This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
The Mail is an old and widely-read paper and like many tabloid newspapers, it has a long-standing reputation for sensationalism and severe partisanship. I don't feel the article is providing properly unbiased history, especially regarding contemporary incidents in which the Mail has published articles that have incited very forceful reactions from certain groups, demographics. Honestly, I hate the Mail so it's natural that I'd want to see negative aspects of the rag's history highlighted, but it really does seem to me that this article, while not clearly biased in favour of the Mail, doesn't make any real effort to provide an objective review of the Mail's history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.137.59 ( talk) 23:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
[Moved to its own section. shellac ( talk) 10:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Re the bit about Mosley being described in the "Hurrah for the blackshirts" article as having a "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine" - the link given as a reference (Voice of the turtle) doesn't use that phrase and I can't find it in this image: http://i.imgur.com/5MsbfxS.jpg which appears to be a scan of the article itself. I can't find a reliable source that actually supports the claim. Prak Mann ( talk) 00:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The section referring to the libel action by the Moonies makes no sense. The Unification Church claimed that it had been libelled by the Mail, but failed in the action, so the jury could not have awarded damages. It's quite possible that the Church faced costs of £750,000 (which would be a matter for the judge, not the jury) as a consequence of their failed action, but I've been unable to pin down a clear link to confirm that.
StephenJPC ( talk) 11:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Miller v. Associated Newspapers
No mention of the 6 year libel case won by Andy Miller in 2012 when he was awarded aggravated damages of £65,000. Story reported by The Guardian on 14 Nov 2014 with "Daily Mail faces £3m bill after libel battle with businessman Andy Miller" as headline.
No edit option on page to correct information [1]
In the Famous Stories section, is George's brush with the Mail really notable? First I've heard of it, not that that means anything. Ditto Samantha Brick's piece. Bromley86 ( talk) 18:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Not quite accurate there: I had heard about the Brick article/backlash. Just questioning whether it's as important as the other mentions. Full disclosure, Twitter confuses the hell out of me, so it may be something that twitterers consider important. Bromley86 ( talk) 21:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
The Ministry of Information and Communication Technology (Thailand) as of the time-stamp on this post is redirecting attempts to reach the Daily Mail website to MICT notice
Thai: เว็ปไซด์นี้มีเนื้อหาและข้อมูลที่ไม่เหมาะสม
this website has content and data which is unfit
กระทรวงเทคโนโลยีสารสนเทศและการสื่อสาร
Ministry of Information and Communication Technology
And further deponent saith not.-- Pawyilee ( talk) 12:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Blocked because one video clip or more (about very important persons) in the website. -- Love Krittaya ( talk) 13:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
While I appreciate efforts to keep this article succinct, I believe there is a high-profile libel lawsuit that has been overlooked: that of Keira Knightley in 2007, regarding claims that she has anorexia, and is thus an unhealthy role model for young women. My proposed edits are:
2007: Keira Knightley was awarded £3,000 after the Daily Mail alleged that she had an eating disorder, and thus promoted the unhealthy beauty standards that had led to the recent death of a 19-year-old girl suffering from anorexia. While Knightley acknowledged that members of her family have struggled with eating disorders in the past, and offered her condolences to the girl’s family, she was vehement that she herself has never had such an issue. All funds won in the case were donated to Beat, an organization dedicated to helping those with eating disorders. While the original article in question seems to have been retracted, a similar one published three days earlier can still be found here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-427243/Its-itsy-bitsy-teeny-weeny-Keira-Knightley.html
My source is: Dowell, B. (2007, May 24). Mail pays our over anorexia story. The Guardian. Retrieved 2015, February 17 from: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/may/24/dailymail.pressandpublishing
Thank you for your consideration!
Kateoyston ( talk) 21:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
On March 19th 2014, a column by Ephraim Hardcastle implied that two prominent scientists and University College London academics, Dr Hiranya Peiris and Dr Maggie Aderin-Pocock, had appeared on a televised show to discuss a major scientific breakthrough due to their gender and skin colour. Citing "Newsnight’s Guardian-trained editor, Ian Katz, is keen on diversity". The Vice-Provost for Research at UCL, Professor David Price, issued an open letter in protest to Paul Dacre, the Daily Mail's editor defending the credentials. The author of the column also wrongly stated that the discovery was made by a team of "white, male American" scientists when it was conducted by a diverse team around the world. Dr Maggie Aderin-Pocock stated that she had on that day received "10 requests for news interviews" and honoured several of them.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/mar/21/daily-mail-accused-of-insulting-top-female-scientists
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/phys/news/physics-news-publications/hp_20_03_14
(This is a case of the Mail receiving wide coverage for controversy on a science & tech story and the statement issued by top university UCL is unprecedented) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayngel ( talk • contribs) 18:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Many years ago my school history master told me that at the time of the Boxer rebellion, when Europeans in Peking had been surrounded and no news had been heard from them for some time, the Mail printed a story (a scoop) that they had been massacred, with lurid details. Some weeks later, when the besieged people were relieved by western troops, the story was proved to have been wholly fictional.
If true, perhaps this should be included?
86.189.232.181 ( talk) 13:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I feel like the introduction should have more added to it about the Mail's controversial stances. It regularly stirs up passions and criticisms, amongst right-wing and left-wing people alike, for various articles and features on a range of topics. 46.28.51.68 ( talk) 18:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The sentence added ("The paper has received harsh criticism from political commentators and politicians alike for its sensationalist reporting on a wide variety of subjects, as well as the controversial political views of its contributors.") is fully and utterly unreferenced, nor is its wording comported with the content of the article. It is also notable that all editorial columnists for all newspapers state opinions which may be "controversial", and singling out the DM for having such columnists is nicely absurd. It was restored with the incorrect claim "This isn't editorialising, it's backed up by information further down in the article which has the minor problem that the claim is not backed up at all by "information further down in the article."
Collect (
talk)
13:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Any newspaper which writes something of piss poor quality as [1] "Irina, having kept her glossy brunette locks down around her shoulders for the day, looked naturally gorgeous as she laughed away with her boyfriend, who just couldn't keep his hands off her as they enjoyed each other and the gorgeous subeating down on them" no longer has a place in my book on wikipedia. They don't even seem to spell check their pieces of crap journalism. The problem is that in some architectural articles it has been useful but the quality and reliability is very questionable if they have clumsy writers like Lucy Mapstone writing for the paper.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Daily Mail has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Writer for libel lawsuit against Gawker is named James King, not Jason King, as clearly bylined in the article linked for verification from Gawker. Wiki editor has it wrong in the wiki. 128.177.123.162 ( talk) 13:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Should we really have the slander about racism here? If you are racist you have to write hatefull things about a race, because of their race. The sources never prove they have done that. 2A02:2121:46:8BE:0:1:337C:5E01 ( talk) 17:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
The Editorial Stance section needs to be updated to reflect the fact the Daily Mail was arguably the most pro-Brexit of the tabloids and its headlines and coverage after the referendum continues to be noticeably pro-Leave with most pro-Remain groups and individuals being covered negatively. 68.146.233.86 ( talk) 14:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Daily Mail has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can somebody add the Start date and age template from the current "{Start date|1896|05|04}" to {start date and age|1896|5|4} to correspond to the Daily Mail's official founding date of May 4, 1896?
96.255.209.103 ( talk) 22:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Conservative seems inaccurate, the Daily Mail is to the far right of the political spectrum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.46.197.78 ( talk) 20:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Best ignore this comment: the Daily Mail sits right of centre, not far right. The original poster is evidently prejudiced Kentish 14:48 11 January 2017
Under the heading, "Other Criticisms", could the article include a line with referenced information about some of the more general criticisms, such as the Mail being accused of obsession with celebrity, pictures of celebrity children, property prices, asylum seekers and general scare stories?
There are a number of criticisms of the Mail in the article, for example, accusations of racism and criticisms regarding the Mail's coverage of medical stories, the BBC and Kate Middleton. There are also details of specific lawsuits. However, there is no reference at all to the more general accusations regarding celebrity, property prices, etc. Would a referenced sentence listing those kind of criticisms not give a more complete picture? CN3777 ( talk) 09:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
The body text of this article is over 50% critical of the Daily Mail. I suggest that 50% being "criticism" is actually quite ample. Gross "word count" is 6338 - including lists and section titles. 5150 nett after removing lists and section titles, etc. After removing all clearly POV material we have 3172 words remaining - of which abut 1000 are from the lead, or describe newspaper sections. So about 2000 actual words of straight text in the body of the article. And about 2000 words of criticism. Collect ( talk) 12:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. That is a valid point well made. Certainly, as a 'B' class article, there is room for improvement. In which case, would an attempted clean up of the critical parts not be the way forward, so that some brief general criticisms may be included under "Other Criticisms"? CN3777 ( talk) 13:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I will try. Suggestions welcome. CN3777 ( talk) 18:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Daily Mail. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Daily Mail has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Awards/Recieved section, please change "The Daily Mail has been awarded the National Newspaper of the Year in 1995, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2003 and 2012 by the British Press Awards [2]"
to
"The Daily Mail has been awarded the National Newspaper of the Year in 1995, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2003 and 2011 by the British Press Awards [3]"
because cited Guardian reference is incorrect - 2012 winner is the The Time [4]. Daily Mail is the winner of Newspaper of the Year 2011 as referenced [5] SammyHuman ( talk) 12:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
References
National Newspaper of the Year from British Press Awards 2014 The Times[22] 2013 The Guardian[23] 2012 The Times[24] 2011 The Daily Mail[25] 2010 The Guardian[26] 2009 The Daily Telegraph[27] 2008 The Times[28] 2007 Financial Times[28] 2006 The Observer[28] 2005 The Guardian[28] (see British Press Awards 2006) 2004 News of the World[28] 2003 The Independent[28] 2002 Daily Mail[28] 2001 The Daily Mirror[28] 2000 Daily Mail[28] 1999 The Sunday Telegraph[29] 1998 The Guardian[29] 1997 Daily Mail[29] 1996 The Daily Telegraph[29] 1995 Daily Mail[29] 1994 Daily Mail[29] 1993 The Daily Telegraph[29] Peter K Burian ( talk) 16:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
remove the link to the website so we don;t give this abysmal paper anymore traffic 86.175.9.183 ( talk) 11:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Not done - at the very least WP:CENSOR is broadly applicable here... Chaheel Riens ( talk) 12:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Can we have this updated to include the pertinent detail reported today that DM articles are not deemed credible sources for articles on here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.42.207 ( talk) 08:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
A: Well, first, Wikipedia should extinguish Daily Mail's article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.250.149.70 ( talk) 08:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article link to the "month-long" (per news stories) internal Wikipedia debate over the DM ban? That debate was obviously noteworthy. Brad ( talk) 05:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the lead is factually wrong, even if it summarizes the source accurately. The "panel of contributors" did not conclude that the Daily Mail could not be used. The panel of contributors participated in the consensus process, which a group of closing administrators then assessed. The source also describes this process as a "vote," which is clearly at odds with WP:NOTVOTE. What we have a is a paragraph pulled from a source pulled from comments on Wikipedia, placed squarely in the lead. This is poor encyclopedic form. Mr Ernie ( talk) 15:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
It's well sourced. Unless you can present sources to the contrary, the removal is against policy. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 02:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source Online encyclopaedia editors rule out publisher as a reference citing ‘reputation for poor fact checking and sensationalism’ It said: “Based on the requests for comments section [on the reliable sources noticeboard], volunteer editors on English Wikipedia have come to a consensus that the Daily Mail is ‘generally unreliable and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist’. Summarising the discussion, a Wikipedia editor wrote: “Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. An edit filter should be put in place, going forward to warn editors attempting to use the Daily Mail as a reference.”
Peter K Burian ( talk) 15:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC) https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website
There is no real evidence here, other than prejudice. Most tabloids in the U.K. are sensationalist and many people will remember the lies published by the Daily Mirror about British soldiers in the Middle East. There is nothing really wrong with the Mail but there is hate directed at it because it leans to the right politically. Is the Sun or Mirror or Star banned? Are the state owned media of extremist states banned? It's too easy to cry "fascist" but this is how the Wikipedia editors are behaving. A handful of editors reacting to their own regressive, prejudice, determining what millions can read. Just goes to prove....if you want a reliable, accurate encyclopaedia, don't read Wikipedia. Kentish 14 February 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.62.161 ( talk) 22:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
who are the 'editor(s)' who decided on behalf of entire Wiki community that the DM was an unreliable source? Someone trying to get a foot in the door at Conservative HQ? 78.147.137.165 ( talk) 22:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)puzzled democrat 78.147.137.165 ( talk) 22:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The discussion is closed. The decision to ban the DM is nothing to do with accuracy; rather it is the political bias of the unelected Wikipedia editors. Very similar to the Nazi book burning period. The editors don't like the Mail, so they have banned it and have decided to hide behind claims of "inaccuracy". Kentish 14 February 2017 GMT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.62.161 ( talk) 21:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
The fourth paragraph of the OTHER CRITICISMS section says, "users of the English Wikipedia rejected the Daily Mail as being a reliable source for its articles, deeming its reporting to be "generally unreliable"." Read literally, that would be true if only two (2) users rejected the Daily Mail. It would also be literally true if each and every user rejected the Daily Mail. That wording is, therefore, in desperate need of re-writing to remove the ambiguity and false impression of how important that event was. 97.120.31.14 ( talk) 18:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Daily Mail has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I have noticed the article includes very small, very very basic, very contemporary references to homophobic, racial, and sexist accusations against the Daily Mail. Given the newspaper's output spans decades and decades, and given there are numerous historical grievances against it, I believe these sections ought to be expanded to well beyond - only, currently - the past year or two. These sections give no impression whatsoever of the scale of abuse (or rather, the accusations of cultural abuse and litigation) that the Daily Mail is renowned and indeed infamous for. BeanHash ( talk) 12:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)— BeanHash ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I note that the requester is a WP:SPA, and that the amount of negative material in this article is already very substantial. Piling Ossa on Pelion is unwise and contrary to policy. Collect ( talk) 12:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
There are currently a number of perjorative redirects up for discussion. I was initially against keeping, but having read about Template:R from non-neutral name, it seems fair. And there's a The Grauniad redirect.
That The Grauniad links to a specific section that deals with it. Should there not be such a section here? If these names are significant, and if they appear in RS, there should be a short, neutral sub-section here, possibly under criticisms. Certainly, there's a Torygraph redirect, and The Telegraph mentions it. Thoughts? Bromley86 ( talk) 09:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add a hatnote to WP:DAILYMAIL
{{
selfref|For information about how "The Daily Mail" affects Wikipedia sourcing, see
WP:DAILYMAIL}}
-- 65.94.169.56 ( talk) 04:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
This content has quotes from DM reacting to the RfC. WP is not a newspaper. We aren't quotation driven at all. And it is unsurprising and uninteresting that DM reacted negatively, disagreeing with WP's decision. Somebody is under the misperception that NPOV means "fair and balanced", like newspapers are when they report "both sides" of an issue. That is not what WP does and not what NPOV means. We give WEIGHT per sources. Not per "side". Jytdog ( talk) 17:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Under "Criticism," the Mail's actions are headed "Homophobia accusations."
That may be bad enough, but it is surely far from being the worst line of criticism about that headline and article, which was an attack on the independence of the judiciary and hence on the British democratic system.
The judges are also variously portrayed as "Blair's Pal," and having "... a record of displaying short-tempered impatience,"
Unfortunately there is some lack of precision in the current Wikipedia article on this: the references do not support the points that are being made, and the Daily Mail Online in fact still refers to one judge as being 'Openly Gay' on its site today http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3903436/Enemies-people-Fury-touch-judges-defied-17-4m-Brexit-voters-trigger-constitutional-crisis.html
Citing the supposed sexual orientation of the judge was just one of several devices to undermine the authority of their judgement because the Mail didn't like it, not just or even for 'anti-gay motives.'
It is the revelatory and ad hominem nature of the Mail's attack that caused most offence, and concern that any argument would have been considered if it helped to denigrate the individuals who carried out their duty to uphold the Law: individuals who are prevented from responding, and definitely won't sue.
Thus there is a strong case that the headline here should be 'Sedition' or at least 'Attempt to Undermine Constitutional Judgement by Personal Attack on Judges,' but, lest those invite unnecessary controversy, may I suggest that at least some supported commentary along the lines of my two prior paragraphs be added here, as they are indeed the criticisms that have most concerned observers about the way the Mail has gone about promoting its view.
In fact the Mail's tactics here here have become further important mobilisers of the argument against press self-regulation, especially self-regulation of the press by the Mail's editor and his appointed successors.
Amusingly the Mail's online article today includes the phrase, "The judge who has threw a spanner in the works yesterday...," which offer lots of scope for criticism in its own right.
Atconsul ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Atconsul ( talk) 14:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
This is WP:Undue. The 1930s is a long time ago and is not relevant to today. The Times supported the Confederates in the 1860s and anti-Semitism in the 1920s, do we put in the lead "The Times even supported Confederate secessionists in the 1860s and anti-Semitism in the 1920s"? Marquis de Faux ( talk) 23:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I am no fan of The Daily Mail, as evidenced by the fact that The Daily Mail has publicly called me "an anonymous activist who appointed himself as censor to promote his own warped agenda on a website that's a byword for inaccuracy". [2] Nonetheless, I fully agree with Marquis de Faux. and when I finish writing this I am going to remove the ""Even supporting fascism in the 1930s" from the lead as being a violation of WP:NPOV. I am open to arguments for keeping it based upon evidence and logic, but if all you have to say is "the daily mail is bad so we can say whatever we want about it" please go to WP:DAILYMAIL and search on "Guy Macon" first. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I would note that the "supporting Fascism" material is far more properly ascribable as a position of its then-publisher than an ongoing position of the newspaper. Collect ( talk) 12:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Daily Mail has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Early History The Daily Mail, devised by Alfred Harmsworth (later Lord Northcliffe) and his brother Harold (later Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener), was first published on 4 May 1896.
The deignation of Harold Harmsworth as Herbert Kitchener is wrong (may be mischievous) It should read Harold Harmsworth, 1st Viscount Rothermere RobmacLta ( talk) 14:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Should the article have:
at the top of the page, similar to other hatnotes about usage. Currently a mass deletion of Daily Mail links is ongoing, and we should have our policy clearly listed. Other articles have links to usage guidelines including the article RFC. You can see here one editor removing the references on a massive scale. The rationale for deleting the hatnote was this RFC which does not have a clear consensus. -- RAN ( talk) 16:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Please also see this: Special:Permalink/803050951#Is_linking_to_WP:DAILYMAIL_in_article_main_space_appropriate.3F. — Paleo Neonate – 07:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
The Daily Mail is specifically mentioned in Chapter 3 of the Goblet of Fire, with Uncle Vernon reading it. J.K. Rowling has criticized the newspaper publicly as well. This should be mentioned in the "appearances in literature" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:579:6280:65:2C43:5CCD:9712:4D43 ( talk) 05:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Reading the section under "Support of fascism" it strikes me that the last sentence being placed there which states:
The paper editorially continued to oppose the arrival of Jewish refugees escaping Germany, describing their arrival as "a problem to which the Daily Mail has repeatedly pointed."
Is rather stretching encyclopaedic standards (its position I mean, not the sentence itself). By including it under "support for fascism" it implies that all those who, for whatever reason, had a negative view of refugees from Germany also supported fascism - obviously untrue (and indeed by that time the Daily Mail had come out against fasism as noted in the same section) - and also the way it reads is as if to undermine the previous two sentences, in particular the one discussing the end of the Daily Mail's support for the British fascists. The only source given is an opinion piece at the Guardian that is written about current events and uses the events from the 1930s to advance a political argument about current events. I don't dispute the quote or the facts but juxtaposing them in that fashion is not neutral.
It strikes me that it is perfectly sensible to have mention of the Daily Mail's edtorial stance on this issue and frankly I can't work out where else it could be placed so thought I would raise the flag and see if anyone else can figure this out. However as it currently reads it isn't neutral, it implies strongly that they didn't *really* stop supporting fascism and this ediotiral stance is the evidence. I realise looking at other discussions on this page that some will believe that to be so, I offer no comment, but it needs tidying up.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c5:2385:9400:b490:6c2:f059:313 ( talk) 02:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Section - Overview
Will someone please remove the long false bollocks, that -
The publisher of the Mail, the Daily Mail and General Trust, is currently a FTSE 250 company.
DMGT isn't even in the top 350. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.221.9 ( talk) 17:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Section - Overview -
Will some also update the dead-tree bollocks at -
From -
Circulation figures according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations in March 2014 show gross daily sales of 1,708,006 for the Daily Mail.[8]
To -
Circulation figures according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations at November 2017 show gross daily sales of 1,383,932 for the Daily Mail.
ABC URL -
https://www.abc.org.uk/product/2115 — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
217.42.221.9 (
talk)
17:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Cheers zzuuzz
My apologies, I missed similar duplicate bollocks in the preceding paragraph. Could someone also please remove the 13 year old crap -
The paper has a circulation of around two million, which is the fourth largest circulation of any English-language daily newspaper in the world.[19] — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
217.42.221.9 (
talk)
18:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi zzuuzz
The cite is 13 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.221.9 ( talk) 18:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Wiki can't falsely say DM has 2 million circ, then on next line say actually 1.3 million. ;-)
Daily Mail is 38th in world ranking
List of newspapers by circulation,
version you cited was also using same old outdated data from MARCH 2017. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
217.42.221.9 (
talk)
18:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
The "Other criticisms: section contains the following wording.
In February 2017, the English Wikipedia community decided that the Daily Mail was "generally unreliable" to use as a reference in Wikipedia. Some in the discussion objected on the grounds that the more formal decision had no precedent, that it would be widely misinterpreted, and that the Daily Mail is useful for some topics, such as sports reporting. The Daily Mail issued a statement objecting to the decision, while other parties expressed little surprise.
I have a couple of problems with this.
First, why no link to the source for the claim made in the first sentence? The source can be found at WP:DAILYMAIL.
Secondly, why are the only opinions cited those from the minority who opposed, with no mention of why the majority supported?
The following is a bit wordy, but I believe that is accurately summarizes the reasons why we made that decision. The above paragraph should reflect at least some of the following:
@
Guy Macon: I'm mostly satisfied with your most recent changes. It may already have been cited using
WP:PRIMARY sources, but secondary sources are preferred (which you have since included). Your original contribution contained obviously improper
WP:SYNTHESIS, and clearly referenced your own contributions to the RfC (highly inappropriate). Citing (largely) un-referenced allegations posted on a Wikipedia project page to support otherwise non-policy compliant material is certainly a novel way of circumventing policies/guidelines. Wikipedia could generate its own sources that way.
In future, note that it is very bad form to respond to criticism by baselessly alleging the "whitewashing" of articles. It looks even worse if you do so while referencing a different version of the article to the one reverted; i.e., the one which replaced your original, inappropriate changes (and which I did not revert). L.R. Wormwood ( talk) 12:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
The general themes of the support !votes centred on the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication. Examples were provided to back up these claims.
I've been content to sit in the background and observe - but I have to get involved when an editor claims that agreement between himself and one single editor is an overriding and infallible consensus. "agreement" <> "consensus".
Chaheel Riens (
talk)
12:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Do we prefer the 12:30, 26 February 2018 version, or the 18:10, 26 January 2018 version, of the paragraph on the February 2017 decision to ban the Daily Mail as a source on English Wikipedia? L.R. Wormwood ( talk) 12:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
The Mail is an old and widely-read paper and like many tabloid newspapers, it has a long-standing reputation for sensationalism and severe partisanship. I don't feel the article is providing properly unbiased history, especially regarding contemporary incidents in which the Mail has published articles that have incited very forceful reactions from certain groups, demographics. Honestly, I hate the Mail so it's natural that I'd want to see negative aspects of the rag's history highlighted, but it really does seem to me that this article, while not clearly biased in favour of the Mail, doesn't make any real effort to provide an objective review of the Mail's history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.137.59 ( talk) 23:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
[Moved to its own section. shellac ( talk) 10:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Re the bit about Mosley being described in the "Hurrah for the blackshirts" article as having a "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine" - the link given as a reference (Voice of the turtle) doesn't use that phrase and I can't find it in this image: http://i.imgur.com/5MsbfxS.jpg which appears to be a scan of the article itself. I can't find a reliable source that actually supports the claim. Prak Mann ( talk) 00:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The section referring to the libel action by the Moonies makes no sense. The Unification Church claimed that it had been libelled by the Mail, but failed in the action, so the jury could not have awarded damages. It's quite possible that the Church faced costs of £750,000 (which would be a matter for the judge, not the jury) as a consequence of their failed action, but I've been unable to pin down a clear link to confirm that.
StephenJPC ( talk) 11:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Miller v. Associated Newspapers
No mention of the 6 year libel case won by Andy Miller in 2012 when he was awarded aggravated damages of £65,000. Story reported by The Guardian on 14 Nov 2014 with "Daily Mail faces £3m bill after libel battle with businessman Andy Miller" as headline.
No edit option on page to correct information [1]
In the Famous Stories section, is George's brush with the Mail really notable? First I've heard of it, not that that means anything. Ditto Samantha Brick's piece. Bromley86 ( talk) 18:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Not quite accurate there: I had heard about the Brick article/backlash. Just questioning whether it's as important as the other mentions. Full disclosure, Twitter confuses the hell out of me, so it may be something that twitterers consider important. Bromley86 ( talk) 21:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
The Ministry of Information and Communication Technology (Thailand) as of the time-stamp on this post is redirecting attempts to reach the Daily Mail website to MICT notice
Thai: เว็ปไซด์นี้มีเนื้อหาและข้อมูลที่ไม่เหมาะสม
this website has content and data which is unfit
กระทรวงเทคโนโลยีสารสนเทศและการสื่อสาร
Ministry of Information and Communication Technology
And further deponent saith not.-- Pawyilee ( talk) 12:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Blocked because one video clip or more (about very important persons) in the website. -- Love Krittaya ( talk) 13:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
While I appreciate efforts to keep this article succinct, I believe there is a high-profile libel lawsuit that has been overlooked: that of Keira Knightley in 2007, regarding claims that she has anorexia, and is thus an unhealthy role model for young women. My proposed edits are:
2007: Keira Knightley was awarded £3,000 after the Daily Mail alleged that she had an eating disorder, and thus promoted the unhealthy beauty standards that had led to the recent death of a 19-year-old girl suffering from anorexia. While Knightley acknowledged that members of her family have struggled with eating disorders in the past, and offered her condolences to the girl’s family, she was vehement that she herself has never had such an issue. All funds won in the case were donated to Beat, an organization dedicated to helping those with eating disorders. While the original article in question seems to have been retracted, a similar one published three days earlier can still be found here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-427243/Its-itsy-bitsy-teeny-weeny-Keira-Knightley.html
My source is: Dowell, B. (2007, May 24). Mail pays our over anorexia story. The Guardian. Retrieved 2015, February 17 from: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/may/24/dailymail.pressandpublishing
Thank you for your consideration!
Kateoyston ( talk) 21:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
On March 19th 2014, a column by Ephraim Hardcastle implied that two prominent scientists and University College London academics, Dr Hiranya Peiris and Dr Maggie Aderin-Pocock, had appeared on a televised show to discuss a major scientific breakthrough due to their gender and skin colour. Citing "Newsnight’s Guardian-trained editor, Ian Katz, is keen on diversity". The Vice-Provost for Research at UCL, Professor David Price, issued an open letter in protest to Paul Dacre, the Daily Mail's editor defending the credentials. The author of the column also wrongly stated that the discovery was made by a team of "white, male American" scientists when it was conducted by a diverse team around the world. Dr Maggie Aderin-Pocock stated that she had on that day received "10 requests for news interviews" and honoured several of them.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/mar/21/daily-mail-accused-of-insulting-top-female-scientists
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/phys/news/physics-news-publications/hp_20_03_14
(This is a case of the Mail receiving wide coverage for controversy on a science & tech story and the statement issued by top university UCL is unprecedented) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayngel ( talk • contribs) 18:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Many years ago my school history master told me that at the time of the Boxer rebellion, when Europeans in Peking had been surrounded and no news had been heard from them for some time, the Mail printed a story (a scoop) that they had been massacred, with lurid details. Some weeks later, when the besieged people were relieved by western troops, the story was proved to have been wholly fictional.
If true, perhaps this should be included?
86.189.232.181 ( talk) 13:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I feel like the introduction should have more added to it about the Mail's controversial stances. It regularly stirs up passions and criticisms, amongst right-wing and left-wing people alike, for various articles and features on a range of topics. 46.28.51.68 ( talk) 18:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The sentence added ("The paper has received harsh criticism from political commentators and politicians alike for its sensationalist reporting on a wide variety of subjects, as well as the controversial political views of its contributors.") is fully and utterly unreferenced, nor is its wording comported with the content of the article. It is also notable that all editorial columnists for all newspapers state opinions which may be "controversial", and singling out the DM for having such columnists is nicely absurd. It was restored with the incorrect claim "This isn't editorialising, it's backed up by information further down in the article which has the minor problem that the claim is not backed up at all by "information further down in the article."
Collect (
talk)
13:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Any newspaper which writes something of piss poor quality as [1] "Irina, having kept her glossy brunette locks down around her shoulders for the day, looked naturally gorgeous as she laughed away with her boyfriend, who just couldn't keep his hands off her as they enjoyed each other and the gorgeous subeating down on them" no longer has a place in my book on wikipedia. They don't even seem to spell check their pieces of crap journalism. The problem is that in some architectural articles it has been useful but the quality and reliability is very questionable if they have clumsy writers like Lucy Mapstone writing for the paper.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Daily Mail has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Writer for libel lawsuit against Gawker is named James King, not Jason King, as clearly bylined in the article linked for verification from Gawker. Wiki editor has it wrong in the wiki. 128.177.123.162 ( talk) 13:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Should we really have the slander about racism here? If you are racist you have to write hatefull things about a race, because of their race. The sources never prove they have done that. 2A02:2121:46:8BE:0:1:337C:5E01 ( talk) 17:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
The Editorial Stance section needs to be updated to reflect the fact the Daily Mail was arguably the most pro-Brexit of the tabloids and its headlines and coverage after the referendum continues to be noticeably pro-Leave with most pro-Remain groups and individuals being covered negatively. 68.146.233.86 ( talk) 14:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Daily Mail has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can somebody add the Start date and age template from the current "{Start date|1896|05|04}" to {start date and age|1896|5|4} to correspond to the Daily Mail's official founding date of May 4, 1896?
96.255.209.103 ( talk) 22:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Conservative seems inaccurate, the Daily Mail is to the far right of the political spectrum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.46.197.78 ( talk) 20:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Best ignore this comment: the Daily Mail sits right of centre, not far right. The original poster is evidently prejudiced Kentish 14:48 11 January 2017
Under the heading, "Other Criticisms", could the article include a line with referenced information about some of the more general criticisms, such as the Mail being accused of obsession with celebrity, pictures of celebrity children, property prices, asylum seekers and general scare stories?
There are a number of criticisms of the Mail in the article, for example, accusations of racism and criticisms regarding the Mail's coverage of medical stories, the BBC and Kate Middleton. There are also details of specific lawsuits. However, there is no reference at all to the more general accusations regarding celebrity, property prices, etc. Would a referenced sentence listing those kind of criticisms not give a more complete picture? CN3777 ( talk) 09:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
The body text of this article is over 50% critical of the Daily Mail. I suggest that 50% being "criticism" is actually quite ample. Gross "word count" is 6338 - including lists and section titles. 5150 nett after removing lists and section titles, etc. After removing all clearly POV material we have 3172 words remaining - of which abut 1000 are from the lead, or describe newspaper sections. So about 2000 actual words of straight text in the body of the article. And about 2000 words of criticism. Collect ( talk) 12:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. That is a valid point well made. Certainly, as a 'B' class article, there is room for improvement. In which case, would an attempted clean up of the critical parts not be the way forward, so that some brief general criticisms may be included under "Other Criticisms"? CN3777 ( talk) 13:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I will try. Suggestions welcome. CN3777 ( talk) 18:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Daily Mail. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Daily Mail has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Awards/Recieved section, please change "The Daily Mail has been awarded the National Newspaper of the Year in 1995, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2003 and 2012 by the British Press Awards [2]"
to
"The Daily Mail has been awarded the National Newspaper of the Year in 1995, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2003 and 2011 by the British Press Awards [3]"
because cited Guardian reference is incorrect - 2012 winner is the The Time [4]. Daily Mail is the winner of Newspaper of the Year 2011 as referenced [5] SammyHuman ( talk) 12:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
References
National Newspaper of the Year from British Press Awards 2014 The Times[22] 2013 The Guardian[23] 2012 The Times[24] 2011 The Daily Mail[25] 2010 The Guardian[26] 2009 The Daily Telegraph[27] 2008 The Times[28] 2007 Financial Times[28] 2006 The Observer[28] 2005 The Guardian[28] (see British Press Awards 2006) 2004 News of the World[28] 2003 The Independent[28] 2002 Daily Mail[28] 2001 The Daily Mirror[28] 2000 Daily Mail[28] 1999 The Sunday Telegraph[29] 1998 The Guardian[29] 1997 Daily Mail[29] 1996 The Daily Telegraph[29] 1995 Daily Mail[29] 1994 Daily Mail[29] 1993 The Daily Telegraph[29] Peter K Burian ( talk) 16:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
remove the link to the website so we don;t give this abysmal paper anymore traffic 86.175.9.183 ( talk) 11:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Not done - at the very least WP:CENSOR is broadly applicable here... Chaheel Riens ( talk) 12:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Can we have this updated to include the pertinent detail reported today that DM articles are not deemed credible sources for articles on here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.42.207 ( talk) 08:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
A: Well, first, Wikipedia should extinguish Daily Mail's article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.250.149.70 ( talk) 08:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article link to the "month-long" (per news stories) internal Wikipedia debate over the DM ban? That debate was obviously noteworthy. Brad ( talk) 05:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the lead is factually wrong, even if it summarizes the source accurately. The "panel of contributors" did not conclude that the Daily Mail could not be used. The panel of contributors participated in the consensus process, which a group of closing administrators then assessed. The source also describes this process as a "vote," which is clearly at odds with WP:NOTVOTE. What we have a is a paragraph pulled from a source pulled from comments on Wikipedia, placed squarely in the lead. This is poor encyclopedic form. Mr Ernie ( talk) 15:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
It's well sourced. Unless you can present sources to the contrary, the removal is against policy. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 02:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source Online encyclopaedia editors rule out publisher as a reference citing ‘reputation for poor fact checking and sensationalism’ It said: “Based on the requests for comments section [on the reliable sources noticeboard], volunteer editors on English Wikipedia have come to a consensus that the Daily Mail is ‘generally unreliable and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist’. Summarising the discussion, a Wikipedia editor wrote: “Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. An edit filter should be put in place, going forward to warn editors attempting to use the Daily Mail as a reference.”
Peter K Burian ( talk) 15:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC) https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website
There is no real evidence here, other than prejudice. Most tabloids in the U.K. are sensationalist and many people will remember the lies published by the Daily Mirror about British soldiers in the Middle East. There is nothing really wrong with the Mail but there is hate directed at it because it leans to the right politically. Is the Sun or Mirror or Star banned? Are the state owned media of extremist states banned? It's too easy to cry "fascist" but this is how the Wikipedia editors are behaving. A handful of editors reacting to their own regressive, prejudice, determining what millions can read. Just goes to prove....if you want a reliable, accurate encyclopaedia, don't read Wikipedia. Kentish 14 February 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.62.161 ( talk) 22:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
who are the 'editor(s)' who decided on behalf of entire Wiki community that the DM was an unreliable source? Someone trying to get a foot in the door at Conservative HQ? 78.147.137.165 ( talk) 22:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)puzzled democrat 78.147.137.165 ( talk) 22:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The discussion is closed. The decision to ban the DM is nothing to do with accuracy; rather it is the political bias of the unelected Wikipedia editors. Very similar to the Nazi book burning period. The editors don't like the Mail, so they have banned it and have decided to hide behind claims of "inaccuracy". Kentish 14 February 2017 GMT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.62.161 ( talk) 21:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
The fourth paragraph of the OTHER CRITICISMS section says, "users of the English Wikipedia rejected the Daily Mail as being a reliable source for its articles, deeming its reporting to be "generally unreliable"." Read literally, that would be true if only two (2) users rejected the Daily Mail. It would also be literally true if each and every user rejected the Daily Mail. That wording is, therefore, in desperate need of re-writing to remove the ambiguity and false impression of how important that event was. 97.120.31.14 ( talk) 18:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Daily Mail has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I have noticed the article includes very small, very very basic, very contemporary references to homophobic, racial, and sexist accusations against the Daily Mail. Given the newspaper's output spans decades and decades, and given there are numerous historical grievances against it, I believe these sections ought to be expanded to well beyond - only, currently - the past year or two. These sections give no impression whatsoever of the scale of abuse (or rather, the accusations of cultural abuse and litigation) that the Daily Mail is renowned and indeed infamous for. BeanHash ( talk) 12:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)— BeanHash ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I note that the requester is a WP:SPA, and that the amount of negative material in this article is already very substantial. Piling Ossa on Pelion is unwise and contrary to policy. Collect ( talk) 12:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
There are currently a number of perjorative redirects up for discussion. I was initially against keeping, but having read about Template:R from non-neutral name, it seems fair. And there's a The Grauniad redirect.
That The Grauniad links to a specific section that deals with it. Should there not be such a section here? If these names are significant, and if they appear in RS, there should be a short, neutral sub-section here, possibly under criticisms. Certainly, there's a Torygraph redirect, and The Telegraph mentions it. Thoughts? Bromley86 ( talk) 09:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add a hatnote to WP:DAILYMAIL
{{
selfref|For information about how "The Daily Mail" affects Wikipedia sourcing, see
WP:DAILYMAIL}}
-- 65.94.169.56 ( talk) 04:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
This content has quotes from DM reacting to the RfC. WP is not a newspaper. We aren't quotation driven at all. And it is unsurprising and uninteresting that DM reacted negatively, disagreeing with WP's decision. Somebody is under the misperception that NPOV means "fair and balanced", like newspapers are when they report "both sides" of an issue. That is not what WP does and not what NPOV means. We give WEIGHT per sources. Not per "side". Jytdog ( talk) 17:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Under "Criticism," the Mail's actions are headed "Homophobia accusations."
That may be bad enough, but it is surely far from being the worst line of criticism about that headline and article, which was an attack on the independence of the judiciary and hence on the British democratic system.
The judges are also variously portrayed as "Blair's Pal," and having "... a record of displaying short-tempered impatience,"
Unfortunately there is some lack of precision in the current Wikipedia article on this: the references do not support the points that are being made, and the Daily Mail Online in fact still refers to one judge as being 'Openly Gay' on its site today http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3903436/Enemies-people-Fury-touch-judges-defied-17-4m-Brexit-voters-trigger-constitutional-crisis.html
Citing the supposed sexual orientation of the judge was just one of several devices to undermine the authority of their judgement because the Mail didn't like it, not just or even for 'anti-gay motives.'
It is the revelatory and ad hominem nature of the Mail's attack that caused most offence, and concern that any argument would have been considered if it helped to denigrate the individuals who carried out their duty to uphold the Law: individuals who are prevented from responding, and definitely won't sue.
Thus there is a strong case that the headline here should be 'Sedition' or at least 'Attempt to Undermine Constitutional Judgement by Personal Attack on Judges,' but, lest those invite unnecessary controversy, may I suggest that at least some supported commentary along the lines of my two prior paragraphs be added here, as they are indeed the criticisms that have most concerned observers about the way the Mail has gone about promoting its view.
In fact the Mail's tactics here here have become further important mobilisers of the argument against press self-regulation, especially self-regulation of the press by the Mail's editor and his appointed successors.
Amusingly the Mail's online article today includes the phrase, "The judge who has threw a spanner in the works yesterday...," which offer lots of scope for criticism in its own right.
Atconsul ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Atconsul ( talk) 14:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
This is WP:Undue. The 1930s is a long time ago and is not relevant to today. The Times supported the Confederates in the 1860s and anti-Semitism in the 1920s, do we put in the lead "The Times even supported Confederate secessionists in the 1860s and anti-Semitism in the 1920s"? Marquis de Faux ( talk) 23:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I am no fan of The Daily Mail, as evidenced by the fact that The Daily Mail has publicly called me "an anonymous activist who appointed himself as censor to promote his own warped agenda on a website that's a byword for inaccuracy". [2] Nonetheless, I fully agree with Marquis de Faux. and when I finish writing this I am going to remove the ""Even supporting fascism in the 1930s" from the lead as being a violation of WP:NPOV. I am open to arguments for keeping it based upon evidence and logic, but if all you have to say is "the daily mail is bad so we can say whatever we want about it" please go to WP:DAILYMAIL and search on "Guy Macon" first. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I would note that the "supporting Fascism" material is far more properly ascribable as a position of its then-publisher than an ongoing position of the newspaper. Collect ( talk) 12:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Daily Mail has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Early History The Daily Mail, devised by Alfred Harmsworth (later Lord Northcliffe) and his brother Harold (later Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener), was first published on 4 May 1896.
The deignation of Harold Harmsworth as Herbert Kitchener is wrong (may be mischievous) It should read Harold Harmsworth, 1st Viscount Rothermere RobmacLta ( talk) 14:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Should the article have:
at the top of the page, similar to other hatnotes about usage. Currently a mass deletion of Daily Mail links is ongoing, and we should have our policy clearly listed. Other articles have links to usage guidelines including the article RFC. You can see here one editor removing the references on a massive scale. The rationale for deleting the hatnote was this RFC which does not have a clear consensus. -- RAN ( talk) 16:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Please also see this: Special:Permalink/803050951#Is_linking_to_WP:DAILYMAIL_in_article_main_space_appropriate.3F. — Paleo Neonate – 07:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
The Daily Mail is specifically mentioned in Chapter 3 of the Goblet of Fire, with Uncle Vernon reading it. J.K. Rowling has criticized the newspaper publicly as well. This should be mentioned in the "appearances in literature" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:579:6280:65:2C43:5CCD:9712:4D43 ( talk) 05:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Reading the section under "Support of fascism" it strikes me that the last sentence being placed there which states:
The paper editorially continued to oppose the arrival of Jewish refugees escaping Germany, describing their arrival as "a problem to which the Daily Mail has repeatedly pointed."
Is rather stretching encyclopaedic standards (its position I mean, not the sentence itself). By including it under "support for fascism" it implies that all those who, for whatever reason, had a negative view of refugees from Germany also supported fascism - obviously untrue (and indeed by that time the Daily Mail had come out against fasism as noted in the same section) - and also the way it reads is as if to undermine the previous two sentences, in particular the one discussing the end of the Daily Mail's support for the British fascists. The only source given is an opinion piece at the Guardian that is written about current events and uses the events from the 1930s to advance a political argument about current events. I don't dispute the quote or the facts but juxtaposing them in that fashion is not neutral.
It strikes me that it is perfectly sensible to have mention of the Daily Mail's edtorial stance on this issue and frankly I can't work out where else it could be placed so thought I would raise the flag and see if anyone else can figure this out. However as it currently reads it isn't neutral, it implies strongly that they didn't *really* stop supporting fascism and this ediotiral stance is the evidence. I realise looking at other discussions on this page that some will believe that to be so, I offer no comment, but it needs tidying up.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c5:2385:9400:b490:6c2:f059:313 ( talk) 02:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Section - Overview
Will someone please remove the long false bollocks, that -
The publisher of the Mail, the Daily Mail and General Trust, is currently a FTSE 250 company.
DMGT isn't even in the top 350. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.221.9 ( talk) 17:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Section - Overview -
Will some also update the dead-tree bollocks at -
From -
Circulation figures according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations in March 2014 show gross daily sales of 1,708,006 for the Daily Mail.[8]
To -
Circulation figures according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations at November 2017 show gross daily sales of 1,383,932 for the Daily Mail.
ABC URL -
https://www.abc.org.uk/product/2115 — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
217.42.221.9 (
talk)
17:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Cheers zzuuzz
My apologies, I missed similar duplicate bollocks in the preceding paragraph. Could someone also please remove the 13 year old crap -
The paper has a circulation of around two million, which is the fourth largest circulation of any English-language daily newspaper in the world.[19] — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
217.42.221.9 (
talk)
18:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi zzuuzz
The cite is 13 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.221.9 ( talk) 18:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Wiki can't falsely say DM has 2 million circ, then on next line say actually 1.3 million. ;-)
Daily Mail is 38th in world ranking
List of newspapers by circulation,
version you cited was also using same old outdated data from MARCH 2017. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
217.42.221.9 (
talk)
18:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
The "Other criticisms: section contains the following wording.
In February 2017, the English Wikipedia community decided that the Daily Mail was "generally unreliable" to use as a reference in Wikipedia. Some in the discussion objected on the grounds that the more formal decision had no precedent, that it would be widely misinterpreted, and that the Daily Mail is useful for some topics, such as sports reporting. The Daily Mail issued a statement objecting to the decision, while other parties expressed little surprise.
I have a couple of problems with this.
First, why no link to the source for the claim made in the first sentence? The source can be found at WP:DAILYMAIL.
Secondly, why are the only opinions cited those from the minority who opposed, with no mention of why the majority supported?
The following is a bit wordy, but I believe that is accurately summarizes the reasons why we made that decision. The above paragraph should reflect at least some of the following:
@
Guy Macon: I'm mostly satisfied with your most recent changes. It may already have been cited using
WP:PRIMARY sources, but secondary sources are preferred (which you have since included). Your original contribution contained obviously improper
WP:SYNTHESIS, and clearly referenced your own contributions to the RfC (highly inappropriate). Citing (largely) un-referenced allegations posted on a Wikipedia project page to support otherwise non-policy compliant material is certainly a novel way of circumventing policies/guidelines. Wikipedia could generate its own sources that way.
In future, note that it is very bad form to respond to criticism by baselessly alleging the "whitewashing" of articles. It looks even worse if you do so while referencing a different version of the article to the one reverted; i.e., the one which replaced your original, inappropriate changes (and which I did not revert). L.R. Wormwood ( talk) 12:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
The general themes of the support !votes centred on the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication. Examples were provided to back up these claims.
I've been content to sit in the background and observe - but I have to get involved when an editor claims that agreement between himself and one single editor is an overriding and infallible consensus. "agreement" <> "consensus".
Chaheel Riens (
talk)
12:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Do we prefer the 12:30, 26 February 2018 version, or the 18:10, 26 January 2018 version, of the paragraph on the February 2017 decision to ban the Daily Mail as a source on English Wikipedia? L.R. Wormwood ( talk) 12:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)