Talk:The Australian/Archive 2

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)

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)

"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)

Yep if it has to be there at all. Although I think the section is SYNTH and entirely unnecessary. I added the centre-right bias as per Greglocock's suggestion. I'm wondering what the justification is here with this bolted on sentence?Merphee (talk) 13:48, 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.  

Greglocock also said it was not particularly notable. I totally agree. Could you answer to these points, dropping the bad faith accusations, sarcasm and hostility too please and consider compromising.Merphee (talk) 20:58, 23 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)

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)

Have YOU got any reliable sources onetwothreeip? if not, we are done talking here. You do know Wiki is only based on what the reliable sources tell us don't you?Merphee (talk) 03:04, 24 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 [1]. 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 [2] You cannot just go deleting entire sections of our articles [3] 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)

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)

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 [4] 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)

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)

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)

[5] [6]

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. [7] 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) [8][9], I even provided a link for you [10]. 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)

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)

Yep, no problem at all will do it over the next couple of days. Merphee (talk) 03:42, 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 [11] - 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 [12] 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)

Thanks Hughesdarren for the heads up. I appreciate it for future reference. Merphee (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

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 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 [13]. 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)

"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 [14] 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)

This is a bit rich given that you just do whatever you feel like on every occasion. This entire discussion started because you decided you'd just remove a sentence you agreed to include earlier. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Ha, more like you aggressively ram your edits in to suit your obvious agenda here pinkbeast. Merphee (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2019 (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)

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)

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)

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. [15] "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)

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)