Talk:The Age

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	The Age is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Talk:The Age/archive1

Contents 1 AgeWatch 2 New article 3 The Age 1854 4 Keith Sinclair 5 Competitors 6 Political allegiance

[edit] AgeWatch

It is fair to have a link to a blog critical of The Age, as occurs on the Andrew Bolt page with the Boltwatch blog. Anonymous421 12:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

it's a not notable blog which has only existed since last month. Please stop entering it. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

What is a "notable" blog and what isn't? Where are the rules determining this? Can you expand on this please? Otherwise it appears to me that you keep censoring it because of your own political affiliation. ---Befeleme 13:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New article

I have written a new article so all this old Talk has been archived. Adam 05:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Looks good, an article of the size of the other one was going to remain in the political alignment quagmire. - Aaron Hill 15:50, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Does The Age still have the Green Guide on Thursdays?

Yes, it sure does. Swarve 01:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Age 1854

How many times has the original 17 Oct 1854 first edition of The Age been republished ie. as was done in 2004 to commemorate 150th aniversary?

It was reprinted in 1954 as well. My aunt had a copy in her papers which I inherited. I could scan it and put it here, but I don't know what its copyright status would be. Adam 03:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe {{newspapercover}} would apply. But since it was first printed in 1854, wouldn't any copyright be expired (ie, {{publicdomain}})?--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Keith Sinclair

Anyone know whether the Keith Sinclair that was editor in the 50s was the same Keith Sinclair who was a noted NZ poet and historian. I mean, I really doubt it, but maybe someone knows. I've added (editor) to the name to prevent confusion for now--s_oteric 10:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Competitors

Added Sensis to The Age's list of competitors. The media at the time claimed that the sole reason Sensis/Telstra bought The Trading Post was to compete against Fairfax in classifieds.Amargosa 09:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political allegiance

No Australian daily newspaper has a formal political allegiance. Any attempt to classify The Age, or any other newspaper, politically, is a matter of opinion, and thus contrary to policy. I will continue to delete such attempts. Adam 03:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well no, its not merely a matter of opinion. That a arguement you present and defend without evidence as though it was written in stone. You would agree that it is possible to categorise newspapers on their editorial political lines? In an oz context 'the age' would be seen as 'centre-left' 'moderate' 'centre' 'liberal' etc etc compared to other papers and also in an absolute sense. Your attempt at silencing objective description could be categorised as censorship. Its not a good way of conducting oneself. Other papers in wikipedia such as the times, the independent, le monde etc have political allegiance text entries. So why not the age?From the point of view of a reader say in Vladivostok who wants to know quickly what the outlook of the age is there is no other succinct way. Otherwise they have trudge through a lot of journalistic flimflam to a get only a vague view of the editorial allegiances of the age if they perservere. Lentisco 04:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Newspapers either have formal political loyalties or they don't. Le Monde is a self-proclaimed paper of the left, and its article should note that. The Times and The Independent do not - why do think it is called The Independent? No Australian daily paper has a formal political allegiance, and your muddled attempt to devise one for The Age - 'centre-left' 'moderate' 'centre' 'liberal' - which is it to be? - shows how hopelessly subjective is any attempt to do so. Preventing people inserting their juvenile opinions in articles is not "censorship" - it is what responsible editors are supposed to do. I have no political agenda here, I have also removed the characterisation of the Herald Sun as "conservative." Adam 04:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Really what so 'juvenile' about my opinions. I am agnostic about the actual label but I note your unreasoned and febrile response to anyone else actually trying to do so. To repeat: newspapers are able to be categorised politically in the real world and in wikipedia. Any attempt to stop this natural process is nothing less than censorship. I will fight for the maintenance of this categorization in wikipedia. As I previously noted 'the times', 'the independent', 'LA weekly', 'le monde' 'the herald sun' etc etc have all been uncontroversily categorised--so why not the age? Until Adam can provide a reasoned argument without resorting to peurile ad hominem attacks I will continue to revert. Lentisco 23:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Have reverted Adam's revert. My clear reasonable response is above. Fortunately Adam has provided for us, from his above response, some worthwhile possible labels for this newspaper. Thus: 'centre-left' 'moderate' 'centre' 'liberal' Perhaps we can have sensible discussion and come to agreement. Personally, as I have stated before, I am completely agnostic about the actual label used (and thus open to argument). Lentisco 01:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

All these labels are totally subjective and based on personal opinion. What criteria are to be used to make this assignation? The views of the proprietor? Of the board? Of the editor? The content of editorials? The opinions of columnists and cartoonists? The alleged bias of news articles? Even to ask these questions is to see how ridiculous the whole suggestion is. If you ask the editor of The Age, he will say the paper is "independent," and so will the editor of every other daily paper in Australia. You have no evidence for the statement that The Age has a poltical alleigance, let alone to decide what it is, and your edits are therefore original research and contrary to policy. If you insert your opinions in this article one more time, I will report you to an Admin. I hope we are clear about this. Adam 10:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Lentisco, as this material is clearly contested, you must verify your edit with a cite from a reliable source. If you are unable to do so, you may not include it. Also, your opinions are irrelevant. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for personal opinions. We only report what we can verify with reliable sources. This is site policy, please follow it. Thanks, Sarah 11:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me note that I have no objection to a discussion within the body of the article about The Age's political views, with proper citations. My objection is solely to a line in an infobox stating as a fact that The Age, or any other paper, has a specific "political alliegance." Adam 09:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Does Adam allow 'the age' to have a political disposition? I believe that the infobox should include this. (which has been my argument all along.) Most other newspapers in wikipedialand have somesuch label. DiscussLentisco 23:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The heading 'Ownership' seems to be in the wrong place, not sure how to move it up two paragraphs... 58.169.68.163 11:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed reference to the paper influencing public opinion, for a number of reasons: Firstly, it is unclear how much letters actually influence, rather than reflect opinion. Unless this is explored, the statement is a possible distortion of what actually occurs. Secondly, there is mention that The Age "almost exclusively" publishes letters supporting the newspaper. One example is then given, which in itself is not supportive of the statement of exclusivity, and is also original research, and is not referenced via reliable sources. Finally, the mention of Orwellian censorship is a link to a blog which in itself is not a reputable source, and in this case, is a particularly contentious and opinionated blog. The fact that the phrase "some commentators" is used also strikes me as a use of weasel words I have also taken out some other supposed examples of The Age "influencing" public opinion, for the reason stated above, and some other links to blogs, which are not reputable sources.Boofalah36 04:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You say "... Firstly, it is unclear how much letters actually influence, rather than reflect opinion. Unless this is explored, the statement is a possible distortion of what actually occurs." - sorry, but this appears rather disingenuous: Of course letters do influence public opinion; how exactly do you wish to "explore" this? That 'The Age' publishes only those letters that suit its politics is obvious to anyone who bothers to read it for a few days - the examples that I have provided (and you deleted) were particularly telling. By deleting this information you are only betraying your own political bias and not doing any justice to the facts. And what does it mean "particularly contentious and opinionated blog" - does it mean any blog which does not reflect your own personal opinions? I am sorry, but I consider your censorship to be just as Orwellian as that of The Age. --Befeleme 13:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I am reverting this. The above comment provides no evidence that letters influence public opinion. It is not enough to state that of course they do. Provide some evidence that reading letters influences and alters people's opinions, and provide a study that the Age publishes only "letters that suit its politics" . As an example of what I mean - it is possible that people only read letters that they agree with, and that letters reinforce people's opinions, rather than influence them. Alternative;y, there may be no effect at all, and people simply read letters as they find them interesting. i personally do not know, however it is a topic worthy of more than an unthinking "of course they influence people's opinions". This is an encyclopedia, and opinions are not allowed as sources. Also, blogs per se are very rarely acceptable sources at all. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for the nuts and bolts of this. I did not make the rules. Please follow them. Accusing me of Orwellian censorship is silly hyperbole, and you should probably read some George Orwell before accusing people of this.Boofalah36 03:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Guys, the passage in question, true or not, should only be included if supported by references, surely? Especially if it's potentially libel, perhaps Wikiepedia's policy on biography on living persons applies here... --Commking 05:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

I am not convinced that Gerald Henderson is an important enough figure to merit his views on The Age being given such prominence in the article. On the other hand, the fact that some conservatives argue that The Age is unbalanced and left-wing is worthy of mentioning. Hence, I have changed the paragraph to make the views of the individual less important that the general thrust of their argument. More references, and any counter arguments, would be useful.Boofalah36 00:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

To suggest that reading letters may not influence a reader's opinion is disingenuous: Of course reading *anything* influences the reader's opinion - how can you even for a moment doubt something that is so self-evident and yet keep a straight face? Reading is a cognitive, information-receiving process. Such process *always* results in forming of an opinion - unless you're brain-dead. So what "proof" do you actually want? You are being totally unreasonable and obtuse here.

And my mentioning of Orwell was not entirely inappropriate, you are indeed being Orwellian here. Let me also tell you that I was actually born and spent the first half of my life in an oppressive totalitarian society. I don't have to "read some Orwell" as per your condescending suggestion - I actually *lived* it. I lived in a country where Orwell's books were banned. I read the Animal Farm in a faint carbon samizdat copy and retyped myself the whole book on an ancient typewriter (with as many carbon copies as I could squeeze in) for others. I don't think you can imagine that. So, unlike perhaps yourself, I can smell Orwellian tendencies (to suppress opposing opinion) miles away. Let me assure you that The Age is guilty of exactly that - and I consider this to be my duty to point this out.

In my view, you should not have deleted my comments (especially those that were accompanied by examples from The Age itself). You are also at fault for unnecessarily deleting my comment that The Age was campaigning for alleged terrorist David Hicks using his picture as a cute young boy - this is an undisputable fact and I have also duly documented this. I have also duly documented that The Age has deleted an all-important (but for The Age obviously inconvenient) graph from an article about alternative energy sources. None of this can be justifed by your tirades about having to "follow rules". Even if you disagreed, you should have erected a sign "More citation is needed" or "Accuracy is in dispute" - as is indeed common occurence in Wikipedia in such cases - but such a blatant brute-force deletion of my contribution is a genuine act of censorship and nothing else. -- Befeleme 14:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)