Talk:The Daily Telegraph

Circulation and ownership

What would be helpful to me is decade-by-decade figures on average daily circulation. Can anyone add that to the article?

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

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)