How shitty is the Daily Mail? I hear it's pretty shitty..

^{Moni3, 30 June 2010}

Very shitty I'd say.

^{Nev1, 30 June 2010}

It's generally pretty shitty..

^{Malleus Fatuorum, 30 June 2010}

The Daily Mail is a cheap tabloid, its racist, misogynist, and I would say completely unreliable for anything other than a direct quotation.

^{Parrot of Doom, 30 June 2010}

The Daily Mail should almost never be used as a source for the same reason that Mickey Mouse and Friends should almost never be used as a source. It's not about information, it's primarily about entertainment. The only real difference is that the Daily Mail keeps up the appearance of being a newspaper because of its history and because it serves an adult market.

^{Hans Adler, 11 May 2011}

I support the withdrawal of any and all support for the Daily Mail as a reliable source...Pathological liars. Any publication can get things wrong occasionally, but all the evidence suggests that the Mail just doesn't care. Print what people want to hear, and ignore reality...

^{AndyTheGrump, 4 October 2011}

The Daily Mail is not a reliable newspaper. It's a fascist and populist journal and encyclopaedic resources shouldn't use Daily Mail articles as their source.

^{217.202.76.53, 22 November 2008}

Wow. I see that's up on the Main Page right now. I wonder how long it will take an admin to notice that the hook is cited to a Daily Mail "story" with the headline "How many MORE skeletons in Kate Middleton's closet?". Jesus wept.

^{MickMacNee, 13 May 2011}

Oh for f***s sake, what next? Why are we putting brainless tabloid trivia like that into DYK? Is someone trying to make a point, or merely exhibiting gross stupidity?

^{AndyTheGrump, 13 May 2011}

The Daily Mail is only a reliable source for the day of the week (though this should be verified by other sources).

^{AndyTheGrump, 3 June 2011}

The Daily Fail is not a reliable source for anything.

^{Stifle, 7 October 2012}

From my perspective, the Daily Mail coverage of medical and scientific issues is atrocious, on a good day...I would be very hesitant to use it as the sole source for tabloid-like claims in a WP:BLP - after all, Wikipedia is not (supposed to be) a tabloid.

^{MastCell, 13 November 2008}

I was laughing while I wrote this. In short, The Daily Mail copied large chunks of an article I wrote and still managed to get stuff wrong.

^{Nev1, 15 June 2009}

Did they mention that those Romans only came over to steal our benefits, impose a single currency and eat our swans?

^{iridescent, 15 June 2009}

I would hesitate to use the term "source" as this gives the suggestion of a degree of integrity and honesty that most would be suprised to hear of in the same sentence as The Daily Mail.

^{Waffle247, 16 April 2007}

I'm currently working on improving the "Gliese 581 g" article ... At first, I thought it was perfectly fine to use the Daily Mail as a source since it is the second largest daily newspaper in the United Kingdom, but after doing some further research about it, it turns out that the Daily Mail has been criticized for racism, homophobia, and printing false stories.

^{MartinZ02, 6 January 2017}

The best thing I can say about the Daily Mail is that the Weekly World News is a worse source. But I'm open to being wrong about that.

^{MjolnirPants, 6 January 2017}

The worst kind of tabloid spam journalism.

^{Laurdecl, 8 January 2017}

Kill it. Kill it with fire. Under NO circumstances should the Daily Mail be used for anything, ever. They have proven themselves to be willing to make up fake quotes and to create doctored pictures, and nothing they say or do is to be trusted. Their coverage of medical, science and political topics is a byword for deliberate inaccuracy. It is pretty close to a fake news source in some areas.

^{Guy Macon, 7-8 January 2017}

It should never ever be used for any support for factual content.

^{MASEM, 8 January 2017}

The Daily Mail is of frightfully low quality most of the time...I'm not comfortable with us using them as a source for anything, other than in some very very specific circumstances.

^{Jimbo Wales, 7 May 2011}

It should be a blocking offense to use the Daily Mail - and similar sources - to add negative information to BLPs. It's really really really bad...The Daily Mail is not a valid encyclopedic source in most cases. (There are a few rare exceptions, but even those should be subjected to the strictest possible scrutiny.) In particular, relying on a single tabloid source of known low quality to post outrageous accusations of salacious personal details of people's lives is wrong, wrong for Wikipedia, a violation of BLP policy, and not something that anyone should accept cavalierly. It is easy to solve this.

^{Jimbo Wales, 10 May 2011}

The circulation levels and length of publication of this trashy unreliable paper is irrelevant. It's still trashy and unreliable and should treated with grave caution in all cases - and generally discouraged as a source. Political or editorial stance is irrelevant, too. It's about the quality - which is too low for encyclopedic work.

^{Jimbo Wales, 10 May 2011}

I wonder how often we link to the Daily Mail as if it is actually a source for anything at all? The number of times we should do so is really quite small - for most things they are just useless.

DM Reporter on twitter keeps an eye on all their articles and the comments, recently back up after the account owner suffered a nervous breakdown

User_talk:Jenova20#Your_user_page

BAN THIS SICK FILTH!!!

Should I use the Daily Fail as a source on Wikipedia?

MastCell's list of medical articles which cite the Daily Mail as a source

Daily Mail song

*

User:John/Is the Daily Mail a reliable source?
^John

Criticism of the Daily Mail and Mail Online
^Jenova20

Why the Daily Mail is evil

I do not believe that sources like The Sun...should be used as a so-called "reliable" source. It's a gossip rag, much like the National Enquirer.

_{Wildhartlivie, 20 February 2008}

Regardless of any tendentious editing or stalking, I'd say that TMZ is definitely not a reliable source for anything.

^{Conti, 15 May 2009}

Why? What led you to this conclusion?

^{Dlabtot, 15 May 2009}

Being a "celebrity gossip" site, for starters. Have you visited the site? There are no authors (every article is by "TMZ Staff"), and the "articles" are short, sarcastic blurbs about whose butt got bigger or which celebrity got caught playing minigolf. Celebrity gossip isn't anything we want to cover here anyhow, per WP:BLP.

^{Conti, 15 May 2009}

..Basically it's sensationalist trivia, and should be excluded not because it may be unreliable, but because its stories will generally fall foul of WP:UNDUE, unless the wider significance of any particular "news" item is demonstrated, which will be with reference to more reliable sources - which can then be cited, obviating the need to cite TMZ. Basically if the need to cite TMZ for something arises (because there are no better sources), then that something should probably be excluded for WP:WEIGHT. Otherwise, cite the better sources.

^{Rd232, 18 May 2009}

If the only substantial source is TMZ then the statement should be clearly attributed: "Gossip website TMZ reported... ", and if TMZ is the only source for a significant statement then WP:UNDUE may be engaged.

^{Martinlc, 5 January 2012}

etc etc

2008 ChrisO v Tundrabuggy

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_35#National_Enquirer

Is the National Enquirer (in print since 1926 and not known for inventing stories) a reliable source?

^{RATEL, 15 May 2009}

"Not known for inventing stories"? WP:Editors_will_sometimes_be_wrong Are tabloids often right? Yep. Are they RS by WP standards? Nope. If the material is notable, it should end up in a citable place, until then best to leave tabloids out of BLPs.

^{Collect, 15 May 2009}

No way that the Enquirer should ever be considered a reliable source. They simply do not have a reputation for factual accuracy.

^{Blueboar, 15 May 2009}

Still waiting for a single instance of the National Enquirer being proved to be an unreliable source .... waiting, waiting...

^{RATEL, 15 May 2009}

Really. Why don't you check the article itself. I'd suggest that out of court settlements over libel and apologies over inaccuracies might constitute evidence. If you like I can look for more.

^{Protonk, 15 May 2009}

There aren't that many stories about their reliability "problems" because nobody takes them seriously. I'm astounded that anybody would consider taking them seriously from an encyclopedic viewpoint. Have you read an issue?

^{Bhimaji, 15 May 2009}

BLP Noticeboard: September 2013