Talk:The Daily Telegraph (Sydney)

criticism

Bogan is an offensive word and shouldnt be used in this wayBurnt-sienna 07:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Title Picture

I think the picture of the DT which shows the Cronulla riots is quite insensitive. Im not saying that such things should be censored or anything (it has its own article for christs sakes); all im saying is that a one-off occurence shouldn't be used to illustrate such an influential newspaper such as the Daily Telelgraph in a worldwide audience in the light that it is.

Of course all Sydneysiders know that it is a right-leaning publication and know that certain things are printed merely for the sale of newspapers, but do people from around the world know this? No.

I will be, within the next few days, be changing the picture to reflect a more 'average' front page than what Ianblair23 chose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orbitalwow (talk • contribs) 13:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why. The SMH cover is from the same time, and there's little doubt that the riot at Cronulla was shameful. The cover does not reflect on the newspaper. Joestella 13:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish

There is alot of rubbish that I am going to clean up here. You are kidding yourself if you think that the Tele is any less biased that the Herald. TheRE IS NONE OF THIS TYPE OF STUFF ON THE HERALD. --Ehinger222 05:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Your clean up was to remove the gut of the article, and add a reference to 2004 when it supposedly had the highest circulation in Sydney? I smell POV all over your recent edit of both the SMH article and this one. BTAUS 13:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Restoration of the "Coverage Style: Percieved Bias" Section

The section "Coverage Style: Perceived Bias" was deleted without (in my opinion) a good reason. I believe it has a place in this article as The Daily Telegraph does have a reputation, either deserved or undeserved, of sensationalism and bias. Whether or not a similar segment is included on the 'Herald' is irrelevent to this article. Why should the contents of this article depend on the contents of another unrelated entry (except for the fact they're both about newspapers)? Basically: it should not.

I request others' input into this. In absence of a good reason not to (other than "no evidence of that, I read it" or "NONE OF THIS TYPE OF STUFF ON THE HERALD"), I will be restoring the "Coverage Style: Perceived Bias" section in about 24 hours. Thanks! --Youngvariety 14:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"Coverage Style: Percieved Bias" Section Now Restored

I received no objections (see above) so I restored the "Percieved Bias" section. If anyone believes the "Telegraph" is treated unfairly, I suggest that individual discuss the issue here before making any edits to the "Perceived Bias" section (as I have done).

Incidentally, I am aware if the discussion regarding newspaper politics on the Sydney Morning Herald discussion page. However I respectfully disagree to those users opposed to leaving such sections out: some papers have been accused of being biased and/or sensationalist. The Daily Telegraph is one of them and I have noted that in the article. Others have noted and talked about it; the section I have just restored merely reports it: regardless of how consistantly the Telegraph "...toe[s] a consistent line... across all their content." --Youngvariety 02:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I only just saw this section. It is extremely biased, but that's a case for a rewrite, not a removal. Good luck proving bias in any newspaper, at least to an encyclopaedic standard. I have read the sources and rewritten the section from a more neutral POV. The use of the sources had been deliberately and misleadingly selective. Joestella 03:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"Deliberately and misleadingly selective"? I rather take offense to that. I suspect your view of this is itself an example of bias rather than the paragon of nuetrality you claim to support. I suggest that you provide evidence that any of the sources provided was innacurate before you go about making wild charges of dishonesty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngvariety (talk • contribs) 03:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The politics section of this article can not be seen to be accurate. Balancing biases is not neutrality, and to suggest that there is no imbalance of views in the paper only shines light on the fact that the paper delivers viewpoints where it should be giving facts. Nina61.95.116.45 13:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Deliberately and misleadingly selective

I'm assuming the sources are accurate. But their use is deliberately and misleadingly selective.

• The Telegraph has been described as being tabloid and sensationalist in nature, engaging in what some call "hyena journalism." It would surprise anyone reading the source material to discover that the term "hyena journalism" refers specifically to coverage of John Brodgen's past, and that the professor does not once use the term "sensationalist" - or any derivative thereof. "Tabloid" is apparently used by the editor in a pejorative sense, since the Telegraph is physically a tabloid.
• Piers Akerman, a leading Daily Telegraph conservative columnist, admitted a rightward slant in his weblog. Ackerman appears to concede that he is a conservative in the comments attached to the blog. It is not at all clear that he considers the newspaper to be conservative, and in any case, the status of website comments as sources is weak. Both the SMH and the Tele run left and right "biased" columns, that's the nature of the op-ed page.
• Additionally, a 'media credibility' survey conducted by Roy Morgan International revealed the Daily Telegraph was second only to the Herald Sun (also a News Corporation venture) in which newspapers people believe "do not accurately and fairly report the news." Read the source, and you'll see that the winning entry in this question was "all" newspapers, followed by the highest circulation paper, then the second highest, then two of the other highest-circulation newspapers.
• As with other News Corporation ventures, the Telegraph is criticised for what some perceive to be right-wing bias. The source here is a joke. The authors have not made findings on media perspectives: their focus is on wages and welfare. They call the SMH "moderate" and the Tele "right-wing", but do so in passing, without evidence or justification. And how did the Wikipedia writer find this source? It's merely the top Google result for "right-wing Daily Telegraph" site:au that refers to the Sydney paper.

There's your evidence. The paragraphs I removed were heavily POV. Care to respond? Joestella 04:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The daily telegraph regularly attacks the labour party in NSW, it regularly attacks the Greens as well. The majority of it's articles are written from a right wing perspective, it regularly supports right wing political agendas such as global warming denial and the majority of it's columnists are either conservative or right wing. I really don't see how you can deny any of this, and claim it is not a conservative/right wing paper. BTAUS 02:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Staff

What is our standard for the inclusion of Tele writers and other staff on this page? Joestella 04:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Re Staff. High profile columnists include Tim Blair? Outside of the blogosphere who has really heard of him? Piers Akerman at least has had a long and diverse career with a number of noteworthy confrontations. But Tim Blair? Will remove soon if there is no argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Recurring dreams (talk • contribs) 06:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

He seems to pass wikipedia's criteria for notability. He should be in. Prester John 00:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because he satisfies WP Notability does not mean he is "high profile." Recurring dreams 01:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Since I've removed it, I'll add some further justification. Piers Akerman writes a regular column for the Tele and has his own blog on the paper website, has a long and eventful career in news journalism, appears on national television on a semi-regular basis, has been profiled in a main stream media article, and has been attacked in Federal parliament by a future Opposition leader. Tim Blair, while having a wikipedia entry (which incidentally other columnists/journalists do), seems to only write sporadically for the Tele (where are his articles? I've seen some, but I can't seem to find them), and has a blog. He is not "high-profile", other wise every columnist for the Tele would have to be deemed "high-profile." Recurring dreams 02:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Subtle Australian bias?

iv just realised that the picture of the papers front page is the one for the crolla riots on almost every major Australian papers wiki page including

The Courier-Mail, The Herald Sun, The Daily Telegraph, The Sydney Morning Herald & The West Australian

and that's just out of the ones I checked

WHAT IS GOING ON its not like this is the most defining moment in Australian history...

(going to post this on the riots page as well) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viva43 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Circulation

I really don't see why the Daily Telegraph's circulation in 2004 and is relevant. I propose deleting the following sentence: "The circulation of the newspaper in the first half of 2004 was around 409,000 per day, the largest of a Sydney newspaper." And replacing it with the latest circulation figures, which are 396,506 Mon-Fri and 342,739 on Saturdays as of June 2006 according to Roymorgan. See:

http://newsmedianet.com.au/home/titles/title/Demographics.jsp?titleid=1 BTAUS 02:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Animated Preview Picture?

I've reverted the example picture of this newspaper from a nausea inducing animated version to the former version. The animated version showed the original print edition scan, faded to white, then faded in a screenshot of the Daily Telegraph's website before flicking quickly back to the start of the animation. I have removed this for threefold reasons:

• 1. The animated image was much lower quality than the former, but much larger in filesize because it was animated.
• 2. The animated image flicked between pictures so quickly that it was very difficult to read or interpret anything. Additionally, the text of the webpage was impossible to read (one can only just make out the masthead in the corner).
• 3. This type of image is not standard across other newspapers. Presumably the reason an image of a print version is given is because they would be hard to obtain. Websites are not so difficult to simply click the link at the bottom of the infobox. 00:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That comment was from me, by the way. Those darned tildes didn't do their job properly. I swear I used four. Bilious 00:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Class we failed bias

Although the article made clear that the newspaper believed that the state had failed the students, many accused the Telegraph of branding the students themselves as failures. The students successfully sued the newspaper for defamation.

This reads slightly one sided. Did the article make this clear? The fact that the students successfully sued the paper suggests that it didnt...? need citation from the court ruling and/or from the actual article to give this more credibility. Jpk82 00:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dailytelegraph au.gif

Image:Dailytelegraph au.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dailytelegraph au.gif

Image:Dailytelegraph au.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Endorsing Rudd

How can it be conservative when it endorsed Rudd. The user MichelleCrisp negated my edits on the basis that one columnist, Piers Ackermann, dislikes Rudd. Unfortunately he does not edit the paper, so his opinion on Rudd is irrelevant to whether the paper endorsed Rudd or not. [1] [2] [3] --58.172.251.46 (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

They also endorse the NSW Liberal Party. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources....--58.172.251.46 (talk) 12:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This one . though almost every day there is an anti NSW state govt story. Michellecrisp (talk) 12:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

From [4] However, today The Daily Telegraph recommends a vote for the Liberals. We happily endorsed Labor in 1999, with qualifications in 2003, but we cannot do so again – at the state level – this time.....However, after 12 years, Labor's sustained policy failures should count for more than five weeks' incompetent Liberal campaigning....If this reads like more an argument against Labor than a rally call for the Liberals, so be it. For that is what it is. In a campaign marked by pathetic slogans, how's this: Liberal. Because it couldn't get any worse. None of this endorsement is an ideologically conservative viewpoint anymore than their endorsement of Rudd was ideologically socialist. Look centrist to me, if the parameters set for other media on wikipedia are retained. However, it may be better with Murdoch papers if they were to just link their viewpoint to an article written about Murdoch's fluctuating political associations. --58.172.251.46 (talk) 12:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I repeat, so sometimes they endorse labor, sometimes they endorse liberal. This is not conservative. First you showed a link to Piers Ackerman, who is little more than an opinion columnist for the telegraph, than you show an editorial that is critical of state labor. There are many left wing commentators that are also critical of state labor, so this does not by definition make them conservative, anymore than an editorial that is critical of state liberal makes them socialists. This seems to be the epitome of a centrist position. However, Murdoch papers should well be in their own category politically. However I am not going to engage in an edit war on this, no matter how right that I am, so if you want to use your position and experience to make a fundamentally wrong assessment, than I am going to leave it at that. --58.172.251.46 (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SOAP. Nor will I entertain discussions with an anonymous editor. Suggest you create an account. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing I am doing comes under wikipedia soap. Editors can do so from an i.p. if they want to, entirely at their discretion, so whether you like it or not, you have to entertain discussions with them, especially when I have a significant edit history. The telegraph is obviously centrist, as they have supported both parties numerous times. You have not presented anything that discredits this, but you can use your position to make me look like a troll and get me banned, so goodbye and good luck. --58.172.251.46 (talk) 06:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Significant edit history? People can share IPs, could be many people? In any case, in my experience anon IPs have a history of POV pushing. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I feel like you are taking the mickey out of me. Leaving aside your experiences with anonymous i.p.s, is there any reason why you do not want to put the Telegraph as centrist instead of conservative when it regularly endorses both labor and liberal politicians? --58.172.251.46 (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I will no longer respond to anonymous IPs. End of conversation. Michellecrisp (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

How can there be no consensus when you refuse to discuss? --58.172.251.46 (talk) 05:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here by 58.172.251.46 on my talk page. Michelle, it really isn't kosher to refuse to discuss issues with an editor because they don' have an account. I'm sure I could dig thru the policies and find this somewhere, but I won't, because I hope you'll trust me when I say it's in there. It's also the kind thing to do. It's a so called "Foundation Issue" that editing by non-registered editors is welcome. In this particular case, I see no soapboxing, no irrationality, and no POV pushing; continue to discuss in good faith, and if you get stuck, try one of the steps in WP:DR; I suggest WP:3O as a quick and often sufficient step to breaking a logjam.

I have absolutely no opinion on the actual subject of the discussion; it appears, from a cursory glance, that the Liberal Party is conservative, which makes this Yank so confused that he throws up his hands in confusion. Perhaps a quick note at WT:AUS for some more eyes? --barneca (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

there is definitely POV pushing here. continuing to try to change the article without consensus. As for anon IPs, of course any anon IP can edit, if you're a regular editor there is absolutely no excuse for establishing an account, secondly, if I am dealing with an anon IP I could do dealing with several people, there is absolutely no way to verify that I am dealing with one person. time and time again I encounter POV and single purpose edit and agenda issues with anon IPs. End of conversation. Michellecrisp (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Michelle, you don't get to say "end of conversation". It's not your encyclopedia, and you have neither a policy leg to stand on, nor a being-a-decent-human-being leg to stand on. The fear that this might be more than one person, interested in the same subject, on the same IP range, makes absolutely no sense. I'll have a word with them about re-adding content without consensus, but it's hard to gain consensus when someone thinks they're too good to stoop to talking to a lowly IP editor.

Since you seem incapable of handling this yourself, and I don't have the subject knowledge to help, I'll ask at WT:AUS myself for someone to take a look. Perhaps someone there will be more willing to act maturely. --barneca (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Michelle, on your user page you state that: "My favourite principle is Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit." - However, here you are saying: "Nor will I entertain discussions with an anonymous editor. Suggest you create an account" - Can you see the irony in that? You're a good editor and I hope you were just having a bad day (I've had a few!). Please don't ruin things for yourself with edit wars and incivility. Thanks and happy editing :-) Sloan ranger (chat) 17:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes anyone can edit within the guidelines, but this anon IP is POV pushing on this article. There is no irony here. I've stated my preference for dealing with registered editors, if someone is doing the odd edit rather than be a regular contributor, an anon IP is fine but it appears that someone wants to hide behind an IP, and I'm not entirely sure it's always the same person. Michellecrisp (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Additional point, anyone can be anonymous when they create an account. Let's stick to having this talk page about article improvement not being a soapbox for someone to hide behind an anon IP. Michellecrisp (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Michelle, you need to step back, calm down and then take a serious look at your comments here. I'm trying to help the situation by getting you to discuss things with this IP editor(s). Without talking things through, your not going to improve anything! Talk, talk and talk some more! Thats the most important thing when building an encyclopedia the size of wikipedia! Have a good day ;-) Sloan ranger (chat) 23:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's conservative, and I think most people would too. The Australian also endorsed Rudd I think, and I don't think anybody would say it is not conservative, given the overall record of its editorials. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 23:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• There seems to be so many other things to improve about this article that the discussion on whether it is conservative or centrist seems not useful. Why not comment that out for the time being and concentrate on producing a useful good quality article with references and let the reader decide. There is surely some interesting history on ownership and editors/editorial policy that can be added with citations. If necessary these can be used to support the view that it is conservative or otherwise. --Matilda ^talk 00:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with both barneca and Matilda. With barneca because (a) there is no reason to be condescending to someone who chooses not to register an account, or discount their views for the same reason, (b) it seems pretty clear that it's the same person commenting under the IP address, per the same duck test that is used to pick out actually disruptive sockpuppets and block-evaders (which this particular individual does not appear to be). With Matilda because, while I also happen to think that the Tele is fairly right-wing, no-one's really provided much in the way of sourcing towards *either* option, and for the moment it would probably be best to work on improving the rest of the article, from which it is likely that a definitive answer to the problem will be found anyway. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 03:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey. A lot of ado over little. I was just a little put off by the refusal to discuss, and than to revert the edits. My opinion is obviously that it is centrist and this opinion is based on the fact that it endorses different candidates at different elections, regardless of whether they are Labor or Liberal. Of cause, like all capitalist media, they take positions that endorse capitalistic positions, but than, so has Labor since the 1980s, but it is described as centre-left. On social issues, I think that they tend to be more populist. --58.172.251.46 (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sunday Telegraph

Sunday Telegraph is more left-wing endorsed labor at 2004, 2007, 2010 elections.Enidblyton11 (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

POV

I added a POV tag, but thought it best to raise it here as well. I was surprised when reading this article - at the moment, the article is almost entirely made up of a series of criticisms with quotes about findings. It gives the impression that this must be the most controversial newspaper in Australia, and that all criticisms of the paper are invariably upheld. I can understand incorporating criticism, but perhaps this could be reduced to a small section of only a couple of paragraphs? With some other content o balance it out a bit? - Bilby (talk) 03:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Newspaper articles as you would expect are notoriously controversial, even "Good Articles" such as the NY Times have several neutrality tags. I suggest we put some effort in this article and add a history, ownership and possibly online activity section so the emphasis on controversies is, at the very least, reduced. Perhaps we should create a dedicated article on controversy to avoid WP:WEIGHT issues or redetermine whether the content in that section is notable at all. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 03:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

2014

Most of that section was added by one editor, their only edits to Wikipedia. See here. - 220 of ^Borg 02:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguator in title: The Daily Telegraph (Australia)

I suggest the name of this article should be The Daily Telegraph (Sydney) to reflect better its origin, readership and subject matter. A reader from another country could gain the impression that the paper had a wider circulation than is the case. Doug butler (talk) 07:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Change effected December 2017 and replacement of links commenced. Not sure whether instances on Talk pages should be touched. Any comments? Doug butler (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

blog post about axe attacker

I've just removed the following content for the second time:

Reporting around LGBTI People

In January 2017, the Daily Telegraph published an article concerning a transgender woman subsequently convicted of a violent axe attack in a Sydney suburb. Although her transgender status was irrelevant to the incident at the time, The Daily Telegraph used derogatory slurs and made repeated references to the attacker's history of sex reassignment surgery, calling the woman a "tranny" who "had chopped herself".

The following week, SBS published an article expressing concern about how journalists "appear to enjoy treating transgender people as the punchline to a joke," singling out the Daily Telegraph's journalist.

In September 2018, the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal considered whether the article constituted unlawful vilification through its "gratuitous references to", and "ridicule of" the woman's transgender status. The Tribunal found that the Daily Telegraph published the article with "apparent disregard for the injurious effect it might have on transgender people." The Tribunal also held that, "it is evident that [the journalist] was seeking to make fun of Ms Amati and probably transgender people more generally," and that the "attempt at humour was in poor taste and completely devoid of empathy or sensitivity."

Continuing, the Tribunal also held that the article "contributes to the perpetration and perpetuation of demeaning negative stereotypes and a lack of acceptance of transgender people within the community." The Tribunal ultimately concluded that, whilst "close to the line", the article did not reach the threshold for vilification.

Lawyer Michael Bradley wrote an analysis of the case for political news website Crikey, arguing that the publication of such articles should not be unlawful, but instead that the Daily Telegraph should have sufficient social responsibility to cease publishing the author's "recklessly hurtful attempts at wit — because he did, and does, harm."

As of September 2018, the article has been removed from the website of the Daily Telegraph and replaced with a notice stating "This article is no longer available."

There are several problems with this material.

• The subhead is wrong: there was no "Reporting", just one snarky blog post.
• The subhead is wrong: the post was not about "LGBTI People", just about one person who attacked strangers with an axe and happens to be trans. Generalizations as rash as this do not belong on Wikipedia.
• The complaints were all dismissed, which makes them less than WP:Notable.
• Hostile opinion pieces from non-notable writers do not make this incident WikiNotable.

This text was added by Pandy_Sydney (talk · contribs), an energetic SPA, after I removed an earlier version. Pandy has repeatedly added similar material to Tim Blair. That material has now been removed and the article placed under Discretionary Sanctions by User:L235. See Talk:Tim Blair for details.

Besides, this article's list of negatives about the DT is surely long enough already, isn't it? Cheers, CWC 03:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

--- 22 December 2018 ---

Reply to CMC:

- Are you proposing that the heading "Reporting on LGBTI People" be substituted for "Snarky Blog Posts"? I consider such a headline inserts an opinion, rather than a statement of objective fact. Different people will have different opinions as to what constitutes "snarky", or even what the term means. I disagree that the headline is a "rash generalization" but I would welcome any alternatives you propose. I also intended to insert further edits under 'LGBTI' particular to include details of a recent adjudication by the Australian Press Council that found that an article reported in the DT about gay children breached the principles of journalistic ethics. In the interim, I'm happy to narrow to rename the headline to "Reporting of Transgender Woman Accused of Violent Crime" until such time as I can complete that edit.

You have alleged that my edits do not meet Wiki's Notability rules. I have reviewed my edits against the guidelines and cannot find any aspect which does not make the material notable. The primary source is a public Court ruling. I have added second and third sources from law journals which covered this case (although they are not accessible without access to a quality law library). The opinion pieces provide fourth and fifth sources. The sourcing and tone on my edits are, in my opinion, stronger than most other edits on this page. Again, if you have specific criticisms, I welcome them.

I agree that the SBS and Crikey sources are critical of the Daily Telegraph's publication of this issue. I welcome the inclusion of other viewpoints defending the publication of the material within the context of media ethics. I proactively sought out other viewpoints on this issue and could not identify any. If you have any quality opinion pieces, please feel free to include them.

You also made claims about due and undue weight. The DT has published a very large volume of material that has been the subject of ethical consideration and sanctions by Courts, Tribunals and press regulators - more than any other publisher in Australia. The volume of material about controversies reflects the high volume of controversies the DT is frequently involved in. Editorial balance does not require a Wiki editor to censor relevant independent coverage of an important issue. It requires an editor to cover all viewpoints and "to describe both points of view fairly when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence." I will continue to use independent, highly credentialed third parties, including Courts, Tribunals and Press Regulators, as my primary sources wherever I can. However, the long list of controversies in this article reflects the long list of ethical issues the DT has been involved in, not a Wiki editing problem.

It is not correct to say that my account is SPA. My professional expertise is in media ethics, moral philosophy and law, and these are areas I wish to edit around. I have edited in a number of other issues regarding media ethics. However my edits on this particular issue in media ethics have attracted a lot of reversions and re-edits, and according, this issue has consumed a high proportion of the time I commit to editing here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandy Sydney (talk • contribs) 05:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Huge Gap in History

There is a vast gap here in the history of this newspaper, describing the decades of its re-Packer ownership. It has not always been as it is today. 59.167.234.198 (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

And Digby Bamford doesn't get a mention at all. Grassynoel (talk) 11:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I can add to the history of the paper. I worked for the Telegraph as their history editor, but I no longer work there and feel I can now give a bit more objectivity. I tried to edit the section but probably went a bit overboard making it look like an advertisement for the paper. That was not my intention, I just thought if mentioned a few things that they did right, as well as things they did wrong, it might balance the rather large amount of material on breaches of ethics. I am not being paid by the Telegraph, but I have a lot of material and insight gathered from the time I worked for them. With help from other Wikipedians I can, perhaps, help to present a pretty objective view of the history of the paper. Troyantonius 21 October 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troyantonius (talk • contribs) 23:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I am still trying to add some bits of history to the article, but I am obviously on a bit of a learning curve. Can anyone tell me what the correct way of citing a newspaper is? A lot of the Australian newspapers have been digitised on Trove.nla.gov and I have put up a few things citing articles in the paper, but people keep telling me that it is incorrect referencing. I try to only cite the newspaper when it involves a quote or an example of the paper's stance on a particular issue, I am not citing the paper for any historical evidence (as a history graduate I am well aware of how dubious newspapers can be as primary sources or even secondary sources). I think it would be good to put in some of the details about the ownership of the paper and some of the editors who influenced the direction of the newspaper as well as some of the paper's relations with governments of whatever era. There are quite a few sources, for example, to verify Murdoch wrote a political speech for Gough Whitlam and supported his drive to become PM, but then later used the paper to break news of scandals in the Whitlam government, helping to bring down the government. Would that count as "trivia" or "polemics"? I have seen similar material in the article on the New York Times. Troyantonius (talk) 03:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not see the issue. I didn’t see anything really wrong with the cites, such as here, and if the article text phrases the newspaper quote or stated stance as something said by the paper that seems proper. Whether the quote is deserving a mention is still a judgement call, but I do not see the concern mentioned. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)