Talk:The Australian

message: 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)
replies: text: There are countless sources from other journos and commentators that say it is centre right or centre. Honestyisbest (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: And you saying "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" No it has been constantly debated and is causing much conflict and clearly using right wing is associated with terrorists for FS! As I said many sources say centre right. You cant just ignore these sources and put your label on. Honestyisbest (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that conservative is a reasonable descriptor. From what I pick up in the sources, it's less stridently right than some of its stable mates, but these descriptors can never be entirely objective, and are framed by the era we live in, among many other factors. This bias-checking site suggests right-centre, which seems like a reasonable assessment. I don't think that there's any question that it's moved right under Murdoch ownership - many sources attest to that. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The Australian is NOT Fox News USA! Very different indeed. I understand the emotion particularly right now in the USA with the anti Trump sentiment and the election to destroy anything on Wikipedia remotely owned by Murdoch but nah the quality reliable sources do not say The Australian newspaper is a right-wing publication. They just don't and this effort from USA editors to extend this anti Murdoch sentiment anti Trump sentiment to The Australian newspaper in anger and emotion is not on. Also the sources added by Aquilion state conservatism which is NOT the same as right-wing. I've left it centre-right for now but I do not think we need that in the lede at all. With Scomo running Australia the Coalition is more Centre than Centre-right even. Again Australia is not the USA and neither are our politics. Wikipedia is international so I would hope USA editors can appreciate that fact. Honestyisbest (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what the US or Fox has to do with it - but I have just noticed the long RfC discussion above. It looks like it's all been covered before, and for individuals, it's very much down to personal perspective. Right wing as a general descriptor of a political stance does not imply terrorism - it encompasses centre-right, far right, and soft right (if there is such a thing). The Australian IS right wing compared with, say, The Guardian; and readers of the former would probably refer the latter as "far left". But I'd go back to the discussion above (ignoring the bit about whether it should appear in the infobox or not) and go with centre-right or right-centre. I haven't read it for years so I have no idea whether it aligns with Morrison or Dutton, but I seem to recall that it was favourably disposed to Abbott. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  - You would do well to have a quiet sit and a good read of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Attacking other editors, even if you don't name them, is not the way work here. And I can assure you, you are wrong if you think that it's only "USA editors" who think The Australian is right wing. HiLo48 (talk) 23:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

text: *  They literally do.  "Murdoch's Flagship: Twenty-Five Years of the Australian Newspaper" describes the current incarnation of The Australian as a .  Sinclair says that  and summarizes its functional purpose as .  Ghauri unequivocally says that .  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)

text: *Well, present them and we can weigh them against each other?  But you can't just reword the text to remove "conservative" and to change "right-wing" to "center-right", while still using sources that say it's conservative and right-wing, just because you say there's other sources saying something different.  If you have enough sources to indicate there's a conflict, we could say both, but we'll have to actually see your sources and compare them to determine how to summarize that.  (The sources currently in the article are high-quality academic ones, so I'm dubious that "journos and commentators" would be enough to dispute them - it would be best if you could find sources of comparable quality and weight.)  The timeframe is also important; we could go into more detail on how it has moved rightward over time.  What we can't do is just ignore the sources saying it's conservative or right-wing - at best you can add to that using other sources that disagree or portray it differently.  Even that, though, requires actually having the sources you're thinking of on-hand so we can pour over them, compare what they say, etc. --Aquillion (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What about saying something like this in the lead "variously regarded as centre-right to right wing", providing one source for each, and then expand on that in the body (remembering WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY)? Including how it's changed over time, etc. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That could work, but we would need the sources and then we'd have to actually write that body section covering them.  There's definitely a lot more to say about how it has changed over time than can be fit into the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the sources as discussed and went with Laterthanyouthinks compromise. It has been described as both centre-right, centre and right wing it looks like from the sources. All of these need to be reflected. Honestyisbest (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: And I reverted, because this discussion is clearly still underway. Please read WP:NODEADLINE. HiLo48 (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole paragraph is under discussion and this was the compromise. You removed well sourced material. The right wing wing bit was also a very recent addition. We either remove the whole section while discussing or balance it with all the other sources. Honestyisbest (talk) 02:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Also I apologize to Aquillion if anything I said was disrespectful to you. Hope the compromise laterthanyouthinks suggested is acceptable. Honestyisbest (talk) 02:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You shouldn't just be hoping. You need to confirm such things before changing the article. HiLo48 (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

text: "::::Focus on content not me. Honestyisbest (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

text: I totally agree with that suggestion Laterthanyouthink and your reasoning behind it. Go ahead and take it out I say. Honestyisbest (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll await consensus from other voices first. I should just add that I'm basing my opinion on how the opening paragraph reads rather than whether or not the descriptor fits, having re-read it with fresh eyes yesterday. I just think that the discussion is better addressed in a later section. (Ideally the lead doesn't need citations at all, except for a potentially controversial statement, so it's probably best to keep a couple there for the right/centre-right statement.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds reasonable. I added a link in the meantime. I would like Aquillion's opinion on this? Honestyisbest (talk) 02:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It definitely needs to be in the first sentence of the lead - that's the crux of the dispute, so obviously any "compromise" that would remove it from there is no compromise at all.  Anything that would remove that long-standing text is hard no for me - it's extensively sourced, reflects how the topic is widely covered, is completely uncontroversial among high-quality academic sources, and (based on the academic sources I added) is a key part of its notability, so I would never entertain any suggestion that would remove it from there.  That said, I do agree that it could stand to be covered in more depth in the body as well. Again, from my perspective, you objecting to the sourcing, so I found many extremely high-quality sources backing up the line you objected to; that settled the issue.  If you still find those sources unconvincing, let me know what sources would convince you that it is appropriate to describe The Australian as conservative; but otherwise, I see this as settled by the sources I added, which are extremely high-quality and unequivocal.  I particularly object to using a quote by the editor-in-chief and an article from Crikey to try and refute multiple peer-reviewed papers - again, you need to find sources of comparable quality if you want to present the issue as being in serious dispute.  --Aquillion (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the original text showing sources for both center-right and right wing. We cannot leave the center-right sources out and just include the right-wing sources. Both need to be given due weight. It has been described in the sources as both center right and right-wing depending on what publication is doing the labeling and boxing of the Australian. Can editors discuss this reality in the sources and our need to present both views and a NPOV ourselves. Honestyisbest (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent lead removals.