Talk:The Guardian

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Guardian article. This is not a forum for general discussion about what you did last night. We have the Village Dump for things like that. For a listing of unused images related to this topic, please see the image subpage.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Uncyclopedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be Civil Assume Bad Faith Don't Be A Dick No Cyberbullying	Article policies How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid Satirical point of view Verifiability vs. Complete Bollocks

		This article was nominated for deletion on August 21, 2005. The result of the discussion was Keep.

To whoever wrote this article

You should be ashamed of yourself for slandering and besmirching the name and reputation of this most glorious of newspapers. Although some of your comments may be fair- ie. the stuff about Guardian readers being the guilt-ridden bourgeoisie- some others are disgusting and caused me to vomit copiously. There is no better national English newspaper than the Guardian. This has been, is now, and will always be the case. Please save your efforts for something more deserving. ie. the Daily Mail.

• Eh, it's not thaaaat bad, but the basic thrust, ie. The Guardian is for knee-jerk leftists who aren't half as well informed as they believe they are, was done to death some time in the early 1920s, and has since stopped being funny.

• I assume by Mail you mean Mirror. Goebbels would be proud of that arse wipe newspaper.

er no I suspect they really do mean the mail.....

Also it should probably be noted that a fairly large % of the writters of this article are more than likely guardian readers themselves......--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 13:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the first post above misses the point: The Guardian is, in its own way, frequently as ridiculous as the Daily Mail. Both are politically predictable, both are read by members of the middle class who are largely cut-off from what most of the country is actually like but think they know how to run the whole world, both promote a rather simple worldview that says a small clique ("Rightwing Americans" for the Graun, "The Liberal Elite" and the EU for the Mail) are responsible for everything that goes wrong in the world, and both are officially "moderate" in their politics ("Liberal" and "Conservative" respectively) but have in-house writers (and certainly readers, judging by their websites) who are rather more extreme. I think the Guardian's the better paper because it's far more intelligent, I personally tend to agree with it more (although that's more my politics than anything else) and it's "official" editorial stance is rather more balanced than the Mail's. But it's still, in many ways, a paper as ripe for satirical takedown as the Mail. --Zarbag 16:00, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Pinched joke

The thing about Sun readers wanting to rule the world etc is a straight steal off Yes, Prime Minister -- I don't want to remove it cos it's moderately amusing and without it the opener would be boring, but replacing it with something actually original would be good.

Congrats your the first person to notice where it was ripped from in almost a year and a half, I think there is nowt wrong from stealing this little bit from YM/TPM given that most readers are unlikely to have seen it--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 13:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well the history of The Guardian is a variant on the Wikipedia article on The Sun. When whoever wrote much of the original finds this, he will doubtless both laugh and cry ;). Seriously, as the demographics are increasingly the main thing separating newspapers rather than content or treatment we should develop this. Mark Lawson as the cultural commentator for The Sun and the Five television channel perhaps. Finger 19:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Improvements?

This article is starting to take shape but there are still, I think, some problems:

• The "communism" thing - I have the same problem with this as I have with stuff about Mail readers striding around in jackboots doing stiff-armed salutes all day, namely that it's misdirected satire. The average Graun reader in the popular imagination is more of a sandle-wearing,middle-class or upper-middle-class middlebrow who, like Mail readers, gets all "his" opinions from his favourite paper and its columnists. He's probably a "champagne socialist" who's vaguely supportive of the far-left but wouldn't want to mix with them socially. He's also obsessed with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and can divert any kind of conversation towards it (this last one seems to be largely true, judging by the CiF messageboards).
• The "History" section needs a complete rewrite. I think a nice angle would be the fact that the Graun used to be a Manchester-based socialist newspaper and has become a very middle-class, very very London-centric "liberal" (in the American sense) newspaper. Perhaps show this happening slowly over time as the flat-cap "provincial" socialists are pushed aside by the metropolitan types.
• Some bits of it are still very weak and a bit lazy - like the "past editors" bit.
• It needs more stuff about the Graun's various sections. I've already done a wee section on the various cartoons found in the paper.

--Zarbag 14:27, May 21, 2011 (UTC)

Will consider a rewrite on the History Section as it doesn't fit with the rest of the article. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 01:46, January 21, 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite done. Still left a lot of the original paragraphs there but still needs more polish. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 13:19, January 21, 2012 (UTC)