Talk:The Daily Telegraph/Archive 1

Archive 1

Ownership

Isn't the DT about to change ownership? Anyone know enough about it to write a little snippet for the article? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 00:41, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

New ownership hasn't been decided yet.But this REALLY needs some history of the former owners,generations of Lords Burnham followed by the Lords Camrose until Black elbowed them out.That covers over 130 years of history that's omitted.--L.E./12.144.5.2/le@put.com

Dyer incident

No mention of the Dyer incident in India, after which the Daily Telegraph rewarded the man a vast sum of money for his deed which they (conservatives) considered good at the time ( killing 500+ civilians and injuring thousands ) in 1920 to stop any peaceful protests in India. Anybody agree it should be included? (User name not stated)

Please put any information you have in the article. Others can always expand or amend it.

Tyrenius 20:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Remove "central position"

There's been somme discussion over POV matters but does anyone object to my removing the following? "Within this classification it takes a roughly central position on the authoritarian/libertarian axis. It is less traditionalist and more libertarian than The Spectator but more traditionalist and less libertarian than The Economist." I think that the article is a lot better off without it: 1. "Within this classification" is superfluous or else implies that libertarians and authoritarians are subtypes of conservatives - perhaps, going by the remarks about the Spectator and Economist, that authoritarians are on the right and libertarians are one the left. It's not what the author meant and it's not the only way of reading it but the whole thing reads fine without these three words. 2. "it takes a roughly central position on the authoritarian/libertarian axis" - It's difficult to point to any particular entrenched position that the Telegraph generally takes whether authoritarian, libertarian or somewhere in the middle. It's never particularly extreme but in the past has taken all sorts of positions on either side that can hardly be called "centre". I suppose its natural tendency is to be conservative without regard to authoritarianism. This doesn't mean that everything averages out and makes the DT central, it just means it doesn't have a libertarian/ authoritarian editorial stance and there's not much point in commenting on this. 3. "It is less traditionalist and more libertarian than The Spectator but more traditionalist and less libertarian than The Economist" - I'm not sure what this is meant to clarify - the Telegraph's supposed position in the centre has already been commented on and this sentence merely seems designed to illustrate the position of the Economist and Spectator especially given that they're fairly obscure in comparison with the DT. Anyway I'd like to know if people object before I delete anything 131.111.8.99 11:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit pedantic and I don't think it's helpful to most people, so the article would be better off without it.

Tyrenius 12:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Editors of the Sunday Telegraph

I've deleted John Thompson's name, as the blue link was to a disambiguation page that does not, in fact, include a JT as editor of the paper. In addition, unlike Trevor Grove (whose entry I recently began, to eliminate the red link) I can find nothing about JT in the archives. The list of editors for both the Daily and Sunday Telegraphs is not billed as comprehensive in any case. Robma 07:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

POV and Refs in Recent history secton

Please discuss this under this heading! I have marked the Recent history as being POV due to sentences such as :

• Heffer, known for his combative style and wit......
• ... to understand the finer details of any sporting deals there is no one better than Mihir Bose...

and as requiring refs for statements such as :

• ... Hollinger Inc. which in turn owns 30% of Hollinger International...
• ... the Barclay brothers purchased Hollinger ... for £665m...

Discuss here... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David Humphreys (talk • contribs) .

You are right. I suggest you remove any statements that are POV or need references and put them in a special section on this page until they have been verified. It spoils the article when it is tagged in the way it is at the moment. Tyrenius 01:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Rather than remove (half!!) the section I would like to see it cited and de-poved...really the whole section could do with a tidy and a rewrite, but I don't know enough about the subject ... anyone willing to help ??? David Humphreys 01:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Be bold! All changes are reversible. Tyrenius 03:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

POV notice

I don't know much about the academic niceties of political terminology, but the reference to the Telegraph being anywhere on an "authoritarian" axis strikes me as obvious left-wing bias and an highly inaccurate and hurtful insult to this democratic newspaper and its readers. Carina22 18:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

'Authoritarian'?

I wonder if the commentator misunderstood.

The article says "The Telegraph is known for its right-wing politics. Within this classification it takes a roughly central position on the authoritarian/libertarian axis." It therefore does not accuse the Telegraph of being authoritarian. To do that it would have been necessary to say that on the "authoritarian/ libertarian axis" the paper occupies an authoritarian position - whereas it is said that the paper occupies a roughly central position: i.e. roughly midway between libertarian and authoritarian. 16:38, 21 February 2006 User:193.123.236.185

At the moment it says, "The Telegraph is known for its right-wing politics. Within this classification it takes a roughly central position on the authoritarian/libertarian axis." I can't see anything that says, or implies, that it is not respectful of democracy. A democratic newspaper can be right-wing and occupy a "roughly central position..." etc. The text does not even say it occupies and extreme right-wing position, in fact the opposite - that it takes a relatively balanced view. I should think its readers would be soundly in agreement. You seem to object to the mere fact that it is anywhere on an "authoritarian/libertarian axis" but this is a yardstick that can be applied to any newspaper (or individual or party). It is surely where something is placed on it that is the key point.

Tyrenius 05:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

As there has been no further response to two posts advocating that the statement is not POV, I have removed the POV notice.

Tyrenius 20:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a link to the political compass article if their specific terminology is going to be used.137.138.46.155 15:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

"one of only two remaining daily British broadsheet newspapers"

Is this actually precisely true? I'm fairly sure the Birmingham Post is still broadsheet, and the intro doesn't specify national newspapers. Loganberry (Talk) 01:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Circulation

What would be helpful to me is decade-by-decade figures on average daily circulation. Can anyone add that to the article? 10:51, 8 November 2006

Changing editorial stance to right-wing

From the BBC source below as well as the discussion I think the consensus is that The Telegraph is more right-wing than centre-right. The Telegraph is certainly more right-wing than The Guardian left-wing and the Guardian is listed as left-wing. Sisalto 21:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this. People keep changing the Guardian's editorial position, much as they keep changing that of the DT. I think until some stability emerges that paper can't really be used as a precedent. Anyway the Indie is probably left of the Guardian and that's listed as centre-left. I prefer to avoid the word "right-wing" if possible. It has acquired negative connotations, much like "regime", and these should not be introduced needlessly into a neutral article. I've added a ref for centre-right now. The other BBC article talks about the traditional position. This one talks about a recent position. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 23:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Young Telegraph

Anyone want to create a page for the Daily Telegraph's children's/young adult section...? I'll probably get around to it sooner or later if not. ntnon (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't warrant a page (article). See Wikipedia:Notability. Add it as a section into this article. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 09:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Broadsheet v quality

When the word Broadsheet is used in relation to the circulation, what is meant is the quality press i.i. Times, FT, Guardian and Independent, and not just the FT which we have already seen is the only other broadsheet in size. And we're not just comparing the Telegraph with the FT. Therefore I have used the newer definiton of quality rather tha broadsheet Chasnor15 (talk) 07:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree - references to broadsheet and tabloid are misleading and therefore unencyclopedic. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 09:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggested merge of telegraph.co.uk into this article

See Talk:Telegraph.co.uk.--Svetovid (talk) 12:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This has now been done by myself. --Vergency (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Religion

Since the Telegraph is a conservative newspaper, it seems relevant to take notice on what its aproach on religion is. I've noticed that the Telepraph has also taken a moderately conservative approach on religious issues, such as in the Holy Smoke column. There are also many press articles that tend to confirm an editorial interest for Christianity. [1] [2] [3] ADM (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Maily Telegraph

What is the actual reason for The Telegraph being called The Mailograph? Theprivate eye parodies article says that the reason is due to hiring Ex-Daily Mail journalists, but this article suggests the reason is due to a shift in news coverage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.76.47 (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It has been often referred to as the Maily Telegraph, Daily Mailograph etc. over the last decade because of its tendency to move downmarket and run similar material to the Daily Mail. It did hire some notable ex Mail writers as part of this process. In particular it has tried to target the Mail's predominantly femail, lower middle class readership. It has also started to run lots of pictures of scantily dressed women and 'celebrities' in typical tabloid fashion.

These names originated in Private Eye but have achieved wide currency. --80.176.142.11 (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Then find cites for the "wide currency" if they need to be in the article here and not in the Private Eye article instead. Collect (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Nickname

The Daily Telegraph has been nicknamed the Gleephart (a simple anagram) since at least 1985. I had inserted this in the main section, but it was removed some time ago. However, the nickname (as with The Guardian with Grauniad it is a backhanded reference for its printing and compositional gaffes. The name is still current - no matter how few hits Gleephart gives on Google (or similar search engines), I frequently hear people in various parts of the UK refer to the Gleephart - verbally, that is. (This is unconnected with what Private Eye calls the paper!) I think this nickname deserves restoration, as beforetimes. Hair Commodore (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I have never heard anyone use this or seen it written down. Douglasi (talk) 23:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it's current only in specific social circles? I'm British, take quite an interest (not professionally) in the newspapers, and though I have come across "Gleephart", in comparison with Grauniad it's vanishingly rare. I should think I've heard it two or three times in my life. Loganberry (Talk) 01:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Small c-conservative

I don't think the ideology section should say "Conservative Party", since the Telegraph doesn't simply tow the party line uncritically all of the time. Its not a Fox News/BBC sort of partisan party broadcast deal. If you take the United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal for instance — there were actually more members of the Conservative Party implicated than any other party. The Telegraph didn't just give them a free ride because of party membership. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Front-page example needs updating

The current lay-out of the front page is significantly different from the one which is currently on show and the article requires a new, more modern, example

93.96.103.199 (talk) 21:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Blog usage

Blogs are not generally used for statements of fact on WP. They may, in some cases, and where they are under editorial control of an RS source, be used to show a person's opinion, ascribed to that person. See WP:RS. Collect (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Dead links on Wikipedia to The Daily Telegraph. Articles created on 2000-2005

Not sure if this is right place to mention this. Perhaps a person reading this page might know. Seems all the links on wikipedia starting with "http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/" to articles from the telegraph years 2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005 are dead (redirected to homepage).

Google searches:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=site%3Awikipedia.org+%22http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fmain.jhtml%3Fxml%3D%2Fnews%2F2001%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=610e7dd948e54cca
other searches to get the rest of the years:
site:wikipedia.org "http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2000/"
site:wikipedia.org "http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/"
site:wikipedia.org "http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/"
site:wikipedia.org "http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/"
site:wikipedia.org "http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/"
site:wikipedia.org "http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/"
2000 About 75 results (0.12 seconds)
2001 About 461 results (0.11 seconds)
2002 About 455 results (0.11 seconds)
2003 About 126 results (0.08 seconds)
2004 About 110 results (0.10 seconds)
2005 About 175 results (0.21 seconds)

Those links redirect to the homepage.

2000 seems some are redirecting to the current URL is done by the site itself. Some are redirected to homepage.
2001 all i checked are redirected to homepage
2002 all i checked are redirected to homepage
2003 all i checked are redirected to homepage
2004 all i checked are redirected to homepage
2005 all i checked are redirected to homepage

Articles are still available at telegraph.co.uk but under a new URL. New URL's seem to start like this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatnews/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.31.52.164 (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Ben Goldacre

User:Collect recently removed a blog source written by Ben Goldacre, claiming "blog is not RS - see WP:RS".[4] However RS says, "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." That seems to be the case with Ben Goldacre. Viriditas (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

In the case at hand, the claim was made without stating it was pure opinion. The blog is not under the editorial control of the Guardian, hence thatis not relevant. Badscience.net is not part of the Guardian as fasr as I can tell. Collect (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Some of it is reprints from the Guardian, some of it is not. In any case, Goldacre is considered an expert on this topic. If you could address the underlying problem with the claims, we can work to fix or remove them. I think you'll find that I'm equally open to both options once I understand your reasoning. Viriditas (talk) 12:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Self-published sources are not RS - and are generally used for exceedingly limited purposes. The case at hand is far beyond the permitted use of a self-published source. Collect (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ben Goldacre is considered a RS for "bad science", and he's published professionally in this area as a journalist, author, and physician/scientist. Could you please address the problem with the content in the article? I already know your position on the status of the source. Could I also point you to this book, Bad Science (2008) and his newspaper column? Viriditas (talk) 12:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS is policy content guideline of long standing. Anyone's personal self-published blog remains a personal self-published blog. Nor does a book become a validation for anything not in the book <g>. Nor doe opinions in a self-published blog mysteriously become citable facts. Collect (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Collect (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

RS is a content guideline, not a policy, and If you read it, you'll discover that the reason many SPS aren't acceptable is because we are worried about whether the information comes from an actual expert in the field, after all, anyone can upload their work on a website. In this case, we are dealing with an expert on bad science whose work has been published by third parties. You claim that the information is a "personal opinion" but looking at it closely, we see that this appears to be the mainstream, scientific opinion, in other words, scientific consensus, so that claim also doesn't hold. Could you please address the content itself and your concerns with it, as I previously requested above? I don't see what is objectionable about it or why you consider it an opinion that deviates from another. Do you have information which contradicts it? Viriditas (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The deletion of this graf seems like a whitewash, to hide the Daily Telegraph author's attempt to garble (or perhaps just hide his misunderstanding of) the U of Birmingham research in a way that matches the Telegraph's political stance on climate science. Collect's expressed pretext for deleting seems unconvincing to me; how many people will have read Goldacre's summary of U of B's work and swallowed his interpretation without considering that it was "just" a blog post? To them it will seem to have been published in the newspaper. How would they know his version was controversial if it's suppressed here? Others' opinions? Rousse (talk) 00:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

[WP:V]] is policy. Goldacre is not an expert on the newspaper industry, hence is not a valid source from his self-published blog. Furhter, he is a sometime employee of a competitor of the Telegraph, hence there is an implicit commercial bias possiblde. Thirdly, the editors at the Telegraph are, indeed, living persons, to whom improper acts are laid (this was used to prevent any dissing of the CRU folks as an implicit BLP violation elsewhere on WP). As for the assertion that it is "scientific opinion" that the Telegraph made a "notable mistake" - that is quite absurd. I found absolutely no peer-reviewed article stating that the Telegraph made a mistake. Conflating Climate Change controversy with "mistakes" is far beyond the reasonable scope of an article on a newspaper. What we are left with is an editorial opinion in a self-published source from a commercial competitor of a newspaper that the newspaper deliberately, for example, allowed one side and only one side to comment on an issue. That requires a genuine Reliable Source. Collect (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

That is not correct. The research was funded by the Natural Environment Research Council, and the editor of their online magazine has commented on the situation.[5] This is verifiable and reliable. The research, which was published in the journal Science, was misrepresented by The Daily Telegraph. Viriditas (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Climate change denial

Looking into this further, a pattern emerges showing that this publication has been misrepresenting scientific research and pushing a denialist viewpoint for years. This deserves its own subsection. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

In which case, Climate Change arbitration case rules should be in place -- the claims being inserted are contrary to any lkely resolution of the issue by ArbCom, consisting, as they do, of using self-published blogs. Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What claims? The organization who funded the study, the scientist who published the study, and an expert on the subject of scientific distortions in the press have all demonstrated that the Telegraph screwed up. This is not a claim, it happened. Furthermore, the NERC cite above shows that the Telegraph acknowledged the error by correcting part of the article in response to concerns from the NERC. If any of this isn't making sense to you, feel free to ask questions. The sources demonstrating this error by the paper are reliable. More importantly and to the point, there is a consistent pattern of climate change denial, distortions, and misrepresentations stretching back for almost a decade. This is not a one time event or innocent mistake, and RS have made this observation many times. The primary issue here is not climate science, but explicit and unabashed media bias, to the point where scientific organizations, individual scientists, and media analysts have stepped forward to say that something is seriously wrong with the reliability of the Telegraph as a trusted source for science-related topics. Viriditas (talk) 23:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that using the term "denialism" may be sufficiently POV to cause problems in and of itself. It may well be wise to simply agree that SPS is not sufficient to make such a charge about a newspaper. As for any assertion that this is not an "innocent mistake" - such a claim would require an extremely strong reliable source. Collect (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The editor of the NERC's online magazine is a RS. The NERC funded the study in question. The scientist who helped write and publish the study in the journal Science is a RS. And Ben Goldacre is an expert in the field of science-related media bias, which is what we are discussing. All three are authoritative reliable sources for this topic, and the SPS content guideline does not prevent us from using them to discuss this incident. We also know that there is a preponderance of RS addressing the issue of climate change denial coming from this newspaper, and we have reliable sources such as the Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government and President of the Royal Society noting similar incidents.[6] The body of evidence is huge, and for you to dismiss experts in the scientific community on this subject as "self published" is laughable. Viriditas (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

By WP definition, the blog post is "self-published." I commend you to read the policies and guidelines applicable thereto before derinding that concern as "laughable." Collect (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You have been corrected on this point. It's not a policy, it's a content guideline to help prevent charlatans from pretending to be experts and "publishing" their own pet theories. We don't have that problem here, rather the complete opposite. We have misguided editors trying to prevent experts from commenting on their own subjects. The editor of NERC's online magazine, Owen Gaffney, is a reliable source for this subject, as are the comments by Professor Ian Fairchild from the University of Birmingham who authored the study, as well as Ben Goldacre, an expert on science-related media bias. All three authoritative sources are acceptable, and the SPS content guideline is not intended to deny and prevent using sources from experts in their field. This is the very definition of a "reliable source", so your objections to their use have no basis. At this point, your objections are just wikilawyering. However, this incident should not be seen in isolation, as there is an established, consistent pattern of science-related media bias from this newspaper, and that is what the proposed subsection should cover in its entirety. And in case I'm not being clear, Owen Gaffney makes a convincing case that The Daily Telegraph altered a news article about scientific research to suit its own political beliefs. According to Gaffney, "Over a year ago I questioned a journalist at the paper about how it reported and commented on climate science. He said the then editor did not believe the evidence presented by the climate research community."[7] I don't think anyone is surprised. Viriditas (talk) 00:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Biased coverage

• "...the study by Boykoff (2007a) provides a partial study of UK newspapers because it included only The Guardian, The Times, The Independent, The Observer, The Sunday Times, and The Independent on Sunday. In fact, the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph, and their Sunday edition counterparts, have remained the main sources of coverage that has denied the role of human contributions to climate change. While their coverage of news about climate change has more closely reflected the consensus view among scientists (since such articles are often prompted by publication of new research), their commentary and leading articles have reflected points of view that are much less consistent with, and informed by, the results of scientific research." -(Boyce, Lewis. (2009) Climate Change and the Media. Peter Lang. ISBN 143310460)

• "Early coverage of the problem suggests that the media did not question the science underpinning the threat of global warming...From 1990 onwards, however, there developed a fashion in the Western media to attack the global warming hypothesis. Headlines such as 'More hot air than facts on global warming' (Sunday Telegraph 1994), 'The lie of global warming' (Daily Telegraph 1991), 'Global warming is a load of hot air' (Sunday Express 1991) 'Theories on Ice' (The Times Magazine 1993) and 'Experts got it wrong over global warming' (Daily Express 1991) illustrate this trend."[8]...the Daily Telegraph offered the view that 'to many scientists, the likelihood of man-made global warming is about as credible as stories of goblins and fairies'[9] -(Newell. (2000) Climate for Change. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521632501).

• "UK tabloid coverage significantly diverged from the scientific consensus that humans contribute to climate change...These patterns are remarkable, as they are not consistent with recent trends documented in US and UK 'prestige press' or broadsheet newspaper reporting...When interviewees were asked to comment on this divergence, many pointed to constraints they faced as journalists and editors deriving from various political economic pressures....in the sample set only 1.8% of the news stories on climate change or global warming were written by a journalist identified as a 'science' or 'environment' correspondent or editor...quantitative content analyses of the UK tabloid press found that combined influences of contrarianism and the utilization of the journalistic norm of balance jointly contribute to informationally biased coverage of anthropogenic climate change...Divergent UK tabloid newspaper coverage of anthropogenic climate change found in this study may diminish public support for concrete greenhouse gas mitigation programs when the time for behavioral change comes...the success of future climate mitigation policies may depend significantly on these newspaper sources and their many working class readers...the journalistic norm of balanced reporting has contributed to a skewed public understanding of human contributions to climate change...it may continue to significantly contribute...to eventual public resistance to climate mitigation and adaptation plans in the UK."-(Maxwell T Boykoff and Maria Mansfield 2008 Environ. Res. Lett. 3 024002. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/3/2/024002)

• "In August 2001, the prestigious academic publishing house, Cambridge University Press, launched a book called The Skeptical Environmentalist...by Bjørn Lomborg...the book challenged popular perceptions that the global environment is getting worse...the British newspaper, The Daily Telegraph, called it "probably the most important book on the environment ever written." A review in the eminent scientific journal, Nature, denounced the book as "deeply flawed" and implicitly likened Lomborg to Holocaust deniers. -(Chen. (2003) The Jurisdynamics of Environmental Protection. Environmental Law Institute. ISBN 1585760714)

Sensationalism and misrepresentation

• "Evidence for or against health risks from climate change is therefore often used selectively by parties to promote political agendas that have little to do with the health risk itself....Related to this, the public perception of health risks from climate change is filtered through media that can often tend to sensationalize stories and amplify disagreements to present polarized positions...For an example of the former, take the following headline from a recent edition of the Daily Telegraph newspaper following the release of a U.K. government report on health risks arising from climate change in Britain...Malaria warning as UK becomes warmer: The UK is to be hit by regular malaria outbreaks, fatal heatwaves and contaminated drinking water within five years because of global warming, the Government has warned the NHS...The cited U.K. report, however, actually stated...We would therefore not expect more than a very few cases of autochthonous malaria in the UK over the next 50 years. Indeed one is more likely to be struck by lightning than to get malaria from an English mosquito...In this environment, the production of clear communication of impartial, evidence-based, policy-relevant assessments becomes particularly important." -(Relman, Hamburg, Choffnes, Mack. (2008) Global Climate Change and Extreme Weather Events. National Academies Press. ISBN 0309124026)

• "In December, a UK-based group, the Scientific Alliance, teamed up with the George C Marshall Institute, a body headed by the chairman emeritus of the GCC, William O'Keefe, to publish a document with the innocuous title Climate Issues & Questions. It plays up the uncertainties surrounding climate change science, playing down the likely impact that it will have. It contrasts starkly with the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world's most reliable source of information on the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. In its last major report in 2001, the IPCC adopted an evidence-based approach to climate change and considered uncertainties on impact. It concluded that "overall, climate change is projected to increase threats to human health, particularly in lower income populations, predominantly within tropical/subtropical countries", and that "the projected rate and magnitude of warming and sea-level rise can be lessened by reducing greenhouse gas emissions". More than 2,000 of the world's leading climate experts were involved in compiling the report - the most authoritative scientific assessment to date. But today, the Scientific Alliance is holding a forum for members of the US and UK denial lobby to challenge the case for acting on the findings of the IPCC. The intention appears to be to get its retaliation in first before a meeting of climate change experts next week at the Hadley Centre, at which Sir David King will take part. Possibly more worrying is how much prominence their views are receiving in the UK media. The Daily Telegraph bizarrely used an anonymous leader on the tsunami in Asia to question the value of cutting emissions: "Whether or not this would have the effects claimed by ecologists - and the science is inconclusive - any gain would be insignificant next to the changes in temperature caused by forces outside our control." -(Robert May, Baron May of Oxford, "Under-informed, over here", guardian.co.uk)

You asserted specific "denialism" and deliberate misstatement by the newspaper. What we are left with is your opinion, and the opinion in a self-published blog by a person who is not presented as an expert on newspapers, and who has a financial interest in discrediting another newspaper in his personal blog. WP specifically does not allow such sources as reliable sources - you might wish to dispute this on RSN at some point, but I doubt you will succeed in using what you WP:KNOW as a basis for changing the rules, guidelines and policies. Collect (talk) 10:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The denialism claim is supported above by Catherine Butler[10] and Nick Pidgeon[11] in Boyce (2009): "...The Daily Telegraph, and their Sunday edition counterparts, have remained [one of] the main sources of coverage that has denied the role of human contributions to climate change."[12] I don't see anything about a "deliberate misstatement". I said that Owen Gaffney made the case that The Daily Telegraph altered a news article about scientific research.[13] This isn't in dispute by any rational person, so it's probably time for you to "give it up". Viriditas (talk) 10:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Check [WP:NPA]] and determine that a person who actually believes in WP rules, guidelines and policies is not "rational" is likely not a wise statement by you. Collect (talk) 10:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Asking you to stop beating a dead horse is not a personal attack. You may want to have someone explain that to you as well, since you seem unclear on the concept. Viriditas (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Wall of text usage does not impress me. Self published sources do not make for reliable sources. And for some odd resaon,m your claim that I am "not rational" does not impress me, nor does writing text in yellow make me think that it is I who is beating the poor horse. You might wish to remove the yellow silliness, by the way. It is distracting to anyone reading this page, and impresses no one. Collect (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have difficulty reading this thread. 1) I've explained how the sources are reliable and are acceptable for use in this article many times in the above threads. 2) You have ignored these explanations and have refused to engage in any discussion concerning them, even after being asked multiple questions about your position. 3) I provided multiple sources supporting my position, not a "wall of text". This is called evidence, please review it. You have again, ignored those sources, preferring to distract and deny as before. To recap, you asked for a rationale, I gave you one. You asked for sources, I provided them. However, when I ask you to justify your position and to reply to my queries, I am met with stone cold silence every time. You then revert back to asking questions that you've already been given answers to previously. This is generally described as disruptive and tendentious. BTW, what was the result of the RS noticeboard discussion you instigated? Viriditas (talk) 10:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You have been on notice from your RFC/U about civility. I comment you to reread it. Your posts here do not indicate that you did. Collect (talk) 11:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about, and I have been perfectly civil. My "posts" (topical comments) indicate that you do not respond to direct questions about the topic and that you continually change the subject in every reply. Viriditas (talk) 11:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

My only issue is that we respect WP rules, guidelines and policies. The talk page is not the place to discuss "climate change denial" as should be reasonably clear. This is a place to discuss this article, and whether a source is valid in it. Thanks. Collect (talk) 11:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Rules, guidelines, and policies exist only to help further the goals of editors and to protect the site and the editors who use it from malicious intent. Rules, guidelines, and policies do not exist to be "respected", and should be discarded when they no longer serve their purpose. That's one reason rules tend to change over time. Please take a moment to review the first comment in this thread where I propose a subsection on climate change denial/misrepresentation of science. The talk page is the appropriate place to discuss these types of proposals. It should also be noted that this proposal came about due to your unilateral reversion and deletion of related material from the article, which you did not feel needed to be discussed on talk. I would hope in the future, you could get in the habit of proposing your changes, as I have, on the talk page before taking such action. I hope I have set a good example for you to emulate. Viriditas (talk) 12:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Title

I noticed this morning (18 June 2011) that the web edition is now headed "The Telegraph" not "Daily Telegraph". Maybe I am slow. When did that happen? Qlangley (talk) 07:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It's been like that for a long time, it allows them to cover the weekday and Sunday editions with a single title. The Mail site is called Mail Online for the same reason. Rangoon11 (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

"Kate Middleton"

[14] The NYT refers to her as "Kate Middleton" - this is not an "error" or "mistake" - it is a matter of editorial style. [15] is from ABC. Collect (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC) I suppose that the "correct" version would have to be "Princess William" as a matter of form <g>. Collect (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Should we really have a notable mistakes section?

None of the other newspaper articles I looked at including the Guardian and the Times appear to have one. Hawjam (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Hawjam

41.219.31.223 (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Boris Johnson

It has come to light today (in The Guardian) through Boris Johnson's tax issues with the US that "he is paid £250,000 a year for his column in the Telegraph." That strikes me as over the top, and if other columnists do not get similar amounts, it would be worth noting. 121.209.56.11 (talk) 03:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It's on the high side but probably not vastly more than other big-name columnists on the nationals. (The figure has also been known for a while.) I wouldn't think it so significant as to warrant going in the article - unless, of course, you want to pay me Boris's word rate to put it in. :) Barnabypage (talk) 09:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

proposal to merge "The Sunday Telegraph" into "The Daily Telegraph"

I propose that The Sunday Telegraph be merged into The Daily Telegraph. The Daily Telegraph article already covers the topic of the online "The Telegraph" website, which publishes news articles from both. I think that the content in the "The Sunday Telegraph" article can easily be included in "The Daily Telegraph" article. Although "The Sunday Telegraph" has a different editorial board, it includes articles published first in "The Daily Telegraph" and vice versa, and perhaps they both also publish articles that appeared first as online content at "The Telegraph", so making any distinction for which published a given news story seems artificial.

The real reason why I am making this proposal, and an important practical reason to merge, is that attempting to maintain a distinction demands attention every day and is costly of numerous Wikipedia editors' time. The Telegraph appears to be the very most frequently linked disambiguation page in Wikipedia. It is entered as a wikilink in references to its news articles all across Wikipedia mainspace. Figuring out whether to credit the "Sunday" or "Daily" version cannot be done with any high degree of accuracy, because the three overlapping publishers do not attempt to maintain any distinction themselves (except perhaps for editorials). The online website "The Telegraph" includes news articles originated by both printed papers plus news articles that are published online-only, AND DOES NOT DISTINGUISH WHICH IS WHICH. Thus when a source reference in any mainspace article wikilinks to the online copy of a news article at The Telegraph, I believe that an ambiguous "The Telegraph" link will usually be resolved to point to "The Daily Telegraph" wikipedia article (which covers the online "The Telegraph"), even though the news story might in fact have originated in "The Sunday Telegraph". Or the disambiguating editor may follow some other heuristic. I personally don't know which is correct or best to choose, for a news article that I somehow knew appeared first in the Sunday paper (so wikilinking to "The Sunday Telegraph" should be okay) and then online (so wikilinking to "The Daily Telegraph" article which covers the online site should be okay too, right?). Which is best, what do you think? Anyhow, I believe all or most of the Wikipedia editors who disambiguate this topic don't have adequate information to make the determination of original publication accurately. That might not even be the goal, though. Perhaps the goal is to give credit to either of these, willy-nilly, which at least is better than giving credit to the unrelated Australian papers of the same name. There is no recorded consensus about what the goal is supposed to be, AFAIK. Whatever heuristics are followed by various disambiguating editors--and it is likely different approaches are employed--making the distinction adds little or no or negative value, IMO.

Also, for several years "The Sunday Telegraph" has existed as a relatively weak article, with just one reference, and that reference is merely to a non-independent source (a circulation tracking service that is partly owned by the Telegraph Media Group, the owner of both "The Sunday Telegraph" and "The Daily Telegraph"). I believe that the topic will receive better coverage in a merged article. --doncram 16:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation which is the biggest part of your proposed reasoning is not a reason to merge articles. The other reasons however are strong, and for that I agree that they would be better merged and redirected.Blethering Scot 19:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks. About the disambiguation difficulty, I want to say it's not just for editors involved in wp:DPL. It applies for every editor out there who is adding information from a Telegraph article: they don't know which to pick, either. --doncram 20:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - distinct newspapers with separate editorial boards and very different histories. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose As per above, newspapers have different editors and editorial staff. The Daily Telegraph has a long history, The Sunday Telegraph only dates from the early 1960's. Whilst they are in the same stable, they have differing reviews of theatre, cinema etc; and in politics, the Sunday paper is often more right wing than the Daily editions. David J Johnson (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia articles note that they have different editorial staff. That is said in one sentence. There is no mention and certainly no sourcing (because there is no sourcing at all) about having different reviews of theatre and so on. If/when someone chooses to develop a significant article about the Sunday Telegraph which says anything significant, and says enough that it needs to be split out of the The Telegraph, then it can be split out. --doncram 18:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - different newspapers as Andy Mabbett has noted. --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

There may be differences in fact but those are not developed. If/when they are, the Sunday paper could be split out to a new article. Just like in any other sequence of article development where subtopics are not split out in advance, merely in anticipation that future development will warrant a split. --doncram 18:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment There's nothing to merge, after unsupported and/or irrelevant material was removed (& copied to its Talk page, a day or two ago). --doncram 01:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Update: There's been no development of "The Sunday Telegraph" article. I recognize that the views expressed that there are differences which could be developed in an article, but it remains that there is no substantial content. With it having no different content, readers should not be directed there, so i have removed a "main" article link to it from "The Daily Telegraph"'s section on it. I'll pause for comments, but plan to remove the merger discussion tags and to redirect The Sunday Telegraph to The Daily Telegraph, marking it as a "Redirect with possibilities". Being a redirect with possibilities is like a redlink, calling for any interested editor to create a proper article, so I think this should be no big deal. It will remain as an item in The Telegraph disambiguation page, and editors disambiguating can continue to choose it as an option in DabSolver. --doncram 15:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • As you can see from the comments in this discussion, consensus is against merging. You do not get to evade it by blanking the article and redirecting it here. --Joshua Issac (talk) 11:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Totally agree with Joshua Issac's comments above. I regret to say there is some arrogance in Doncram's attitude to this non-issue. David J Johnson (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Okay, fine, and i don't mean that in a pouty way. I accept that "The Sunday Telegraph" would be a legitimate article topic. And that despite no sources being provided and the article being a sub-stub, that it can continue to exist without harm. Though "it does no harm" and "there must be sources somewhere" are not valid arguments for Keep in an AFD discussion. I was trying to accomplish something (to reduce disambiguation work, per my opening statement) but I accept that is not going to happen (I agreed it would stay on the disambiguation page). I have myself created substub articles at times for specific good reasons, but any still remaining at substub status are very obscure topics, unlike here. I honestly do believe it would be better to delete it and show a redlink, or equivalently to redirect it. But I see objections, I won't redirect it, and I am not going to open an AFD. I am sorry to have disturbed anyone who is taking offense here (seriously), but I also don't think it's right how Wikipedia practices are working to keep such a thing. --doncram 17:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The Sunday Telegraph infobox

Given that the articles are to remain separate, is there any justification for retaining an infobox for The Sunday Telegraph in this article? Shouldn't the infobox be restricted to the article subject? The image of the Sunday cover is used here without a non-free use rationale, so at least the image will have to be removed. (I don't think we can justify fair use of a Sunday Telegraph image in the Daily Telegraph article when it is already used in the Sunday Telegraph article.) – Wdchk (talk) 03:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with Wdchk's comments above, also the deleted uncited material on Sunday Telegraph article should be restored - pending correct sources. David J Johnson (talk) 09:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Daily Telegraph. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071011064905/http://www.ukaop.org.uk/cgi-bin/go.pl/news/article.html?uid=1632 to http://www.ukaop.org.uk/cgi-bin/go.pl/news/article.html?uid=1632

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Is the Telegraph Anti-Scottish?

I live in Scotland and voted in favor of Independence last year so admittedly I am not completely neutral in regard to this issue. The Telegraph backed the No Campaign and as a Conservative leaning paper I can respect that. However I found the content published by the Telegraph in the wake of the referendum to be appalling and deeply offensive to all Scots regardless of their political views. While each of these articles were degrading and inflammatory these extracts were the main red lines:

"many people wondered why the Scots had become consumed with such bile towards the English"

"The Scots have turned in on themselves, becoming petty, sour and envious"

"Alex Salmond may have his absurd dreams of a Scotland that can somehow “go it alone”"

"that joke of a “government”."

"their once-proud nation has become a sad provincial backwater"

"They have lost their self-respect. Yet it is this unhappy people, once our admired and cherished fellow countrymen"

"the struggle between the Nats and Labour for voters in the Central Belt, many of whom live on benefits"

"in a competition for the support of those who, if offered a job, would run a mile."

"There is only one way to deal with all this and bring Scotland to its senses. The English have to show some backbone."

"the Highlands creates men who harmonise humour, toughness and moral depth, and make bloody good soldiers."

"turning Scotland into a separate – and wretchedly governed – country"

"no great harm was done by allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to vote this year – they were often wiser than their elders – it was a silly experiment that should not be repeated"

"Although the dole junkies of the Central Belt would be consumed with rage, they would not be half-witted enough to vote for independence if there were no means of paying their benefit. If it should turn out that I am over-estimating their intelligence, let them go."

"Traditionally, Scots pride themselves on hard-headedness. In recent years, that has often taken the form of a hard hunk of bone stretching from ear to ear, inflamed by political hysteria"

"to save Scotland from self-destruction."

"the Scots have lost the plot. Not all of them. But enough of them."

"Scotland is a nation that has become drunk on constitutional arrogance and self-righteousness."

"Well, Scotland can stay drunk if it wants. But England isn’t going to keep picking up the tab."

"someone up there has to start to get a grip"

"The nation that always seems to be asking for more should start giving something back"

"so many of his policies are designed to anger the English. Free prescription charges; the abolition of tolls on bridges; free university education for Scots – but £9,000 a year for the English. These are all hugely symbolic policies, and all devised with at least half an eye on annoying the public south of the border"

The majority of these articles were published within a short space of time in December 2014, only two months after the referendum. In a time where it was vital for tensions between Scotland and the rest of Britain to subside the Telegraph was clearly on a mission to fan resentment on both sides of border and instill an Anti-Scottish sentiment among its conservative reader base. Wikipedia's own article on Anti-Scottish sentiment states that 'Anti-Scottish sentiment is disdain, fear or hatred for Scotland, the Scots or Scottish culture' These articles and especially the extracts listed above clearly surpass all five of these criteria. Therefore I would press that the inclusion in the Daily Telegraph Wikipedia page that the paper has an Anti-Scottish stance is valid. At least until such a time as the Telegraph redacts these articles or adopts a far less hostile attitude towards the Scottish people and their democratically elected government. DistantNorth (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

(replacing accidentally deleted text) To make the claim in Wikipedia's voice, you would need a secondary reliable source making the claim as a statement of fact. The list appears to warrant that it is criticism of Scottish political behaviour, and nothing more. And the concept of being "anti-Scottish" is a lot stronger than what the articles appear to warrant no matter how one looks at them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

What you fail to state is that the articles are written by persons of different political views and they have every right to state their own personal opinions. Why not ask the Telegraph for space to air your opinion? The Telegraph is a quality newspaper and will publish political views which are not part of their editorial view. What you seem to fail to understand, that in spite of your own view, the majority of Scottish electors voted to stay within the United Kingdom. I see your "edit" has been reverted by another editor and you should refrain from edit warring until a consensus is reached. The "tensions" were there because the SNP sent bully boys to disrupt meetings by any other party but themselves. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Please keep this on topic. These views were extreme, deeply offensive and undeniably xenophobic towards Scotland as a whole. The Telegraph chose to publish them and did not publish any counter view point. Asserting that the comments above were anything less than Anti-Scottish is distorting the facts to cast the Telegraph in a better light. The Telegraph made a conscience decision to publish this content, let them stand by it.DistantNorth (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I’m not unsympathetic to your view here about the unpleasant nature of the extracts, DistantNorth. However, the problem here is that whether the published comments are "anti-Scottish” or not is a matter of interpretation – and making personal judgments of this kind falls outside of Wikipedia editing. To support inclusion of a claim that the Telegraph is – or even that it has been accused of being - “anti-Scottish” we would need two news reports from reliable sources making or reporting such a claim.JezGrove (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree totally with JezGrove. Firstly stop acting as a sock and sign your contribution with your name, not an IP address. The Telegraph is a quality newspaper and will publish views other than those published - it frequently does! You are making personal judgements, which are not allowed on Wikipedia. Try finding a reliable source and stop being a sock. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the above, this is clearly WP:OR without any reliable secondary sources to back it up. I will now remove it. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Messed up page when changing the price

Messed up the page when changing the price it's not £1.60 it's £1.40

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banterboy101 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Out of Date

This Daily Telegraph wikipedia article seems to be ridiculously out of date. It has barely any mention of the paper's recent history (post 2000) or some of its best news stories, such as the 2009 expenses scandal. Could someone please look into all this and add a bit more content because at the moment, this article seriously lags behind The Guardian.SomewhereInLondon (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

"traditionally right-wing

I put in the description "traditionally right-wing" and gave a reference from the BBC website [16] where this description had occurred. I notice it has been changed back to "right of centre" and marked POV. This is an incorrect use of POV, which is only used to indicate a biased point of view from a Wicki editor. If the editor quotes an external source (and particularly if it is referenced) then that is not POV, even if the external source is POV, because it is simply stating from a NPOV that this opinion is held by this external source. This is not the first time I have come across this misunderstanding of the POV policy. The correct thing in these circumstance, if one considers that the source quoted is imbalanced, is to quote and reference another source to restore the balance, and to show the variety of attitudes that exist. If it is wished to put in the statement "right of centre" then please give the source and reference for this statement (otherwise the editor is guilty of POV) and then draw the contrast between the two positions. Furthermore, I notice that "right of centre" was reinstated and the reference to the BBC article still retained. The BBC article was about Sir David Barclay. The relevant passage with an editorial opinion is:

His statement comes after he was quoted in the Guardian as saying the editorial stance of the traditionally right-wing Telegraph was flexible.

I might point out that personally I actually consider the Telegraph is often far more liberal and broad-minded than the supposedly liberal papers, and I do not have an axe to grind. I am simply following Wicki protocol in finding external sources and quoting them, rather than giving my own opinion. Tyrenius 01:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Telegraph policy is to take a Conservative, broadly right of centre stance from its opinion pages, but to provide independent news. Traditionally right-wing is accurate, I'd say, but needs to be qualified.

Douglasi 10:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the Telegraph has always taken a right-wing viewpoint, especially the independents who write for it. Simon Heffer and Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, as well as Mark Steyn are all extremely right wing by British standards. Darkmind1970 13:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"Right of centre" is direct quote from source. It is also noted as "Conservative" in its support. Collect (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Lol!!! "Right of centre" is an indirect quote from the Telegraph's political editor, George Jones, and definitely not the BBC's official opinion. Check the source if you don't believe me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.232.166 (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

If you want to find alternative (ideally neutral) sources which describe the Telegraph as right wing, then feel free to do so, but until then we should keep the infobox as it is currently. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Repeated whitewashing of the lead

The lead is repeatedly having all criticism removed from it. That's a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:LEAD among other issues. It's also edit warring. Exactly how would anyone think that repeatedly deleting all negative information from the lead on an article about a newspaper be OK???? This is not what Wikipedia stands for, and anyone engaging in it, IMO is on borrowed time as an editor on this project.GliderMaven (talk) 04:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but if only one person is criticising the paper for being influenced by advertisers, IMO that does not warrant it being mentioned in the lead. SomewhereInLondon (talk) 02:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree with SomewhereInLondon comments above. There is no reason whatsoever for mention of this, one, person to be mentioned in the lead, especially as the incident is mentioned in the text. There is no edit warring, just the actions of a "editor" with a poor Wikipedia record. David J Johnson (talk) 11:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, I thought you were engaging in ad hominen attacks rather than addressing the policies of WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV, but I trust you would never stoop to that.GliderMaven (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that you accept; the admittedly small consensus, the fact that the person involved is mentioned in the article. In my experience I really cannot see how WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV really apply. Please stop edit warring, you already have a poor editing record. Thank you and regards, David J Johnson (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Two people of dubious neutrality do not represent WP:CONSENSUS. I can only assume your attempt at personal attack is because you do not believe you have a leg to stand on. You cannot ignore the highly established consensus that WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV represent. The removal of all criticism from the lead is unacceptable, the material is entirely appropriate, indeed, it probably should be more highly emphasised than it currently is; it is literally a single sentence that summarises an entire section in the article. If you continue to question this, I will attempt to get more people involved, I strongly doubt that uninvolved people will agree with your position. But feel free to continue to make a case.GliderMaven (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that the comments should be in the lead - it's not just one person's criticism, there are several other sources in the section GliderMaven refers to. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Out of date listing of Telegraph website employees

This is a continuation of the following discussion at David J Johnson's talk page. Here is the template massage David placed on my IP page: "Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to The Daily Telegraph, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Do not remove properly sourced content just because of your own view".

This message was inappropriate, since I did provide an adequate edit summary. To enlarge on the points being made in that summary; a list of non-notable employees from 2014 - a snapshot - is of little or no use in an encyclopedia. It would also need continuous maintenance, since it will inevitably become out of date. Indeed, the first named employee, Kate Day, has already left the organisation. David also said Do not remove properly sourced content just because of your own view". Firstly, of the three sources used in the disputed section, two purportedly pointed to a personal blog, and in fact now only point to a general Telegraph page. The other source is out of date, since it references Kate Day's position. In short, the content is not properly sourced. However, even if it was properly sourced, that does not exclude it from being removed if it is not relevant, or not needed, or for a host of other reasons. As noted, this type of content is of little or no use, so properly sourced or not, it can safely be removed without adversely affecting the article. Actually, I would consider this an improvement. For the reasons noted here, I'm removing the content again. I suggest this removal resets WP:BRD, so please revert again according to the terms of BRD, if you think it's necessary - and add to the discussion here if you do so. Thanks. 31.52.160.160 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

You did not supply any source or evidence that the info was out of date - only your own personal view that it was. It would have been advisable to have awaited other editors comments before again deleting the disputed content, you are now up to two deletions of the same wording. I have no intention of edit warring with you, as you appear to be a fairly new contributor, albeit using different IP addresses, rather than creating a Wikipedia account. David J Johnson (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I did say to revert again if you thought it necessary, in effect to do so without it being considered edit warring. My actions were a hundred percent in keeping with BRD, whereby a bold edit is just that. Discussion does not need to initially take place on the Talk page. According to BRD the onus is on the editor performing the revert to open the discussion. Anyway, let's not get bogged down with this type of stuff. Please feel free to revert again if you think the removal is not an improvement and we can discuss it further here. 31.52.160.160 (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure if these people are worth including, and as some are sourced to the paper's own blog it does rather seem to be original research. The status quo version should however be kept until consensus is reached here, so I am putting it back for now.Charles (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Anyone got further thoughts on this? There does seem to be a distinct lack of interest. 31.52.160.160 (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Charles comments above. The content does look to be WP:OR and due to the lack of any further observations by experienced editors can be deleted.. My main concern was that the IP was acting in a rather arrogant manner, by only using their own personal view, without sourcing or references; clearly WP:POV. However, that is now passed and this is my final comment on the subject. Regards to all, David J Johnson (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Support for Boris Johnson

Though mentioned in particular contexts, the obviously partisan support in general for Johnson's agendas at the expense of sound journalism require further examination in this article. Hanoi Road (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

It might also be helpful to mention the resignation of Graham Norton, who quit for this very reason and has stated so publicly. Hanoi Road (talk) 12:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

New section removed

Hi all. An editor removed a new section stating that: "[s]ection removed pending discussion. NPOV title; main citation is from political opponent ... " I am surprised there is no initiation of discussion here. The main citation comes from a news article of the Financial Times. I don't understand why it's being described as a "political opponent". The word "sleaze" is not a partisan take, it has been used by the Economist repeatedly about this affair (here and here). Thanks. --Now wiki (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to the Daily Mirror citation. Do other editors feel that "Vote for sleaze" is a neutral section heading? By the way, the usual procedure is bold, revert, discuss, with the bold editor starting a discussion (as you did here) rather than restoring the changes. Certes (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, my main source is the FT article if you haven't read it. In case there's a consensus, I don't mind to remove the citation from the Daily Mirror. BTW, BRD is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. There are alternatives that may be more appropriate in some situations. --Now wiki (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not feel that the section heading "Vote for sleaze" was in a neutral encyclopedic tone and I have changed it today to a more neutral heading. The tabloid Daily Mirror is not an ideal source as per WP:RSP and I have therefore removed it and requested an additional citation. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Political Stance

The paper is well known for being Conservative, but there's nothing notable about its postition on Climate Change or LGBT. That is just agitprop. --Flexdream (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I entirely agree, and was about to make the exact same comment about the very large section on LGBT, which seems completely disproportionate.

I worry greatly that Wikipedia is turning into a significantly ideologically-biased institution, rather than an objective neutral source of information. Even more worrying is that the majority of the contributors probably aren't even aware of their bias. DiverseSynergy (talk) 05:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself. Traptor12 (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Political alignment

What is the best description of the Telegraph's political alignment? Currently the infobox reads "Conservative", linked to Conservative Party (UK), but it has had alternatives such as "right wing" and "centre-right". The lead (end of first paragraph) has changed from small-c conservative (linked to Conservatism) to "hard right-wing". Should these two statements be consistent, and is there a consensus for a good description, ideally referenced from a NPOV source? Certes (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Political spectrum in lead

The paper's position on the political spectrum is already mentioned in the body and in the infobox. High-quality sources describing it thus are, to put it mildly, numerous. What is the objection to placing this piece of key information in the lead? Cambial — foliar❧ 14:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ruhrob: Multiple high-quality reliable sources describe The Daily Telegraph as "right-wing". It is reliable sources that determine content on Wikipedia. The objection that "I consider this as ideological bias" carries little force when Wikipedia is about reflecting reliable sources, and not about the opinions of its editors. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not about my opinion. One of the principles of Wikipedia is a neutral point of view. That directly goes against this principle. And saying that "it's about reflecting reliable sources" you just admitted this Ruhrob (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

This doesn't address what they said above - we reflect what the sources say, and they say it's right-wing. Yes, it is neutral to describe them in such a way. — Czello ^(music) 16:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I have sources, that consider the Telegraph as center-right. Multiple of them. Ruhrob (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

If you're pitching to change the description to include both then go ahead. That doesn't mean "right wing" gets removed, though. — Czello ^(music) 16:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

It gets. Since reliable sources state that it's center-left, the word "right-wing" will be removed Ruhrob (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I meant center-right Ruhrob (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

There would be no need to remove right wing as it's still sourced. — Czello ^(music) 17:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Al Jazeera, Private Eye and someone working for Bill Clinton said the Telegraph was right-wing. More local and prominent sources disagree. Certes (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Ideological position

There is no any reason to call the Telegraph "right-wing". It's definitely conservative and supports the Conservative party, but calling it "right-wing" is wrong. Moreover, the Guardian isn't described as left-wing, it's left and supports labourists. As an independent observer I consider this as ideological bias. Ruhrob (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The term "right-wing" is adequately sourced. What other articles do doesn't affect how this one should be described, either (though, on that note, the Guardian article does call it centre-left, with several references to Guardian readers being left-wing throughout. — Czello ^(music) 16:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

It's sourced by liberal media, that will of course call the Telegraph "right-wing", though it's not. You should stop putting your personal opinion and feelings into articles. It goes against the principle of neutral point of view Ruhrob (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

It's sourced by reliable sources. That's all that matters. Sources aren't obligated to be neutral themselves, so long as we adequately represent them. — Czello ^(music) 16:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I suggested adding a description of left-wing to The Guardian, supported by several reliable sources, but it was rejected because other sources used terms such as centre-left. I think the same logic applies here. Wikipedia is a proudly liberal community, but we shouldn't allow our prejudices to show through in articles. Certes (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The issue with the Guardian is that it's more left-wing than other UK publications, but that isn't particularly difficult given that they're mostly right-wing (indeed, every major newspaper apart from the Mirror is on that list). Thus, defining its actual position is somewhat problematic. I'm looking at its current online front page now and I certainly wouldn't go with "left-wing" at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a paper Telegraph but I'm looking at their current website content. Nothing on there today seems particularly right-wing. The lead stories report Israeli intransigence about Gaza and the conviction of a Tory MP, neither of which cover the right wing in glory. Of course, it's not my opinion that matters. Certes (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

We need to go with reliable and independent sources, though. The Telegraph has repeatedly printed material that is linked with the right/far-right and conspiracy theorists (climate change denial, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, COVID nonsense etc.) but does that make the entire newspaper "right-wing" in itself? Questionable. Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

What editors here think is right-wing or left-wing, fascist, communist, authoritarian, whatever, is irrelevant. Looking at their website and thinking about where you think the content falls has nothing to do with writing Wikipedia. Given the subject is a newspaper it is a direct competitor with multiple other news sources. This means essentially all news sources cannot be used as reliable sources in determining this point. Instead, we look to higher quality sources, namely scholarship. Literally dozens upon dozens of peer-reviewed articles by political specialists, media specialists, psephologists and others explicitly characterise the subject as a right-wing newspaper. They point out that it is widely understood to be a right-wing newspaper. Similarly, chapters in edited volumes of scholarship in media studies and politics characterise it as a right-wing newspaper. In that context, there is not a reason based in the policies that guide the creation of content on this website to avoid reflecting what the mainstream scholarship says on this subject: that the newspaper is right-wing. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Do we have reliable sources for that, other than rival publications which sit left of the Telegraph, e.g. examples of these academic articles? Citing those instead of Al Jazeera, Private Eye and an unnamed Clinton supporter would lend credibility to the claim. It might also be useful to read what those articles say about the Guardian and other newspapers; perhaps they could support or refute the statements about political position made in those articles. Certes (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Do we need to mention it twice in the first two paragraphs of the lead section that The Telegraph is conservative? At present, it's stated in the first paragraph of the lead that The Telegraph is a conservative national British daily broadsheet newspaper. The second paragraph of the lead then states "It is politically conservative and supports the Conservative Party." It seems to me that stating "It is politically conservative" in the second paragraph of the lead is, in essence, repetition of the first paragraph. In my view, stating once in the lead that The Telegraph is conservative and supports the Conservative Party is sufficient. The lead should only be a concise summary of the most important content. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)