapers in Australia seem to have a political position in their infobox or lead either. Let's focus on adding content, not arguing about labels. Incidentally, there are four references in the lead of Sky for the sentence that says it is blue, hence why that fact need not be cited in other articles. --Scott Davis Talk 10:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Found them! Here are three reliable sources that describe the newspaper as right wing. Any sources saying that The Australian have supported the ALP are also correct, but that was relatively a long time ago and not present. Again, this is more important as context throughout the article, and not only an infobox reference. If you can't produce the sources that say The Australian is left wing, we'll have to assume there aren't any, since we can't just take your word for it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
OH-DAAAAAH
There's quite a bit of growing animosity around the topic-in-question. I think we need John Bercow, to step in. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Certainly this section needs a split. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Obvious lack of consensus on infobox/lede
Judging by the previous section - "A modest proposal" - which quickly turned into a genteel version of a barroom brawl, there is little or no chance of gaining consensus for any political alignment statement. If people are just going to call each other names instead of doing something constructive, perhaps they could just find some other corner of the boundless internet to I have ?
Clearly we need some solid sources on which to base anything we say in wikivoice for the benefit of readers seeking useful information. I'm sorry, Hilo48, but your bold assertion that the political alignment of the Australian is so universally obvious that it needs no debate is patently untrue; several editors support positions at odds with your own unsourced views. If you could, as suggested, drop that particular stick and pursue some other strategy, that would be great.
I think that the strategy proposed by Aquillion and supported by me is a winner because it is standard wikiprocess. Write a section on the political stance of the newspaper in the body - we already have some material there - and use that as a basis for a brief statement in the lede material.
Yelling at each other on the talk page is no solution and gives no confidence in any outcome which might conceivably emerge from such a brawl. Please, comrades, don't respond by finding more genteel ways to call each other motherfuckers, but instead, work on examining what sources are available and how we might use them.
Some editors, I note with warm approval, have put forward sources. All we need do now is construct a Wikipedia-worthy article from them and any others which may emerge. --Pete (talk) 04:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- It sounds like you are volunteering to write in the body of the article that The Australian is right wing. Now can we stop talking about HiLo48's WP:BLUE argument? Clearly that argument got nowhere, but since then they were referring to one particular editor not accepting that the newspaper is right wing, and too many people have been interpreting this commentary as the continuing attempt to further the argument that sources aren't necessary to describe The Australian as right wing. If ever there was a time to stop beating a dead horse, and I use that expression much more accurately than the other editor who has decided to use that repeatedly, it would be now. It's starting to look like a performance about who knows Wikipedia policy the best, and it has been decidedly contributing to the awful length of this discussion. It is not simply an intractable dispute between HiLo48 and Merphee as some have tried to characterise it as. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good plan. As numerous editors have already stated and I totally agree with, we need to view any political alignment over the entire history of the newspaper. History is very important. Can't take a snapshot which may change tomorrow. So Aquillion's proposal seemed fair. At times the reliable sources have spoken of more centrist leanings and at numerous points in time aligned with the ALP (which is a left wing/socialist/progressive) political party in Australia. Not sure how Rupert Murdoch is supposed to have played into that left wing alignment based on a couple of editors 'sky is blue' argument but anyway. And then at other points in time the newspaper has been more centre-right. Mostly it depends on the paper's chief editor at the time. Merphee (talk) 06:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- "It is not simply an intractable dispute between HiLo48 and Merphee as some have tried to characterise it as." It's certainly not, although I believe Merphee sees it that way because that's where it all began in his experience here. He initially claimed NOBODY saw the paper sa right wing, and I (and even you, Pete) have proven him wrong. And Pete, in your usual manner of casting me as the enemy, you say "I'm sorry, Hilo48, but your bold assertion that the political alignment of the Australian is so universally obvious that it needs no debate is patently untrue." Yet again, someone from the "Don't say it's right wing even though it is" school of thought has provided no links. Who here says it isn't right wing. And please stick to the present. HiLo48 (talk) 06:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merphee, there is no problem at all with documenting the paper's ideology today. This isn't a hard copy publication. If the ideology changes tomorrow, we can edit our article tomorrow. Do you have any sources saying the paper is anything but right wing today? HiLo48 (talk) 06:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- As you know there has been at least 5 other editors who have clearly stated that History is very important to this Wikipedia article. Merphee (talk) 06:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merphee, there is no problem at all with documenting the paper's ideology today. This isn't a hard copy publication. If the ideology changes tomorrow, we can edit our article tomorrow. Do you have any sources saying the paper is anything but right wing today? HiLo48 (talk) 06:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
@Merphee: Can you explain these edits you've made? They seem rather strange, even if some of it is a matter of restoring previous edits. I'd also appreciate others' weighing in on this, since it was apparent we agreed that the present alignment of the newspaper could be included in a historical analysis of it. It seems like when Merphee says the entire history of the newspaper should be considered, they mean that the present shouldn't be considered. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Of course the present should also be included. However you didn't write it as Aquilion has proposed. You just went with the same hard core approach of The Australian is right wing. Full stop. that's not Aquillions suggestion. Merphee (talk) 06:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Your bold edit to the climate change section is not on. i reverted it and restored the long term text. If you want to go with Aquillion's proposal let's do it. Merphee (talk) 06:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- There was absolutely nothing controversial with my changes to that paragraph and I am becoming increasingly convinced that you wish this article to take a negative view of The Australian. I have no prejudice to whatever proposal that you talk about, and what I added is nothing to do with that. You are free to include whatever Aquillion has proposed just as I am free to include material from various sources, they are not at all exclusive of each other. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Your bold edit to the climate change section is not on. i reverted it and restored the long term text. If you want to go with Aquillion's proposal let's do it. Merphee (talk) 06:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Further, this is what the 2007 Crikey source says about The Australian. Reputably John Howard’s favourite newspaper. He has been profuse in his praise – which should make journalists worth their salt ashamed. You need to worry when the politicians praise you. Redeemed itself with its work on the Australian Wheat Board, which had some Government figures protesting that the paper had a “split personality” or even was “betraying us”. The Oz is also the paper that first ran doubts about the truth of the Government’s line on the children overboard story. The present editor, Chris Mitchell has described the paper as “centre right” in its editorial line, but claims it is down the middle in its news coverage. The truth is that Mitchell is mostly a good editor with courage and sound journalistic values, but his credibility is undermined by occasional weird bees in his bonnet. There was the Manning Clark story during his time at The Courier-Mail and most recently the fruit-loopy editorials attacking and distorting the work of Robert Manne and others. The truth is that Rupert’s Australian flagship is a measure of the Murdoch pragmatism. For many years it has been in sympathy with the agenda of federal governments of both colours. Under editor Paul Kelly it helped define Paul Keating’s “big picture”. During the Howard years it has provided both turf and fuel for the culture warriors of the Right.
This is clearly not a passage that supports or describes the newspaper as "centrist", so there is clearly either synthesis of fabrication from Merphee saying so. The only thing this article says about centrism is that Australia's newspaper largely are not divergent from the centre of public opinion, but clearly with The Australian being to the right of that centre.
Most importantly I am very disappointed that other editors here do not seem to take it upon themselves to analyse the sources that Merphee is choosing to use, and the claims about these sources that are being made. I simply do not wish to be the only person analysing these sources and adding them into the article, and I am frustrated with the hypocrisy of people demanding the article be described in a way that agree with sources but are doing nothing to add anything like that to the article, over the very lengthy time that this has been a strongly discussed issue on the talk page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Wow and the passage you just highlighted sure as hell doesn't paint The Australian as hard right wing as you just inserted into the article. I'm disappointed that your opinion pages are provided as reliable sources. They are poor quality according to what Wikipedia demands. The only independent source appears to be the Crikey.com source. In current times it is centre to centre right. In days gone by it has leaned much further to the left (ALP socialist). Merphee (talk) 07:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Never said "hard right wing", just right wing. Do you have any sources that contradict those sources? Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah the crikey source. And even centre to right is not right wing. And we are sup[posed to be re-working the article based on Aquillion's proposal. That is the only consensus here. NOT what you've wanted to do all along. I think we need to do that before you go jamming in your preferred version. Merphee (talk) 07:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- We can do both. If you want to advocate for what Aquillion has proposed, you can do so. There is clearly consensus for using sources to describe the newspaper as some form of right wing, including centre-right. If anybody is against this, please speak now. As for the Crikey source which is from 2007, it starts by saying it's John Howard's favourite newspaper even the editor at the time described it as centre-right, so I would certainly include the Crikey source as describing it as right wing. Now you really have to explain the changes you made to my refactoring of the paragraph about climate change coverage, and also explain how you think the Crikey source calls The Australian centrist. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah the crikey source. And even centre to right is not right wing. And we are sup[posed to be re-working the article based on Aquillion's proposal. That is the only consensus here. NOT what you've wanted to do all along. I think we need to do that before you go jamming in your preferred version. Merphee (talk) 07:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure you can use the Crikey source to say explicitly "centrist". If you read the whole thing, the operative sentence is actually "The truth is that Rupert’s Australian flagship is a measure of the Murdoch pragmatism"...they were happy to support Keatings "big picture"..you know, the whole international shebang- floating dollar, trade/engagement with Asia, all the stuff the Australian was already a long term supporter of. That doesn't mean they are centrist. An article written by ex editor Paul Kelly in 2015 to celebrate 50 years of the Australian says of the Fraser period "It was during this period that the political identity of the paper as a centre-right publication became entrenched" and later goes on to say that post 1996 the party was "far more invested in John Howard than in the defeated Labour party" and goes on to state exactly what issues he sees the Australian as being a supporter of; They all look pretty right of centre to me- Smaller government, lower taxes, deregulated competitive economic structure, reform of industrial relations etc.
- It was published by media international journal, so behind a paywall, but heres a link [48] if you have a state library membership you can access it.Curdle (talk) 11:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Never said "hard right wing", just right wing. Do you have any sources that contradict those sources? Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Look, if we are going to discuss The Australian's political alignment over its long history which most 'independent' editors have agreed we should do then we need to consider the newspaper's support of various ALP governments as well. I agree that the Crikey source doesn't explicitly say The Australian is centrist. However it also does not say it is right wing. There is a big difference between Centre-right politics and Right-wing politics. It is not "weasel words" as Onetwothreeip said. That's misleading. These descriptors are distinct forms of political alignment. One Nation would be considered right wing, not Far-right politics either, but right wing nonetheless and the Coalition would be considered centre-right and not right wing. The ALP would be described as centre-left as well. Whereas the Greens would be considered left wing. I have said a number of times and could show diffs if need be, that currently The Australian is centre-right, not right wing. And the few independent and quality sources on this topic, such as the Crikey source supports this Centre-right politics assessment too. However we ARE considering history here as well so periods where the newspaper leaned to the left should be mentioned. Merphee (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Through history The Australian has varied, and currently it's centre-right to right wing. One Nation is definitely considered far right. If you want to establish The Australian as being considered centrist, you need to provide sources that say so. It is not enough to say that The Australian has supported both major parties, and the 2007 Crikey source firmly places the newspaper right of centre. If there is not going to be an explanation why my alteration of the paragraph on climate change reporting was reverted, I will have to restore them per a lack of talk page discussion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please read my comment directly above again. And by the way if One Nation now with Mark Latham are far-right then are The Greens far left? I think the Greens are just left wing aren't they? And if One Nation is far right then what the hell is Fraser Anning then? We're running out of labels here Onetwothreeip. I suggest we stick to the political descriptors Wikipedia refer to in our articles. Currently all that can be supported by quality sources is centre-right politics not right-wing politics. But then as I said we need to integrate into the body of the article Aqullion's proposal and look at the history of the Australian which over the years has often supported Labor Party governments and policies. Merphee (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Can you agree to this proposal by Aquliion Onetwothreeip? Merphee (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- As far as the bold climate change edits you are talking about can you keep your hands off that section while we try to sort this out first. i'm happy to discuss it with but don't appreciate your aggressive pressured approach saying "If there is not going to be an explanation why my alteration of the paragraph on climate change reporting was reverted, I will have to restore them per a lack of talk page discussion". We all have lives outside of Wiki so take it easy and chill over these bold edits while we can focus on resolving this situation first please. Merphee (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- One Nation and Fraser Anning are considered far-right. The Greens are not considered far-left, they are considered left wing. This is how they are described on the respective articles. As for The Australian, many sources are calling them right wing without specifying "centre-right". If you can't say why the edits to the climate change paragraph shouldn't stand, then they will immediately be restored to the article. We're obviously not going to wait for you to finish something else in order to edit another part of the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- As far as the bold climate change edits you are talking about can you keep your hands off that section while we try to sort this out first. i'm happy to discuss it with but don't appreciate your aggressive pressured approach saying "If there is not going to be an explanation why my alteration of the paragraph on climate change reporting was reverted, I will have to restore them per a lack of talk page discussion". We all have lives outside of Wiki so take it easy and chill over these bold edits while we can focus on resolving this situation first please. Merphee (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Can you agree to this proposal by Aquliion Onetwothreeip? Merphee (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please read my comment directly above again. And by the way if One Nation now with Mark Latham are far-right then are The Greens far left? I think the Greens are just left wing aren't they? And if One Nation is far right then what the hell is Fraser Anning then? We're running out of labels here Onetwothreeip. I suggest we stick to the political descriptors Wikipedia refer to in our articles. Currently all that can be supported by quality sources is centre-right politics not right-wing politics. But then as I said we need to integrate into the body of the article Aqullion's proposal and look at the history of the Australian which over the years has often supported Labor Party governments and policies. Merphee (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Just like another editor what YOU think something or someone is is NOT what Wikipedia say based on the reliable sources. Pauline Hanson's One Nation is described in their Wikipedia article as right-wing politics not far-right politics. And I just said The Greens are left wing, not far-left. Please re-read my comments above. And I agree Fraser Anning is approaching far-right politics and thus was expelled from One Nation and Katter's party. Do you disagree with any of that. Now to try and resolve this long standing issue on the talk page, do you or do you not accept Aquillion's proposal Onetwothreeip? This is what the consensus has come to as a resolution? You keep avoiding that proposal and that question? If not would you like to initiate dispute resolution to help resolve it? Merphee (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I have no idea what Aquillion has proposed, and whether or not I agree would not change anything else I have said or what the general consensus has agreed to. I'm also confused as to why you added empty spaces to the end of this talk page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Just like another editor what YOU think something or someone is is NOT what Wikipedia say based on the reliable sources. Pauline Hanson's One Nation is described in their Wikipedia article as right-wing politics not far-right politics. And I just said The Greens are left wing, not far-left. Please re-read my comments above. And I agree Fraser Anning is approaching far-right politics and thus was expelled from One Nation and Katter's party. Do you disagree with any of that. Now to try and resolve this long standing issue on the talk page, do you or do you not accept Aquillion's proposal Onetwothreeip? This is what the consensus has come to as a resolution? You keep avoiding that proposal and that question? If not would you like to initiate dispute resolution to help resolve it? Merphee (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes you do know what Aquillion's proposal to help us reach consensus Onetwothreeip Do you agree with it? Do you want dispute resolution? Merphee (talk) 03:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I don't even know who that is, let alone this proposal. Accusing me and another editor of tag teaming is absurd. Consensus has now agreed to consider The Australian as largely publishing right wing and centre-right views, and to include this in the article with sources that establish this. You are the only person that disagrees. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes you do know what Aquillion's proposal to help us reach consensus Onetwothreeip Do you agree with it? Do you want dispute resolution? Merphee (talk) 03:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- This section is actually titled Obvious lack of consensus on infobox/lede and there is no consensus. This is because you do not want Aquillion's proposal either. And last time this was brought up at edit warring noticeboard you were told by several editors you are tag teaming. You are obviously tag teaming again. amazingly so. Do you want dispute resolution or not? Merphee (talk) 03:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about the infobox or lead, this is about you removing something from the body of the article. Accusations of "tag teaming" are completely unfounded, have never been affirmed by others at any noticeboard, and it seems the only evidence Merphee has of this is that two editors are reverting his edits and therefore that is a tag team. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- This section is actually titled Obvious lack of consensus on infobox/lede and there is no consensus. This is because you do not want Aquillion's proposal either. And last time this was brought up at edit warring noticeboard you were told by several editors you are tag teaming. You are obviously tag teaming again. amazingly so. Do you want dispute resolution or not? Merphee (talk) 03:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Summarising the section 'Editorial and opinion pages'
Hey. I added a quick, short and sweet summary to this section. The summary is 'The Australian has been described by journalists and commentators as conservative, business focused, and right-wing. It has not been tied to either of the major national parties.
'. Merphee has removed it three times because there is no consensus for this.
Quick facts:
- Consensus isn't required for new material.
- No consensus is not a valid reason to remove material if you have not stated any other reason for its removal.
Regardless - Merphee, why have you removed this summary three times? Is there a different summary you'd prefer? PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- There is no consensus for any single label or data point to be placed anywhere in the article as a catch all. Would you like to use dispute resolution to resolve this? You keep avoiding that question? Merphee (talk) 04:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- You've never asked me that question. No, I don't think dispute resolution would help, as it's a non binding process and you have not displayed any adherence to regular social norms. 'No consensus' cannot be your only reason to argue against something. Do you have any actual reason for why you dislike my summary? PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Because this section started by another editor is stating there is no consensus for us using a single data point. This whole debate as you very well know is about us using a single label to describe The Australian newspaper over the history of the newspaper. Obviously ANI or edit warring noticeboard is our next step I think. This disruption cannot go on. Alternatively have you got high quality reliable sources stating The Australian is a right-wing newspaper? Merphee (talk) 04:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- You've never asked me that question. No, I don't think dispute resolution would help, as it's a non binding process and you have not displayed any adherence to regular social norms. 'No consensus' cannot be your only reason to argue against something. Do you have any actual reason for why you dislike my summary? PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Does anybody else object to the proposed summary? Onetwothreeip proposed a similar summary, which reads 'The Australian has been generally regarded as conservative, business focused, and observing centre-right to right-wing views.
'. I'm fine with either - any other suggestions/comments? PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Good enough for me. We ought to provide citations for that, even if it's a summary. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry if this is in the wrong place,(finding it hard to keep track of where comments should be, feel free to move it) but do any of the sources agree with the description of conservative? Something that says centre right with libertarian tendencies perhaps... business focused ok...but then again that means you are just repeating the essentials from the Chris Mitchell and Paul Kelly quotes. I think it makes for a better article if we avoid repeating stuff that has already been said. Curdle (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Good enough for me. We ought to provide citations for that, even if it's a summary. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe get a serious editor to look over the contributions first, despite the vigorous contributions to a discussion about the article it appears that at least one user is reading it for the first time. cygnis insignis 09:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Cygnis insignis: I'm afraid I don't understand. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- PeterTheFourth, I know, it's okay that you don't. Sincerely, cygnis insignis 09:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- How about you just say what it is you're trying to say, Cygnis? You honestly are often incomprehensible in the way you talk, normally missing context. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Onetwothreeip, Oh, I suppose I should have quoted the edit summary "There's been some coatracking here that has gone under the radar". cygnis insignis 11:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I stand by that. Do you disagree with that assessment? Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- No? The point is the focus has been on discussion, not the article, the content of which, beyond the absence of what you have been trying to hang on this coat-rack, was a complete surprise to you. I made this point because this talk is a lesson in one method of improving content, or getting one's way. cygnis insignis 11:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- What are you saying was a surprise to me? Onetwothreeip (talk) 13:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- No? The point is the focus has been on discussion, not the article, the content of which, beyond the absence of what you have been trying to hang on this coat-rack, was a complete surprise to you. I made this point because this talk is a lesson in one method of improving content, or getting one's way. cygnis insignis 11:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I stand by that. Do you disagree with that assessment? Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Cygnis insignis: I'm afraid speaking via cryptic references will make your usual standard of communication even harder to understand. Try being as plain as possible for those of us less able to understand your mind. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- For what outcome? I pause from creating content and come here to remind myself about how to avoid that. cygnis insignis 11:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Cygnis insignis: If you're not using the talk page to talk to other editors, you're not using the talk page for its intended purpose. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- PeterTheFourth, we're talking aren't we? cygnis insignis 11:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)\
- @Cygnis insignis: You asked 'for what outcome' (?) you should not communicate using cryptic references. I replied 'to talk to other editors', because you're hard enough to understand as it is when you're talking normally. If you do actually intend for other people to comprehend what you write, sincerely make an effort to write things which are readable, please. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- PeterTheFourth, we're talking aren't we? cygnis insignis 11:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)\
- @Cygnis insignis: If you're not using the talk page to talk to other editors, you're not using the talk page for its intended purpose. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- For what outcome? I pause from creating content and come here to remind myself about how to avoid that. cygnis insignis 11:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Onetwothreeip, Oh, I suppose I should have quoted the edit summary "There's been some coatracking here that has gone under the radar". cygnis insignis 11:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm begging you! It's pretty obvious that all the wrangling has been detrimental to the article, but pointing out one person as being responsible doesn't help anything.Curdle (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Curdle, so is putting words in others mouths, I would prefer that didn't happen again. cygnis insignis 13:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Cygnis insignis: I'm afraid I don't understand. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Duplication of sources etc
If I could ask, why is it necessary to put this "However The Australian is regarded by some other commentators in opinion pages as on the right of the political spectrum.[18][19][20]" slap against the Crikey source? Crikey is from 2007- Those three are from 2014, 2015 and 2017. Those three commentators views were formed as a result of everything that has gone on in politics, the media, and the Australian since; the whole climate change furor, the campaign against the Greens, etc, none of which had occurred in 2007. Not to mention that the statement is pretty much on a par with what is already there, in the correct place timewise, (at the end of the section). "The Australian has been criticised by some other commentators for promoting a right wing agenda, and encouraging the growing political polarisation between left and right in Australia.[25][26][27]" And guess what, they are exactly the same three sources?(which btw havent been reused, or formatted correctly, just duplicated) Its just repeating itself? And how can you track changes in editorial policy over time, if you are mashing statements and views from different dates up against each other?. Curdle (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- I added to the article that the newspaper is considered right, using those three sources to attribute it. Merphee clearly diminished it by making it seem like only some people's opinion rather than a pattern of how The Australian is considered. If you agree that the previous version is better, I encourage you to revert it. I also await Merphee's explanation for why my refactoring of the newspaper's reporting on climate change should be reverted. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Dispute resolution?
I think this edit warring has come full circle and the circular discussion has come to an end with PeterTheFourth and Onetwothreeip tag teaming like they did last time and where it was taken to the edit warring noticeboard. Onetwothreeip just made this edit whilst obviously in the middle of our discussion, which for all intents and purposes cannot be resolved here wirth administrator's involvement and sanctions or us using dispute resolution. I don't want to edit war and will post this at ANI if this edit is again made to the article. I know I may also be blocked but at least I'm trying to resolve this and us reach a consensus. Before I do that would other editors here either accept Aquillion's reasonable proposal or be willing to use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to help resolve this? Merphee (talk) 03:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- It would help if you would explain why you've reverted three times at the section I added above called 'Summarising the section 'Editorial and opinion pages' '. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please refer to my comment above. It would help if you stop trying to jam in your singular label which there is no consensus for to be placed anywhere in the article. Political alignment has changed over time. Reiable sources differ. Have you got a high quality reliable source (not opinion pieces written by a single 'opinion") which states The Australian is a right-wing newspaper? Merphee (talk) 04:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merphee will fairly consistently edit war to just under 3RR, while uttering constant platitudes about how they don't want to edit war. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- I haven't been around for awhile, but on rereading the talkpage, saw User:Aquillion's suggestions back on the 13th March ...they really seem like a way to go to build the page using academic sources. As they may have got lost in the debate, here and here please reread the posts.
- There are some really good sources in there; I have a few and could get more- if anyone cant get access, would be happy to email what I can get. Curdle (talk)
- Yep Curdle, this was User:Aquillion's very reasonable and well constructed proposal back on the 13th March and the one I've asked Onbetwothreeip and PeterTheFourth if they agreed with numerous times but have received no response. You Curdle, Pete, myself and at least three other editors as well as Aquillion obviously all agreed on this approach and then against all consensus Onetwothreeip and his fellow Wikipedia:Tag team mate PeterTheFourth went and jammed his right-wing label via tag teaming into the article clearly against consensus and right in the middle of this discussion. Not cool and resulted in me being blocked for 24 hours for reverting it. I ask Onetwothreeip to self-revert this bad faith edit [50] which was boldly made during the consensus building process that multiple editors have obviously been involved in for the past month. It is an unspoken principle here that during consensus building you don't breakaway in the middle of it, and force your preferred version into an article. So Onetwothreeip and PeterTheFourth will your 'team' please revert your contentious edit made during the heat of our debate, and then come back to the consensus building table? And then I will ask you both again, do you agree with Aquillion's very reasonable proposal here and here as a stable resolution to this decade long debate because the current version you've both jammed into the article is obviously anything but stable and we do need a long term resolution so the disruption can stop? Merphee (talk) 08:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- I responded that I had no idea what the proposal was, because you never told me what it was. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- "It is an unspoken principle here that during consensus building you don't breakaway in the middle of it, and force your preferred version into an article" - except, of course, when it's you, where you cram your preferred version in every chance you get. I would say "just up to the edge of violating 3RR", but you're just back from a block for 3RR, so that's not strictly accurate.
- What we have now is fine, and based on sources in the article. All we need now is to put the blindingly obvious back in the infobox and we're done. Pinkbeast (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Haha, no what we have now is no consensus. On one side there are a number of 'like-minded' editors for a single label and on the other side a number of 'independent' editors against it and supportive of Aquillion's proposal again detailed below for your easy reference Onetwothreeip. So the current version is obviously not "fine" Pinkbeast just because you say it is. There was NO CONSENSUS to be jamming in your "right-wing" label. None. And this is ongoing. So will you self revert this edit [51] please Onetwothreeip in good faith? And my second question is, do you agree with Aqullions' very reasonable proposal here and here as a stable resolution to this decade long debate Onetwothreeip? and Pinkbeast? Can you please answer these 2 simple and direct questions to help resolve this? Merphee (talk) 09:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- You're the only one arguing against it. When you call editors who disagree with you "like-minded", that's literally a description of what is a consensus. Again I still am not aware what this proposal is, I haven't opened up any of these links you've posted. I have no need to revert my edits since they are aligned with consensus. I don't see the benefit in dealing with any more given your flagrant desire to start edit warring and risking sanctions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- No I am not the only one. far from it. There are about 5-10 other editors who have stated that a single political label of The Australian should not be included and we instead focus on building content, which is what Aquillion's proposal is. Quite disrespectful to Aquillion for not reading the proposal Onetwothreeip. It's all about compromise and you seem not open to budging from your preferred edit. That's not how Wikipedia works. And then there have been a number who have supported us using a single descriptor/label, like you and Pinkbeast and PeterTheFourth. And we were in the middle of the discussion when you jammed in your preferred version which I've reverted for us to now continue our discussion and I think we should use dispute resolution from here. Merphee (talk) 09:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- You're the only one arguing against it. When you call editors who disagree with you "like-minded", that's literally a description of what is a consensus. Again I still am not aware what this proposal is, I haven't opened up any of these links you've posted. I have no need to revert my edits since they are aligned with consensus. I don't see the benefit in dealing with any more given your flagrant desire to start edit warring and risking sanctions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Haha, no what we have now is no consensus. On one side there are a number of 'like-minded' editors for a single label and on the other side a number of 'independent' editors against it and supportive of Aquillion's proposal again detailed below for your easy reference Onetwothreeip. So the current version is obviously not "fine" Pinkbeast just because you say it is. There was NO CONSENSUS to be jamming in your "right-wing" label. None. And this is ongoing. So will you self revert this edit [51] please Onetwothreeip in good faith? And my second question is, do you agree with Aqullions' very reasonable proposal here and here as a stable resolution to this decade long debate Onetwothreeip? and Pinkbeast? Can you please answer these 2 simple and direct questions to help resolve this? Merphee (talk) 09:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yep Curdle, this was User:Aquillion's very reasonable and well constructed proposal back on the 13th March and the one I've asked Onbetwothreeip and PeterTheFourth if they agreed with numerous times but have received no response. You Curdle, Pete, myself and at least three other editors as well as Aquillion obviously all agreed on this approach and then against all consensus Onetwothreeip and his fellow Wikipedia:Tag team mate PeterTheFourth went and jammed his right-wing label via tag teaming into the article clearly against consensus and right in the middle of this discussion. Not cool and resulted in me being blocked for 24 hours for reverting it. I ask Onetwothreeip to self-revert this bad faith edit [50] which was boldly made during the consensus building process that multiple editors have obviously been involved in for the past month. It is an unspoken principle here that during consensus building you don't breakaway in the middle of it, and force your preferred version into an article. So Onetwothreeip and PeterTheFourth will your 'team' please revert your contentious edit made during the heat of our debate, and then come back to the consensus building table? And then I will ask you both again, do you agree with Aquillion's very reasonable proposal here and here as a stable resolution to this decade long debate because the current version you've both jammed into the article is obviously anything but stable and we do need a long term resolution so the disruption can stop? Merphee (talk) 08:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)