Talk:The Sydney Morning Herald/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Bias, what?

What's the deal with

Although more journalistly responsible than The Daily Telegraph, several of the paper's leading journalists, particularly Miranda Devine and Gerard Henderson are well known for their so-called "conservative" (right-wing) views and in previous times the Herald was noted for its conservatism.

The phrase 'although more journalistically responsible' seems to suggest a dichotomy with journalistic integrity on the one hand and conservatism on the other. Doesn't this sound more NPOV

The modern Herald is noted for its journalistic integrity and editorial balance, with both left leaning contributors like David Marr and cartoonist Michael Leunig, and conservative writers such as Miranda Devine and Gerard Henderson. However, historically the paper has been characterised as a right of centre counter-point to the liberal Melbourne Age, especially during David Syme's tenure as editor of the latter.

This article must be improved to compete with The Age's!

Sir Politic, KBE 15:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


Ethics policy

An earlier edit of this article removed the information on the Herald's ethics policy. This was the reason given: (→Journalism - everyone newspaper has an ethics policy, not worth mentioning in such detail especially if only marketing prose is going to be used)

This is in fact not true - outside of the general code of ethics which applies to all working journalists in Australia, only The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald have published ethics polities which apply to the journalists they employ.

The reason the document is distinct from the general code of ethics (published by the MEAA, the journalist's union) is the Age/Herald ethics policy is far stricter - prohibiting a range of activies, including junkets, gifts etc, which are routinely accepted by other newspapers.

To my knowledge the only newspapers in the US and UK which have similar policies are the Guardian (UK), the LA Times, NY Times and Washington POst (US). (150.101.112.232 10:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC))

POV edit

An edit was just made to the article about the use of the word football, which was highly POV:

Controversially the Sydney Morning Herald has decided to call soccer "football". Rugby League is accepted as football in Sydney although the Herald had been calling AFL "football" for the previous few years. This move was met with almost universal condemnation and has been percieved as foreign "English cultural imperialism" as the editor, Alan Oakley, originated from England. Oakley controversially refused to publish condemnatory letters about the move, only publishing positive letters. Although an accepted practice in Murdoch tabloids, this was looked down upon by many who thought that Fairfax had higher standards. The Sydney Morning Herald sales have since continued to decline.

It might have some place, but the attribution of declining sales to the use of the word football to describe soccer is ridiculous. --AMorris (talk)●(contribs) 08:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Reformat

Did a reformat that I hope is not too controversial. --Ehinger222 11:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I notice that you have pretty much removed all mention of the political leanings from both the Daily Telegraph article AND the SMH article, any justification for this edit? Additionally what source backs up the claim that the telegraph has a higher circulation than the Herald, or for that matter why is the telegraph even mentioned in this article? Im seeing POV all over the recent edits. BTAUS 13:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Instead of wholesale removal of large chunks of text, how about a bit of creative editing. Admittedly some of the previous was not needed, see blogs, but there was still valid infortmation in the rest of it. Nomadtales 05:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe that either of the two papers are very different politically, one is just far more sensationalist. I have revrted the whole thing. If in depth coverage of politics is required, than I think a new page should be created for the whole thing as I think it is just too complicated and difficult to grasp on a page that is meant to give an outline of the paper. Also I think there was massive bias in how the herald was treated compared to the Telegraph so I was simpl being bold about it. --Ehinger222 12:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems clear to me the the Tele is centre-right and the SMH is centre-left, but it seems equally clear otherwise to others. I find the SMH sensationalises on its pet issues, for example the environment, transport and urban planning. Others think the Tele sensationalises on education, health and crime. What matters is what is verifiable. A close inspection of either paper shows that they do not toe a consistent line politically across all their content. It may be frustrating, but in the absence of credible, verifiable sources on the two papers' allegiances, we'll have to leave politics and style characterisations out. Joestella 21:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The head honcho of fairfax, Ron Walker, is a liberal. How the herald can be called left wing is beyond me. --Ehinger222 11:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Election endorsements

In recent years, the SMH has endorsed both Labor and Liberal campaigns at election time. In 2003, they endorsed the state Labor government. At the 2004 federal election, they announced a new policy of not endorsing anyone, with the caveat that "A truly awful government of any colour, for example, would bring reappraisal." In 2007's state election they endorsed the Coalition. Jeendan's wording "once again endorsed the Coalition" suggests that the SMH reverted to type, when in recent times the paper has been willing to support either party. Joestella 05:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Reshuffle of sections?

Is it just me or does everything seem a bit out of order?

At the moment its

Intro

  1. Contributors
  2. Overview
  3. Circulation
  4. Features
  5. History
  6. Editors

I would argue that it should be something like:

Intro

  1. History
  2. Overview
  3. Contributors
  4. Previous Editors
  5. Circulation
  6. Features

Perhaps even a merging of History and Overview is on the cards? Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jpk82 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Controversy

I will soon delete this section. Non-notable and only contains links to a personal blog. How's that for dubious? I think added by someone with an agenda to push. Recurring dreams 05:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I support that DXRAW 06:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
And it's back. Tim Blair is notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article: the SMH itself called him the "top dog among the new Australian digerati". Joestella 05:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
A throaway line in an article about blogging is not enough to make Tim Blair an authoratative resource. Furthermore the incident mentioned is not notable, with no coverage or commentary from mainstream media. Recurring dreams 00:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, "Recurring dreams", but just because you would prefer there be no criticism of the SMH, doesn't lift that criticism out of existence. The policy in question did receive coverage in the mainstream media (the Herald Sun), but no web link is available. Joestella 01:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Joe, I have never said anywhere I would prefer no criticism of the SMH. In fact, if you have properly referenced criticism of the SMH surrounding a major issue, discussed in the mainstream media, then please go nuts. But in the meantime, I would prefer that half the "politics" section of the a major newspaper not be filled with commentary from a blogger.Recurring dreams 01:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Joe that paragraph is not acceptable for a number of reasons. It's unencyclopedic, uses weasel words and has a single blog as the only cited source. Claiming that people removing the paragraph are trying to hide criticism is a straw man. It draws potentially defamatory conclusions that need to be backed up by reliable sources. Sarah 01:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not possible under Australian law to defame a corporation. Please don't peddle faulty legal advice to back your talk page arguments: talk of "potentially defamatory conclusions" on this page is overblown. Joestella 01:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

That said, although I disagree with the suggestion that the source is unreliable, the consensus appears to have gone the other way on this. Joestella 01:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
"Peddle faulty legal advice?" You've got to be joking. I haven't giving legal advice, but just for your info, and not specifically about this particular issue, Wikipedia's servers are in Florida and we operate under the Florida and US legal system, not Australia's. And I wasn't actually talking about defaming a corporation. I was referring to comments on that blog, that you want us to link directly to at least twice, that include comments that may be capable of identifying, you know, living people. You seriously need to cut the invective and crap you keep injecting into talk pages and edit summaries. Sarah 02:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Now, now, Sarah. Calm down. My views are not "crap" simply because you disagree. On the issue under discussion here, a consensus has emerged. I accept that. Move on.

That said, it is important that you not attempt to cloak your arguments in legalese when you are misrepresenting the law. Wikipedia is not deemed responsible for user-generated comments attached to the content of linked sites, here or in the US. And it is my understanding that US law is even more friendly to publishers than Australian law in matters of defamation. The paragraph, and Blair's blog posts, do not identify the originators of the SMH policy in question. The only entity that could even begin to claim it was defamed is the SMH itself.

Again, to use inaccurate references to the law to back up your perspectives on talk pages is the sort of discussion technique that is likely to intimidate other editors. I'd ask that you, as it were, "cease and desist". ;) Joestella 04:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Herald front page

I realise that the "Race riots explode" front page is getting a bit old, but I think it is more photogenic than the recent upload which is a bit bland. The bland one is more representative of a typical day's cover though. What do others think? Kewpid 13:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I did like the symmetry of having the same story on the SMH and Tele cover illustrations. But the one you've put up is nicer to look at. And Earth Hour is referenced in the article. Joestella 01:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the Earth Hour reference is far too prominent in this article. It was a good cause but not such a "big deal" that it is worthy of a mention here. Downunda 23:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
That said, the Earth Hour now has quite a bit of prominence in the article... though it doesn't reflect well on the paper. Joestella 09:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Coverage of Wikipedia at SMH

More than just a war of words - Not sure if this is worth mentioning at this article, or elsewhere on Wikipedia?Garrie 10:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The article says more about Wikipedia than the SMH. Can we put it there? Recurring dreams 22:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
how about Wikipedia:Press coverage. WikiTownsvillian 22:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge Column 8

I propose merging Column 8 with this article, since there is 100% overlap and Column 8 fails the notability test. Joestella 12:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose merge After reading both articles, there appears to be no overlap, the column is distinct in its own right with its own history, etc, and merits an article to distinguish it clearly from the main part of the newspaper. Where would it go if merged in here? DanielT5 13:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Please re-read The Sydney Morning Herald. You will find the overlap. The column has no history outside the pages of the SMH and cannot reasonably be considered distinct. Joestella 13:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Column 8 is a long running feature of the SMH and should definetly be in this article. --Nick Dowling 01:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose merge per DanielT5 DXRAW 06:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd love to know how DXRAW came to the conclusion that 'Column 8' is "distinct in its own right with its own history". Care to add this knowledge to the article? Joestella 06:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per DanielT5. JRG 07:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment I don't think that this even needed to be brought up for a vote as Column 8 is a section of the SMH and is no way notable except as a feature of the Herald. While it looks like the merge is going to be voted down and I guess that the merge shouldn't go ahead if that is the case, it seems that several people don't seem to have a rationale for their vote - something which I believe is generally frowned on. --Nick Dowling 06:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I tried to merge it and a couple of users reverted it, saying that while they supported the move, it needed a discussion. Those users haven't contributed to this discussion, of course. DanielT5, DXRAW and I go way back. Joestella 08:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I see no evidence of these users DXRAW 08:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty clear DXRAW is editing in bad faith. The evidence is where you'd expect. Talk:Column 8.

  • Recurring dreams: "I do accept your decision on the article"
  • Sarah: objected to a unilateral merge, but expressed no opinion on the merge as such
  • Calair: "I am inclined to agree that this article could be absorbed into the SMH article"

Does that help? Joestella 08:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added this to the list of proposed mergers. You can see why I tried to avoid this whole process to begin with: these votes aren't intellectually rigorous, they just get personal. Joestella 08:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Support, I am not getting personal, and am very much an outsider, but I agree with Joestrella and Nick, Column 8 is a small part of The Sydney Morning Herald and always has been, the article is never going to grow in size from nothing more than a stub. The content should be merged into this article and redirected to here. Easily done. Nomadtales 10:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
...a couple of users reverted it, saying that while they supported the move, it needed a discussion. Those users haven't contributed to this discussion, of course. Actually, what was said - as can be seen at Talk:Column 8 - was that people should be given the chance to discuss it. My personal opinion is that Joestella's arguments for merging are reasonable, I haven't seen any convincing arguments against, and therefore it should be merged. But I also think that when several editors are likely to object to such a move - and I count three above who did - soliciting input first is a better way to handle things.
Also, remarks like "It's pretty clear DXRAW is editing in bad faith" aren't helpful - AFAICT, DXRAW simply missed the fact that the reverts you mentioned had taken place on Column 8 rather than here. Better to avoid such accusations unless all innocent explanations have been eliminated. --Calair 13:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Calair, rather than attacking me again, why not take a look at the sequence of events, and the text of the comments, here. The three opponents of the merge are opposing "per" DanielT5's spurious reasoning that "column is distinct in its own right with its own history," a gratuitous untruth from a man who I doubt has ever seen a copy of the Herald. I have a right to be suspicious of their motives. I feel vindicated in that this remains an uncontroversial merge. So can we put you down for a support, or are you just here to stick the boot in? Joestella 14:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I repeat: "...therefore it should be merged". I'm not sure how that could be further clarified. I support merging via the current process, but not via that which you originally attempted, nor your belligerent tone towards other editors. --Calair 03:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Support per commonsense. ChampagneComedy 22:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

At the moment there is no commonsense DXRAW 23:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Support, Column 8 is an SMH institution and is worthy of a mention on Wikipedia, but a separate page is unnecessary. Merge into SMH article and redirect link. Euryalus 11:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - another stupid idea. Column 8 is a Sydney institution. Albatross2147 02:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it really an institution in isolation from the SMH? It's even named after where it historically appeared on the SMH's front page! --Nick Dowling 08:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Support Unless someone comes up with some references to support the Column 8 article, independant of the publisher, Sydney Morning Herald.Garrie 10:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the suggested merge tag, as there appeared to be no consensus after several weeks of discussion. The last comment was 3 weeks ago (not five as I stated in my edit summary - a counting error, sorry). On that basis I am assuming this conversation has died a natural death.
Please revive it if you feel there is merit in further discussion. Euryalus 03:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge Sun-Herald

I propose merging The Sun-Herald with this article.

  • There is little information on the Sun-Herald, so anything on the paper can be added to the SMH article, at least for now
  • Other Australian newspaper articles do not have separate articles for the Saturday and Sunday editionsJoestella 12:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose established in 1953 a separate paper and now has 53 years of history. It also has its own editor, reporters and staff. Deserves own article. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 03:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I think most Australian Sunday newspapers have their own editor, but no other Australian Sunday newspaper has its own article. Joestella 13:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per Ianblair23 DXRAW 06:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per Ianblair23. JRG 07:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Support the Sun Herald is only the Sunday edition of the SMH, even if it does have different staff. The Sunday Telegraph forms part of the The Daily Telegraph (Australia) article. --Nick Dowling 09:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per Ianblair23 Not only does the Sun Herald have different staff, it has a different editorial position (its supported Labor in the 2007 NSW election, in contrast to the SMH, Tele, Sunday Tele). Just because there is a limited amount now doesn't mean more cannot be added. Recurring dreams 11:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence of this pro-Labor editorial position? The Sun-Herald can't run an election-eve recommendation, and no Sun-Herald editorials seem to appear on their website they share with the SMH. Joestella 13:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The Sun-Herald doesn't post its editorials online (I think). But here's a good wrap up of editorial positions (and an extract from the Sun-Herald editorial) on William's excellent pollbludger site here: Link Recurring dreams 13:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I wonder if any of this material should be added to New South Wales general election campaign, 2007. Joestella 13:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Support, should be part of Sydney Morning Herald article until the content is there to warrant a separate article. WikiTownsvillian 09:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment, I would support if the Sun-Herald was always just a Sunday spin-off from the SMH, but if it was actually a completely seperate newspaper that Fairfax just bought up then it would have had its own history to start with, so therefore I would oppose. After a quick glance, in the article and on the Sun-Herald webpage, I can't see an answer to that question, so perhaps someone here knows. Nomadtales 10:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Fairfax bought the Sun, which had its own history, and discontinued it in favour of a new Sun-Herald. I'm not opposed to an article on the now-defunct Sun, but apart from its start and end dates we have no info on it. Joestella 14:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment the Sun Herald doesn't have its own website - it appears on the SMH's website. --Nick Dowling 10:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Support per commonsense. ChampagneComedy 22:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment ChampagneComedy, could you please explain how it is "commonsense" to go ahead with this merge. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, the Sun Herald has its own editorial staff, journalists and political/cultural views. It is to all intents and purposes a separate newspaper to the SMH.Euryalus 11:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - stupid idea by lunatic deletionistas - Ianblair23 offers less combative reasons with which I agree Albatross2147 02:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the suggested merge tag, as there appeared to be no consensus after several weeks of discussion. The last comment was 3 weeks ago (not five as I stated in my edit summary - a counting error, sorry). On that basis I am assuming this conversation has died a natural death. Please revive it if you feel there is merit in further discussion. Euryalus 03:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

educated population

DXRAW, your 'source' says nothing about the education levels of the readership of the SMH, your statement is POV. Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 08:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Howdy WikiTownsvillian - we must have been editing at the same time - I had noticed that POV and adjusted as you will see on the edit summary. Cheers!--VS talk 08:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
It was not 'my' statement DXRAW 09:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Let's calm down a little more - it's Sunday and we are all on the same team. Statement was adjusted (and then re-adjusted by another anon editor). I am sure that WikiTownsvillian didn't mean anything personal, and naturally (as I hope all will understand) once something is referenced by an editor -s/he assumes some ownership of that alleged fact.--VS talk 09:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
They should not and i don't assume ownership because of WP:OWN DXRAW 09:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that type of ownership DXRAW my words say 'some ownership - in otherwords I am saying - if you don't want to defend it, don't reference it - WP:AGF please!--VS talk 10:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"Radical redesign" in 2000

The article states that paper was radically redesigned in 200, but does not provide any detail. I am not aware of the details or I would put it in myself. Can anyone who is a longer-term Sydney resident provide additional material to flesh this out? Euryalus 09:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it used to have comlumn 8 on the front page and the letters to the editor were on the other side of the editorial page. --144.132.216.253 15:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Merger of Good Weekend (Sydney Morning Herald) to SMH

Political viewpoint

I thought Granny had recommended a vote for the ALP the 1961 Federal Election hence the close run thing that year. Albatross2147 (talk) 09:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Political allegiance Centre-Left?

Is there a source for this? Otherwise, I would think this technically falls under "original research", and with the lack of any source even suggesting the possibility of them being "allied" to centre-left, I suggest that this "Political allegiance" claim be removed entirely. If it isn't claimed by Sydney Morning Herald, nor by any other reputable source, it doesn't belong in this article. Aielyn (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, looking through again, and I see most people here in the discussion page are saying that they're mostly "centrist" and "anti-incumbent". I'm going to go ahead and remove the "Political Allegiance" entirely - if someone thinks it should be reinstated, please provide a source for the claim. Aielyn (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Is Sydney Morning Herald a serious newspaper?

I would like to ask whether Sydney Morning Herald is a serious newspaper or not. The reason that I ask this question is that I read an article on it website at here. It writes: "The rally was in response to a Chinese military crackdown in Xianjing in western China at the weekend during what was intended to be a peaceful protest; 156 people were reported to have died."

Actually, I was told it was written as "The rally was in response to the deaths of 156 Uighurs in a Chinese military crackdown in Xianjing in western China at the weekend during what was intended to be a peaceful protest." but later revised. I found this version at this link. I don't know where does the yahoo news come from.

The fact is at least 156 people were killed in the riots by the Uyghur rioters. Most of the victims are Han people. --Jinhuili (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Column 8 and good weekend

Just came across this article today. Struck me as a bit odd that there would be long sections about Column 8 and the Good Weekend. Why choose these two parts of the paper for sections of their own? I then saw this is because they were articles of their own that were previously merged. I propose making a new section called "Content", and having Column 8, Good Weekend, etc as subsections. People could add "Good living" etc if they wanted. Thoughts?--Amaher (talk) 04:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

March 13 - 14 Weekend Issue

Did you know the SMH is already up to 58 804 issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.164.239 (talk) 06:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Gaza Flotilla

{{edit protected}} If we are going to mention this, perhaps the names of the journos should be too? They are Paul McGeough and Kate Geraghty a photograher. I also made it more NPOV, ie 'detained' as per my reference' rather than jailed

reference;
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/aussie-photographer-kate-geraghty-tasered-during-flotilla-raid/story-e6frf7lf-1225874808220
By staff writers From: news.com.au June 3, 2010 , Accessdate=June 3, 2010

Current

Two Sydney Morning Journalists were involved in the Gaza flotilla clash in 2010; their communications were cut off for 8 hours by Israel military censorship. The journalists have been jailed by Israel.[5]


Edited

Two Sydney Morning Hearld journalists, Paul McGeough and photographer Kate Geraghty were involved in the Gaza flotilla raid in May 2010; their communications were cut off for 8 hours by Israel military censorship. The journalists were temporarily detained by Israel and then expelled.

Then again perhaps it should not be there at all, as many journos get into such problems?
Whoever answers this request, perhaps you could put a 'lock' symbol on the page too, as it appear it is indefinitely protected.
Thanks! I am 220.101.28.25 (talk) Contribs 16:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just unprotected it, so do it yourself ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 Done :-Þ It's only after 3 AM! I should be ZzZzZz I am 220.101.28.25 (talk) Contribs17:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Move to Sydney Morning Herald?

Am I tripping, or did this used to be there? But there's nothing in the move log, so... weird.

Anyway should this actually be at the above address? I have a feeling there's a wikipolicy on not having "The" in the title, even if that's the official name. eg. University of Melbourne. Thoughts? pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The proper name of the paper is "The Sydney Morning Herald". The article should stay as it is. --Centauri 19:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy (see WP:THE) is to include "The" if it is always capitalised. It appears that Fairfax itself refers to it as "The Sydney Morning Herald" (not "the Sydney Morning Herald") mid-sentence, so it is correct to keep "The" in the title. However, there also seem to be references that omit "The" altogether (e.g., the title bar on www.smh.com.au says "Sydney Morning Herald), so this may be open to debate. —sroc (talk) 11:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Opening line is poor. Centre-left what?

If this word is meant to represent the newspaper's editorial politcal stance, then that is what needs to be said. Something like 'genarally known as politically centre-left' - not just 'centre-left' which on its own makes no sense at all. The line reads better if the term is just deleted, and anyone who's interested in the political leanings of the editorial can read on... 210.7.132.79 (talk) 07:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

GLAM target article

Just a notification that this article will be the target of Wikipedia:GLAM/SLNSW a two-day GLAM training session at the State Library of New South Wales starting tomorrow (Tuesday 27th Nov). Any Wikipedians interested in helping out online would be welcomed. If this article is on your watchlist, please consider it an opportunity for some intensive collaboration over the next couple of days. If you notice new editors making mistakes - be kind! --99of9 (talk) 06:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The oldest continuously published newspaper in the southern hemisphere?

Although the statement has a reference (a column in the The Global Mail), that article doesn't give any details to support that assertion, except that the newspaper was founded in 1831. By the other way El Peruano (founded in 1825) from Peru, Diario de Pernambuco from Brazil (founded in 1825) and El Mercurio de Valparaíso (founded in 1827) from Chile were all founded before the The Sydney Morning Herald and are also located in the southern hemisphere.

The Sydney Morning Herald is not included in the List of the oldest newspapers article. I suggest to include it the list but delete the statement of "the oldest continuously published newspaper in the southern hemisphere", as there are at least three other newspapers in the southern hemisphere that were founded before The Sydney Morning Herald and that are still in circulation. JM Salamanca (talk) 09:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on The Sydney Morning Herald. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with The Sydney Morning Herald Best Young Australian Novelists

There is next to no independent coverage on the award, and as such the article is unlikely to meet WP:GNG. Merging it into the parent article could be an idea. Kb.au (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I understand your point, and will try to find some more independent coverage, which I agree is lacking. (Note that the awards are listed in the AustLit database, and are referenced by bookshops and publishers when promoting authors.) It is difficult finding more academic references for recent literary awards. However, I think the award is established now and has identified many writers who have gone on to be significant, so much so that most of them have their own Wikipedia pages, that it warrants a separate page. Would merging it into the SMH page become a bit unwieldy as, over the years, more and more winners are added. It could start to unbalance the SMH page it seems to me. In the end though, the main thing is to have this award in Wikipedia Sterry2607 (talk) 12:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
No, that's not the main thing. If it doesn't meet WP:GNG the main thing is not to have it in Wikipedia. Notability is not infectious; just because notable writers win the award, the notability does not rub off on the award. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Support merge (removing list of winners altogether; the award has its own website for that). To be honest, I'm a bit surprised I didn't just AFD the award when I saw it in early March. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. In my view this doesnt meet WP:GNG when you look down each of the criteria.James.au (talk) 07:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, but what do you think of the proposed merger? (Perhaps you think 'open an AFD instead'...) Pinkbeast (talk) 09:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes I think an AFD might be more appropriate. I dont support the merger.James.au (talk) 10:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
It is very easy to find the award quoted in many places, so I suggest it would have sufficient WP:NEXIST to support WP:GNG. The article could be improved if the genre of the book for each award was also listed. Aoziwe (talk) 12:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep (and not merge). The point of the award is not that "notable authors win the award". It is that winners of the award are likely to become notable. --Scott Davis Talk 03:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep a notable award with some coverage in sources -- Whats new?(talk) 05:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

In the light of the above (one merge, one merge/delete, one delete, 3 keep) I'm leaving it alone, which seems the most harmless option with no clear consensus in favour of any option. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

How far back should sources be used in Australia's 3 big newspapers when looking at political bias?

I'm wondering how far back can we go when discussing the Big 3 newspapers in Australia> In the SMH article we aree using 2004 sources "In 2004, the newspaper's editorial page stated:..." I think we should remain consistent. Also are we able to rely on articles from the paper itself tpo determine political bias or alignment, as we are doing here in the infobox?Merphee (talk) 03:23, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

  • NeutralityThis source Media Bias/Fact Check was just deleted and called not a reliable source. Could you justify that given it has been used by the likes of BBC! It would be helpful to have discussed your reasons here but anyway I'm pinging you now.Merphee (talk) 06:22, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
My edit summary was quite clear. It’s not a reliable source because it’s self-published (See WP:SELFPUB) and there is zero indication that the resource is authoritative or has editorial control. Moreover, we already cite sources that are actually reliable (including university press-published books). Juxtaposing a self-published website against far better sources is against Wiki policy. Neutralitytalk 14:50, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Neutrality on this one. Read the Media bias factcheck "about us" page- the editor states he is an "armchair media analyst" with no actual qualifications in media. Basically he runs, edits and publishes the site with several volunteer editors. It's a very interesting site, and may well be a good place to look stuff up to get a rough idea, but RS it isnt. It also seems a bit US centric, in that there is more detailed written analysis on American media; all the Australian newspapers I looked up just had standard boilerplate text and lacked any sort of nuance, and the methodology the website uses isn't really explained. It shouldn't be used as as a stand alone source, and not against university press/well known publishers books. Curdle (talk) 22:16, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
As for your earlier query, re age of sources, if you want up to date sources, both books used are less than two years old, and they agree with the SMH's own statements that they have historically, and in the present, had a centrist position. So you have the conclusion that SMH claims it aims for a centrist position, and other independent sources agree. Curdle (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Interesting though how the BBC uses it as a reliable source, isn't it Curdle. Gosh it can't be too arm-chairish.Merphee (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Original research and synth?

Endymion.12Can you justify your inclusion of this bold edit please. [1] Seems very much like original reasearch and synth to me. Merphee (talk) 10:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I decline to engage in another WP:IDHT back-and-forth with you. Both sources confirm that Coalition is centre-right (this didn't even need in-line citation) and there is nothing further to say, except that if you continue to misrepresent/refuse to acknowledge/make provably false statements about sources you will eventually be held to account and lose your editing privileges. Endymion.12 (talk) 11:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Haha seriously Endymion.12, no false statement was made. I consider your comments a personal attack. You need to pull your head in dude. I added centre-left to the ALP by the way. Funny how you followed me over to this article too. Seems like harassment and hounding to me. You've stalked and hounded a number of other editors on Wiki too. Here is just one example of another editor you've attacked and similarly stalked like you are doing to me. [2] You really do have form don't you. There are other editors too. Stop your stalking behaviour of editors who you've clashed with I suggest or you will be the one losing your priveleges! Merphee (talk) 11:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
The irony is that by citing that edit all you have done is demonstrate that you have in fact been stalking my edits over the past few weeks. I have edited articles for newspapers/the media before, and I will continue to make edits to whichever articles I please, even if that inadvertently results in me reverting any POV-pushing or substandard contributions you make across multiple articles. This talk page is coming off my watchlist, have a nice one. Endymion.12 (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Haha, yeah right you just have all of the world's newspapers on your watch list. You've never edited this article before. you saw my editing here and came to hound and harass me like you've done with so many other editors. You used the same lame excuse with the other editor I included as just an example. Stop harassing and hounding me and following me around. Let it go dude. It was resolved over at the other article we edited. I accepted the outcome. I suggest you move on and stop showing up on articles I edit and you never have, otherwise I'm going to report you for hounding. Merphee (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Centre-left

Endymion.12Can you stop edit warring please and discuss in a civil manner why you deleted the very well sourced edit that has been in the article for a couple of weeks. [3] Please also keep discussion focused entirely on content rather than attack me personally as you have so often done when I try to discuss edits. Thanks. I look forward to resolving this with you. Merphee (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Endymion.12 I don't want to edit war with you but you refuse to discuss this on the talk page. Please discuss it with me instead of edit warring and then not engaging in discussion here on the talk page. We can resolve this amicably. Merphee (talk) 07:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Endymion.12 As can be seen I have not reverted as I do not wish to engage in an edit war with you. However you do need to discuss the reason you are opposed to including this section rather than just revert my well sourced edit. Thank you. Merphee (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Endymion.12 This is the fourth request by me to ask you why you are reverteting my well sourced edit? Look forward to a civil content focused comment. If you have no reason please dont keep reverting the edit. It is disruptive. Merphee (talk) 05:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Endymion.12 Is there different wording that you would be happy with? How can we resolve this for you. The edit is well sourced. Look forward to a civil discussion as to how we can resolve this. Merphee (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the challenged text. It's been challenged by at least two editors now. I do not find this "well sourced" at all. "In other sources" is weasel wording, and the source not RS. This is a gossip column (entitled "Tips and Rumours") written pseudo-anonymously ("Ms Tips") in a blog/newsletter (Crikey). That's not an acceptable source. Other sourcing elsewhere in the section is of a higher caliber - i.e., books published by Palgrave Macmillan and Cornell University Press. This must stay out until and unless consensus develops for inclusion. Neutralitytalk 16:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The SMH is undoubtedly in 2020 a center left paper with the bulk of its writers pro ALP and it should be stated as so. It is similar to the Australian as it has a lot of hard news but there are numerous examples of its writers and editorial page display a clear moderate left bias. Furthermore anyone who reads the pages of the Letters to the editor will see that nearly 90% of those letters reflect readers with left to very left views. Examples of specific left leaning writers include: Ross Gitins in Business - overtly pro Keynesian, pro high taxation and larger size of govt - these are clearly Center left views and cannot be described as centrist. Despite the current Federal Govts large govt spending his columns are laced with ideological opposition. There are many other examples, Elizabeth Farrelly on planning; Jacqueline Malley; Waled Aly; Peter Fitzsimmons - I could go on and on. One more example - the OECD says Australia has the second highest taxes on profits and wages yet - the SMH has been relentless in its campaign against the current govts tax cuts - despite most economists describing them as offering mere compensation for bracket creep. In general on any economic matter - the SMH references the left wing Australia Institute with no disclosure as to it’s links to the Labor party. Please be fair and update this page to reflect its clear center left ideological position. Dulwichhillecon (talk) 12:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your personal opinion, but be aware that content in Wikipedia depends on reliable sourcing. Without a reliable, independent source supporting your view, it is of no value here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Sydney_Morning_Herald/Archive_1&oldid=1164609683"