| Revision as of 21:25, 4 September 2013 editAlfietucker (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,265 edits →NSA Snowden leaks: And the destruction of hard drives??← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 22:02, 21 December 2024 edit undo331dot (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators182,932 edits Reverted 1 edit by Solarsilk1000 (talk): Not ECRTags: Twinkle Undo |
| (578 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{notice|{{find}}}} |
|
{{British English}} |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|action1=FAC |
|
|action1=FAC |
|
|action1date=23:52, 12 February 2006 |
|
|action1date=23:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/The Guardian/archive1 |
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/The Guardian/archive1 |
|
|action1result=not promoted |
|
|action1result=failed |
|
|action1oldid=39339159 |
|
|action1oldid=39339159 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=GAN |
|
|action2=GAN |
|
|action2date=23:00, 20 October 2012 |
|
|action2date=23:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC) |
|
|action2link=Talk:The Guardian/GA1 |
|
|action2link=Talk:The Guardian/GA1 |
|
|action2result=not listed |
|
|action2result=failed |
|
|action2oldid=518935845 |
|
|action2oldid=518935845 |
|
|
|
|
|
|currentstatus=FFAC |
|
|currentstatus=FGAN |
|
|topic=socsci |
|
|topic=socsci |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|listas=Guardian, The|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Greater Manchester|importance=high|class=B}} |
|
{{WikiProject Greater Manchester|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Journalism|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Newspapers|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Media|class=B|importance=mid|listas=Guardian, The}}}} |
|
{{WikiProject Journalism|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom |importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Media|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Edinburgh Festival Fringe}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{afd-merged-from|Today in Focus|Today in Focus|17 November 2019}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 70K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 70K |
|
|counter = 3 |
|
|counter = 6 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 2 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 2 |
| Line 30: |
Line 37: |
|
|archive = Talk:The Guardian/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:The Guardian/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Blank and redirect notice|La Lista|August 12, 2024|talk=no|small=no}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2024 == |
|
{{Talk:The Guardian/GA1}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Relationship with Google == |
|
|
|
|
|
Has anyone got any more information of the Guardian's relationship with Google as the new UK HQ for Google is only round the corner from the Guardian office in Kings Cross and the comment system on the Guardian website won't let comments about Google that are negative be published. Was there some kind of financial arrangement in June 2012? ] (]) 21:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Name == |
|
|
|
|
|
Should the name at the begninig of the article be re-written in small caps, '''''the guardian'''''?--] (]) 17:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: No, not so, because ] takes precedence. ] (]) 19:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure this is the correct section to post in, but would it be worth mentioning in the lead paragraph the other popular name for the guardian, '''''The Grauniad'''''? (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
: This is already mentioned in the section "References in popular culture". Not sure it's notable enough to be in the lead paragraph. ] (]) 12:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: New York Times is named "The New York Times" — should the Guardian be "The Guardian"? I think not, since their website/paper-print says "Guardian". Informally, I say, "UK Guardian" — Just Asking, ] (]) 15:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::May I correct myself? In reading this from another Misplaced Pages page, "Glenn Greenwald (born March 6, 1967) is an American political journalist, lawyer, columnist, blogger, and author. He has been a columnist for the US edition of The Guardian since August 2012. Prior to that he was a columnist for Salon.com and an occasional contributor to The Guardian." and then looking at the top of this page, I see that it is already "The Guardian". How About That ? ] (]) 15:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Etymology === |
|
|
I'm pretty sure the name stems from the philosophical question ''"Who guards the guards?"'', but cannot find any internet source that explains this. Perhaps someone can dust off some ancient article to this effect from some old forgotten library back in Manchester...? The name is especially apt considering the amount of government scandals that the paper has broken over the years, especially the current one. Would be nice! ] (]) 08:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
"Guardian" is not an especially uncommon name for a newspaper. It has plenty of metaphorical associations apart from the Latin tag. |
|
|
See https://en.wikipedia.org/The_Guardian_%28disambiguation%29#Newspapers |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 15:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC) David Harley |
|
|
|
|
|
== NSA Snowden leaks == |
|
|
|
|
|
Seems like the Snowden NSA PRISM leaks deserve a mention, since it's been international news for an entire week or so (] (]) 23:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)) |
|
|
:Yes, and also ] should be highlighted since he writes for The Guardian and was the main participant. I didn't know Greenwald didn't live in London. ] (]) 15:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|The Guardian|answered=yes}} |
|
::Nothing here about the destruction of hard drives in The Guardian offices as directed by the UK GCHQ agents in August. This should surely be in the article. ] (]) 21:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:] '''Not done:''' this is the ] for discussing improvements to the page ]. If possible, please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. If you cannot edit the article's talk page, you can instead make your request at ].<!-- Template:ESp --> ]<sup>(])(])</sup> 01:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Left Wing == |
|
== Controversies == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
=== ] and ] === |
|
Is it still left wing? I see an awful a lot of right wing columnists/articles now. |
|
|
|
In 2022, British journalist ] criticized '']'', the ] and the broader ] 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 ] during her time at '']'', highlighted how media organizations often fail to properly address such misconduct. Barrister ] 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”.<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://archive.ph/aS4VV|date=2022-08-04}}, Time, August 4, 2022</ref> In May 2023, '']'' reported that ] prevented the publishing of a '']'' article covering sexual misconduct allegations against ].<ref>{{cite web |last1=Bradley |first1=Jane |date=30 May 2023 |title=A British Reporter Had a Big #MeToo Scoop. Her Editor Killed It. |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/30/world/europe/me-too-guardian-financial-times-madison-marriage.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230530140918/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/30/world/europe/me-too-guardian-financial-times-madison-marriage.html |archive-date=30 May 2023 |access-date=30 May 2023 |newspaper=]}}</ref> ] (]) 00:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
<span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)</span> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
===Semi-protected edit request 27 October 2024 - anti-trans position === |
|
:I'd say centre-left rather than left-wing, as per (many) previous debates. But they have a policy of also giving a platform to other viewpoints, hence the presence of Simon Jenkins and others. ] (]) 14:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Either in the controversy section or the political stance section, please add a sentence noting The Guardian's anti-trans position. Here are a few references: |
|
|
* https://www.buzzfeed.com/patrickstrudwick/guardian-staff-trans-rights-letter |
|
|
* https://www.vice.com/en/article/guardian-trans-journalists/ |
|
|
* https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14680777.2022.2097727#abstract |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
"Left-wing" is a relative description, of course. It used to be seen as the newspaper for teachers, social workers, and academics, which was reflected in the weekly job advertisement supplements. It then added IT and media folk. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Circulation == |
|
With the launch of the online version, it became far better known world-wide and was discovered by large numbers of Americans after 911, when its detached commentary became the object of rage among Republicans Many US conservatives appeared on the now defunct talkboard, and their hostility increased in the year before the Iraq invasion. Whereas every major news source in the US was gung-ho for war, or at least swallowing the Pentagon line on WMDs, the Guardian was cooler and the talkboard was full of very critical analysis of every single claim. More than anything else, this made The Guardian look left-wing to Americans. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How's Circulation doing since July 2021? ] (]) 07:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
It would be more accurate to describe its collective position as ranging from social democratic (Polly Toynbee) to moderate democratic socialism (Roy Hattersley), although there have been times when its coverage of some topics, such as the era of the South American dictators, was to the left of that, with admirable coverage from Richard Gott and Alma Guillermoprieto. At the time, the New York Times was credulously following the State Department line, attributing responsibility for what everyone outside the US knew to be Contra atrocities to the Sandinista government. At least the NYT had the decency to publish short, well-hidden apologies, long after the event. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Reversion of Sourced Content on Allegations Against The Guardian == |
|
As for UK conservatives being given space, the long book reviews by Enoch Powell, perhaps the most right-wing Conservative MP of his day, were always a pleasure to read. But none of his policy positions would look especially extreme to today's Republicans and some would look downright socialist. Such things are relative. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I recently added content to this article about allegations of antisemitic reporting by ''The Guardian'', which were accompanied by credible references. Specifically, the content highlighted accusations made in August 2024, where ''The Guardian'' was accused of publishing antisemitic "blood libels" on at least three occasions, including comparisons of Israel to Nazi Germany. Additionally, it was alleged that the publication's coverage of the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel was both "pro-Hamas" and "antisemitic." |
|
] (]) 14:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)David Harley |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I ensured that the information was neutral and accurately cited, adhering to Misplaced Pages's content policies. I would like to understand if there was an issue with the neutrality, reliability of sources, or any other aspect. I am open to feedback and willing to revise the content to align with Misplaced Pages's guidelines. |
|
== Guardian US == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Looking forward to the editors’ thoughts on this matter. ] (]) 22:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
I've just moved and updated ''Guardian America'' to ]. It could do with some more content and independent refs; and consolidation with what's in this article. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 19:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC) |
|
Either in the controversy section or the political stance section, please add a sentence noting The Guardian's anti-trans position. Here are a few references:
I recently added content to this article about allegations of antisemitic reporting by The Guardian, which were accompanied by credible references. Specifically, the content highlighted accusations made in August 2024, where The Guardian was accused of publishing antisemitic "blood libels" on at least three occasions, including comparisons of Israel to Nazi Germany. Additionally, it was alleged that the publication's coverage of the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel was both "pro-Hamas" and "antisemitic."
I ensured that the information was neutral and accurately cited, adhering to Misplaced Pages's content policies. I would like to understand if there was an issue with the neutrality, reliability of sources, or any other aspect. I am open to feedback and willing to revise the content to align with Misplaced Pages's guidelines.
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page The Guardian. If possible, please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. If you cannot edit the article's talk page, you can instead make your request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection#Current requests for edits to a protected page. kemel49 01:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)