Talk:The Guardian: Difference between revisions

Its international reprint weekly is titled Manchester Guardian Weekly, which leads Americans to frequently refer to the British version as the Manchester Guardian though this has not been its name for many years.

Hmmm... the Guardian Weekly section of the Guardian's website refers to it as just that, and the British Library catalogue of newspapers doesn't indicate that it switched back to being the MGW. A Google search seems to find mainly American sources like the NYU library catalog. I can't help wondering whether the Weekly is sold as the MGW in America but not worldwide, or something like that. --rbrwrˆ

This may be a case of its use for disambiguation purposes, much like The Times being catalogued as The London Times. Mintguy (T)

...in which case the recently-added passage quoted above is essentially wrong. But it still seems to be commonplace for US libraries to refer to it as the Manchester Guardian Weekly, even where they use The Times [London] or some other method of disambiguation for other papers. Some (see the NYU link above) also suggest it went back to being the MGW in 1978, as does the edit summary by 12.144.5.2. Furthermore, The Library of Congress catalogues it as GW from 1968 to 1984 ("Sometimes published as Manchester guardian weekly, Jan. 1, 1972-Dec. 30, 1972; Dec. 17, 1978-Jan. 7, 1979"), MGW from 1985 to 2000 ("Scattered issues have title: Guardian weekly, 1999") and GW again from 2000. This is starting to make a it more sense, though I'd still like to know whether GMG uses the MGW title oficially anywhere at the moment.--rbrwrˆ

Grrr. Those LoC links were tied to a session and have timed out. --rbrwrˆ

Note, They have a forum which has many virtues. many erudite posters, but... is extremely poorly moderated. For instance, they have two 'policies' pages, one is extremely liberal (the one which is available from the ordinary users pages) and has four elements. The worst censure there is is "ocassional' removal of text, which "they really hate to do". They have another, rather hidden ( if one sees the first (s)he will not expect a second ) much longer and leads to banning at the drop of a hat. I've seen gangs of posters hunting down and mercilessly harrasing individuals with no response from mods after complaints. When the offended returns the offense (s)he is banned. No sense of context, no even hand, random acts of destruction, give the guardian a bad name. Thus an instutution of potentially great global signifigance is whittled down to a shadow of it's potential. If only the Guardian would take moderation seriously, we might expect great things from their 'talkboards'. Wblakesx