This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Guardian Australia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Guardian Australia is within the scope of 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.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments2 people in discussion
There are clearly stated restrictions as to the use of WP:SYNTH. I thought this reversion of my edit adding a citation to political alignment was quite random. Can you elaborate in greater detail what exactly was wrong about my edit that falls under WP:SYNTH @Helper201? I did not use multiple sources as is clearly discouraged in WP:SYNTH, I used one source with a directly relevant quote and author in the citation. As per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sourcesThe Conversation is a reliable source. Is there a better source to use that shows consensus among the general population of Guardian Australia's political alignment? That article from The Conversation is the only reliable source I could find from a reliable source. Qwerty123 (they/them) (talk) 05:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi Qwerty123M. It wasn't in regard to multiple sources. The synth gumline states "Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source". The claim of "Centre to left-wing" you added wasn't explicitly stated by the source you gave. It said there is a "void at the centre", not that the Guardian Australia is centrist. It also said "(in reporting, at least – its opinions still lean to the left)" which is also not an explicit statement of the Guardian Australia being left-wing as a whole, though it is much more debatable than the former centrist claim. Helper201 (talk) 05:40, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I interpreted the quote "Notably, this is where The Guardian Australia has positioned itself (in reporting, at least" from the source to imply that Guardian Australia is aligned with the political centre. Qwerty123 (they/them) (talk) 05:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=logo}
