Talk:The Guardian
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Guardian article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
The Guardian was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Today in Focus was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 17 November 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into The Guardian. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
The La Lista article was blanked on August 12, 2024 and that title now redirects to The Guardian. The contents of the former article are available in the redirect's history. |
is it appropriate to use the term "center-left"?
editin the infobox the Guardian is characterized as "center-left", though the source that is attached to the link describe it as left-wing. If it is a mistake, it should be corrected. Multiple academic sources characterize the Guardias=n as left-wing too Wfcebfyhjsdw (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- also in the last three general elections the Guardian has endorsed the Labour party, that should also added into the main page Wfcebfyhjsdw (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Firstly, it's Centre-left, not Center-left. That spelling difference is important. "Center" is the spelling in the USA, a country with a very different view on where the centre is from most other western nations. Secondly, the description in the Infobox has multiple sources, not just one. I see none that describe it as left-wing (although at least one is behind a paywall). They all seem somewhat imprecise in their categorisation of the paper. HiLo48 (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- A Guardian editor has admitted to being center-left. Your projections at American politics is irrelevant to that. 69.113.233.201 (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Firstly, it's Centre-left, not Center-left. That spelling difference is important. "Center" is the spelling in the USA, a country with a very different view on where the centre is from most other western nations. Secondly, the description in the Infobox has multiple sources, not just one. I see none that describe it as left-wing (although at least one is behind a paywall). They all seem somewhat imprecise in their categorisation of the paper. HiLo48 (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Proposed merger from TheGuardian.com
editThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since 2004, we have had a separate article for The Guardian's website, TheGuardian.com. I'd argue these are not sufficiently separate topics, that there's not so much there that couldn't be merged here, and the result is a second article on effectively the same subject, but rarely updated and with a tenth of the watchers. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- I agree; these articles should be merged. GnocchiFan (talk) 17:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- I also agree. I don't see a reason for these two articles to be separate. Seems like a lot of overlap. Eric Schucht (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, they should be merged. 178.120.71.47 (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Same reason. They are the same title. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 18:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed - think they are editorially the same, no other major newspaper has this distinction (i.e. no separate article for thetimes.co.uk). Chichickov (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Are they editorially the same? If so, were they always the same? If so, yes, merge, but if not I'm not so sure. The way this article is phrased is ambiguous. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Yvette cooper
editShe’s no blairite. She’s a Brownite. 2A00:23EE:2970:1CC2:BC93:748F:CFF7:74EB (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
India's prime minister shree Narendra Modi
editabout PMO of india 146.196.37.162 (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2024
editIt is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at The Guardian. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |
Controversies
editIn 2022, British journalist Lucy Siegle criticized The Guardian, the Guardian Media Group and the broader media for perpetuating an "omerta" — a code of silence — surrounding workplace harassment, particularly in their own institutions. Siegle, one of six women, who experienced sexual harassment by journalist Nick Cohen during her time at The Guardian, highlighted how media organizations often fail to properly address such misconduct. Barrister Jolyon Maugham KC echoed her concerns about the media's reluctance to examine and report on sexual harassment in their own institutions and called for this damaging silence to end: “The shameful, if mutually convenient, omerta on the reporting of sexual misconduct within the media sacrifices the careers and dignity of young women to the convenience of predatory older men. It must not continue”.[1] In May 2023, The New York Times reported that Roula Khalaf prevented the publishing of a Financial Times article covering sexual misconduct allegations against Nick Cohen.[2] Agoraagoras (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ If The Guardian can behave like this, how much impact has #MeToo really had? Archived 2022-08-04 at archive.today, Time, August 4, 2022
- ^ Bradley, Jane (30 May 2023). "A British Reporter Had a Big #MeToo Scoop. Her Editor Killed It". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 30 May 2023. Retrieved 30 May 2023.