This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Regarding this and this recent contested removals from the lead, the sources I added (as far as I can tell) uniformly refer to the modern Australian as conservative and its modern editorial line as right-wing. If people have a specific objection to one of those sources they can raised it here, but the text has been in the lead in one form or another for a while. If people have objections to those sources, there are countless more, since the statements made here seem extremely uncontroversial, at least in the sections of academia that study the press - just tell me what level of sourcing for them would be sufficient for you and I suspect I can find it; or, if you think there's sources and quotes I'm omitting, go ahead and present them. We can and should go into more detail on its political history (it was different before it was purchased by Murdoch, and has shifted over time); I've wanted to write a section on that for a while, and these sources are good for that. But "conservative" and "right-wing" are fairly universal descriptors among the sources and are a reasonable summary in the lead, as they have been for a while. -- Aquillion ( talk) 16:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
but nah the quality reliable sources do not say The Australian newspaper is a right-wing publicationThey literally do. "Murdoch's Flagship: Twenty-Five Years of the Australian Newspaper" describes the current incarnation of The Australian as a
"crusading right-wing paper". Sinclair says that
Again, the paper is non-reflexive, as well as unapologetic, about this conservatismand summarizes its functional purpose as
“activism” of the Right. Ghauri unequivocally says that
The Australian is considered a rightist or as a decisively right-wing newspaper. All of these are high-quality peer-reviewed papers or academic books by experts in the field - what, specifically, is your objection to them? Do you think they are not reliable, or do you feel I'm misinterpreting them? I can find many, many more sources like these (it is not at all controversial that The Australian is a right-wing publication today), but before I spend more time on that I need to know what sort of sourcing would convince you, since from my perspective I spent a while finding high-quality sources analyzing its political position and you're basically dismissing them by saying "nah that's not right." Show me the sources that have you so thoroughly convinced, and tell me what you find objectionable about the sources I've produced so far. -- Aquillion ( talk) 00:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I suggest leaving "conservative" and its accompanying citations out of the lead; move that down into a section about editorial line and discuss there. It doesn't read well, the citations just clutter the lead, and it really doesn't matter that much - the centre-right/right descriptors are enough to get the picture in the lead section. Conservative is an overlapping and broad term, meaning different things to different people and in different contexts (see Conservatism). Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 09:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I really don't have time (or will) to keep on arguing the toss here about what labels to apply to it in the lead, and what is there now looks fine to me. If someone has the time to spend on more important stuff, such as improving the quality of the article, the lead could be improved by incorporating WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, and also removing unnecessary citations which are unnecessary after the first sentence. A properly constructed lead doesnt actually need any citations, except for possibly controversial statements (hence would leave the ones supporting the editorial leaning). Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 04:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Regarding this and this recent contested removals from the lead, the sources I added (as far as I can tell) uniformly refer to the modern Australian as conservative and its modern editorial line as right-wing. If people have a specific objection to one of those sources they can raised it here, but the text has been in the lead in one form or another for a while. If people have objections to those sources, there are countless more, since the statements made here seem extremely uncontroversial, at least in the sections of academia that study the press - just tell me what level of sourcing for them would be sufficient for you and I suspect I can find it; or, if you think there's sources and quotes I'm omitting, go ahead and present them. We can and should go into more detail on its political history (it was different before it was purchased by Murdoch, and has shifted over time); I've wanted to write a section on that for a while, and these sources are good for that. But "conservative" and "right-wing" are fairly universal descriptors among the sources and are a reasonable summary in the lead, as they have been for a while. -- Aquillion ( talk) 16:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
but nah the quality reliable sources do not say The Australian newspaper is a right-wing publicationThey literally do. "Murdoch's Flagship: Twenty-Five Years of the Australian Newspaper" describes the current incarnation of The Australian as a
"crusading right-wing paper". Sinclair says that
Again, the paper is non-reflexive, as well as unapologetic, about this conservatismand summarizes its functional purpose as
“activism” of the Right. Ghauri unequivocally says that
The Australian is considered a rightist or as a decisively right-wing newspaper. All of these are high-quality peer-reviewed papers or academic books by experts in the field - what, specifically, is your objection to them? Do you think they are not reliable, or do you feel I'm misinterpreting them? I can find many, many more sources like these (it is not at all controversial that The Australian is a right-wing publication today), but before I spend more time on that I need to know what sort of sourcing would convince you, since from my perspective I spent a while finding high-quality sources analyzing its political position and you're basically dismissing them by saying "nah that's not right." Show me the sources that have you so thoroughly convinced, and tell me what you find objectionable about the sources I've produced so far. -- Aquillion ( talk) 00:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I suggest leaving "conservative" and its accompanying citations out of the lead; move that down into a section about editorial line and discuss there. It doesn't read well, the citations just clutter the lead, and it really doesn't matter that much - the centre-right/right descriptors are enough to get the picture in the lead section. Conservative is an overlapping and broad term, meaning different things to different people and in different contexts (see Conservatism). Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 09:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I really don't have time (or will) to keep on arguing the toss here about what labels to apply to it in the lead, and what is there now looks fine to me. If someone has the time to spend on more important stuff, such as improving the quality of the article, the lead could be improved by incorporating WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, and also removing unnecessary citations which are unnecessary after the first sentence. A properly constructed lead doesnt actually need any citations, except for possibly controversial statements (hence would leave the ones supporting the editorial leaning). Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 04:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)