Talk:Daily Mail/Archive 4

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 2

Archive 3

→

"Climate Progress" as source

"Climate Progress is dedicated to providing the progressive perspective on climate science, climate solutions, and climate politics. " makes cklear that this is pure editorial opinion at best, closely allied with a specific position on AGW. It is not RS for anything at all more than Romm's personal opinions as it is a blog without stated editorial review. At the very best it can be listed as the blog of a person who was in control of over $1 billion in research money related to clean energy etc. Collect (talk) 11:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is "Collect" editing out an innocuous statement about the Mail's stance on climate change? I sourced climateprogress.org, which in turn has a thoroughly documented article. Why suppress the science? Viewpoints should not be edited, just because someone doesn't like them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasethesky (talk • contribs) 15:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

See WP:SPS, blogs are not usually considered good sources. Soxwon (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

"Innocuous"??? Not. Collect (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, rather than "innocuous" a better word would be noncontroversial. Its noncontoversial to say that the DM's editorial stance is skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. Likewise, it's noncontroversial to say that the National Snow and Ice Data Center has contested the DM's reporting. Now, you may believe that the NSIDC is part of a conspiracy of scientists to promote global warming alarmism. But it's still clear that the NSIDC in fact contests the DM's reporting. See http://nsidc.org/news/ So how does it hurt the wikipedia article, or the DM, for that matter, to have this information in the article? A range of views can only improve the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasethesky (talk • contribs) 20:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, note the wikipedia guidelines regarding "self-published sources": "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasethesky (talk • contribs) 20:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you asserting that the author is an expert on newspapers? Collect (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

As Collect has already explained blogs are not reputable sources, end of. Anyone can start a blog and say whatever they like. If blogs were accepted as RS then people would start blogs just to push their own personal agenda onto Wikipedia articles. Christian1985 (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy - Possible Source?

I'm no wiki expert but I thought this might be a valuable contribution. Rather than include it straight away I thought I would quote the source and let it be considered first.

"The second thing to recognise about the Mail is that, more than any other newspaper in Britain, it deals in falsehood and distortion. There is a glimpse of this in our review of records of the Press Complaints Commission. In among the thousands of cases which had fallen by the way, we drew up a league table of complaints which had succeeded, either because the PCC had eventually adjudicated against a newspaper, or because the paper had agreed some kind of resolution to satisfy the complainant. The showed that, over time, only four papers had suffered more than fifty successful complaints - The Times, the Mirror, the Sun and comfortably ahead, with 153 successful complaints about its reporting, the Daily Mail. The average number of successful complaints for the rest of Fleet Street was forty-three for each paper. On that basis, over that ten year period, the Daily Mail have been provoking justifiable complaint about unethical behaviour at just over three times the rate of other national titles." Davies, Nick. Flat Earth News, Vintage, 2009, p. 366

I'm think a summary of this information could go under a Criticism, Complaints or Accuracy section? (Harrow Red (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC))

I would avoid books like this because it is difficult to assess the notability and accuracy of their conclusions. My advice would be to look in the book for references to peer-reviewed literature assessing the veracity of Daily Mail reporting. If their conclusions are valid then it should be possible to find articles in academic journals about journalism confirming their views. On the other hand if their views are considered fringe then the literature would reflect this. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Nick Davies is a reputable author, and Vintage is an imprint of a reputable publishing house. It seems from Harrow Red's quotation from the book that Davies and/or his researchers analysed the PCC records directly, rather than quoting another source (if I'm wrong on this, please correct me). I appreciate that peer-reviewed academic journals are considered among the most reliable of sources, but they are not the only reliable ones. The source and the assertion seem fine and even-handed to me (apart from the first sentence); the one thing that is missing is the precise dates to which the analysis refers. Barnabypage (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Then the Daily Mail defenders will find book reviews that disagree with the findings and articles that present a different view. They will no doubt point out that the writers worked for a competing newspaper that represents a different point of view. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Four Deuces - I take your point, but find me a peer-reviewed journal discussing English newspapers and complaints to the PCC? I really suspect there isn't one. (I don't think the British Journalism Review is peer-reviewed in a formal sense.) I think including the factual elements of the quoted Davies passage are fine, and the fact that some people may make objections isn't a strong reason to hold back from putting them in the article. Barnabypage (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not know if there is such an article. (You are right - the BJR is not peer-reviewed.) However here is a link to open access journals relating to the media. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

So where do we go from here, to my knowledge there has been no challenge to this stat despite the book having been publishing two years ago and the obvious high level of scrutiny it would have gone through. We could use it in an "Accuracy and Ethical Behaviour" section or if people feel it's a POV then it would surely warrant a "Criticism" section. I would be happy to draft a version of either and post it in this section for consideration. (Harrow Red (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC))

Use it. I would be tempted to rename the Libel lawsuits section to Libel lawsuits and PCC decisions and use a brief summary of the numbers there, rather than starting a new section. It's not really a POV IMHO (apart from the first sentence, and I'd leave that out, just sticking to the numbers; it's not credible that Davies made them up). Barnabypage (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellant I'll knock something up over the next few days....and then wait for it to be taken down!!!! (86.156.212.98 (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC))

Do we wish trivia to creep in? Without a source for the actual nature of the complaints, it is impossible for us to deem whether undue weight is being given to them. Already some pretty trivial libel suits are listed <g>. Collect (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree this seems like another attempt to force irrelevant trivial information from dubious sources deliberately intended to portray the Mail in a negative light. The article is fine as it is. There is no need for such additions unless they are neutral and properly sourced. Christian1985 (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Collect - I agree on the lawsuits. But going to the subject of this discussion, the Davies book is a reliable source, and the number of upheld PCC complaints is a simple numerical fact. It certainly shouldn't dominate the article, but a NPOV statement of the numbers surely adds to the reader's understanding of the subject. Barnabypage (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The PCC publishes details of its cases online. That link covers a period of over 10 years, being 555 complaints of which 254 were upheld - about 50%. There were 27 cases in which the Daily Mail was the sole publication. Just 3 of these complaints were upheld - about 10%. This indicates that the Daily Mail is doing better than average. For comparison, there were 33 adjudications of complaints about the News of the World and 14 were upheld.

Nick Davies seems to have got his stats by including resolved cases which are those in which the newspaper and complainant came to some agreement. Here's an example for the Daily Mail. In this case, the newspaper published a clarification to explain the source for its reporting. This was, if anything, a matter of undue weight. Exaggeration and selective reporting are standard journalism which is commonly done by most news sources to make a story more sensational. Nick Davies is a journalist and so may write in this way too in order to sell his stories. We hew to a higher standard and so should present a neutral and accurate account. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Davies in the quote given acknowledges that he is including resolved cases - I don't think that's under dispute. The point is that it's a reliable source, while extracting our own numbers from the PCC data (which I'm sure can be analysed in many different ways, like any data) is original research. If you have a reliable source that contradicts Davies' analysis by all means we should include it in the interests of balance. Barnabypage (talk) 12:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Davies' characterisation of resolved complaints as "successful" and therefore supporting evidence for "distortion and falsehood" is improper because the example shows that a complaint may simply be a matter of misunderstanding which, when clarified, settles the matter. His failure to allow for this or for cases where the issue is some other code violation such as privacy or use of bugs, indicates that this is not a reliable source. As Davies most often writes for the Guardian, he has an ideological and commercial conflict of interest. This source is therefore not acceptable here. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the first sentence mentioning "falsehood and distortion" should not be used, as it's arguably an exaggeration - we should use only the numbers with a brief description of what they indicate. However, it's absurd to exclude a book he has written simply because he frequently writes for a newspaper that differs ideologically from, and (supposedly) competes commercially with, the Mail. On those grounds, we would logically have to exclude virtually every source that exists other than the Mail itself. NB that The Guardian itself, and The Independent, are already used extensively as sources in the article. Barnabypage (talk) 12:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

British journalism is a dog-eat-dog affair because the papers compete for much the same national market in an endless and bitter circulation war. (Unlike US journalism where newspapers tended to focus upon a single city or region). These newspapers are therefore not reliable sources when attacking each other as they have massive conflicts of interest. We should therefore prefer independent and dispassionate sources which have a historical perspective. You should try looking at the Britannica entry for the Daily Mail, for example. This is not at all derogatory saying, starting, "Daily Mail - morning daily newspaper published in London, long noted for its foreign reporting, it was one of the first British papers to popularize its coverage to appeal to a mass readership. It is the flagship publication of the Daily Mail and General Trust PLC, a London media company incorporated in 1922 with holdings in radio, television, and weekly and daily newspapers." This is the tone we should strive for, not a mudslinging one. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(a) The Guardian is not competing for readers with the Mail in any meaningful sense, and only for advertisers to a limited extent. (b) More importantly, the source is not The Guardian. (c) Reporting a numerical summary of PCC decisions is not mud-slinging (and I'd be more than happy if someone took the time to do it for every British national newspaper article on Wikipedia). Agree that in the long historical view it is far from the most important thing about the Mail, but that doesn't mean it doesn't warrant a sentence. I am not proposing a derogatory article. I am proposing a sentence describing how the Mail has fared with the PCC. Barnabypage (talk) 13:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I often read both the Guardian and the Mail and agree that they have differences - adverts for cruises vs public sector jobs, say. But these differences seem to generate partisan hostility. See Tony Harcup, Peter Cole (2009), Newspaper Journalism which states, "Guardian leader writers and columnists regularly disparage the Mail and what it stands for...". Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Just as an aside, I see the Harcup & Cole book makes some excellent points about the editorial style (I mean style, not stance) of the Mail which I've been looking for a source for - its confidence, use of columnists, etc. Thanks for pointing it out; I'll get them into the article. Barnabypage (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Collect deserves the kudos for finding the source but his link didn't work well so I repackaged it in a citation template. I agree that it well describes the Mail's robust editorial style and so would be a good source. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

and it begins...any inclusion would state that these stats combine upheld and resolved complaints. If exaggeration and selective reporting are part of journalism then why is is the mail having to resolve more issues than others papers not notable. We can't knock down the stats on the basis of your own research, which to be fair is surely less valid than a published source. If people think that this is Davies is providing a POV then why not put it as a criticism in the article. We can't block any criticism of the paper forever, or bury it under "famous stories", or shift it as the responsibility of the journalist.

Regarding Davies' bias I should note that the book is by a investigative journalism being critical of journalism and dedicates as much space to criticising the Observer (left wing/liberal).

To move things forward I should ask,

Is the paragraph I provided above probably Sourced? If not please help me but it in the correct format.

Does anyone have a valid source disputing these stats they would like to include?

As you can see I am trying here to reach a resolution. (86.156.212.98 (talk) 12:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC))

Colonel Warden properly points out that the British papers are very competitive in nature. He also notes, as I did, that, absent any clue as to the seriousess or lack of seriousness of complaints, the whole topic is fraught with supreme iffiness at best. In the US, there have been cases of organized complaint-bringing against organizations, which can result in thousands of baseless or nearly beaseless complaints, We know better than to go by count! Collect (talk) 13:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(a) The competitiveness of British newspapers is a complete red herring here. The source isn't a newspaper. (b) It's up to the PCC, not us, to determine whether complaints can be accepted, and whether they should be upheld. (c) The PCC exists. The Mail itself acknowledges this. Nobody has so far suggested that Davies's numbers are actually wrong (although obviously other numbers can be extracted from the same data using different parameters). Where's the problem?

I'd like support the points above concerning competitiveness by reminding Collect of my earlier point that it's not about whether it's right or wrong it's about that they have fell foul off the PCC significantly more than other papers, all of which are trying to be similarly competitive. If a football team gets more red cads than anyone else the competitive nature of the game does mean than that the stat is in valid. The resolutions and upheld complaints are a notable stat within the themselves regardless of a more value based judgement of seriousness. In this sense Davies stats are purer than have he made value judgements on top of the PCC judgement. (Harrow Red (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC))

We still have no basis for making the comparison, and Davies' employer does not appear to be disputed, and his connection with the Guardian is clear. In pooint of fact, this is a lot like citing BBB complaints about a company -- if the complaints are all settled, it appears many may not have been all that major. It is also highly likely that complaints bear some proportion to circulation -- if the papers with highest circulations get more complaints, that is hardly news, is it? [1] Newspaper Journalism By Tony Harcup, Peter Cole 2009, states "The extreme end of liberal contempt for the Mail was articulated by Nick Davies..." Which does appear to be a sort of balance for Davies <g>. Collect (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Per our own article on Nick Davies, he is not a staff journalist at The Guardian. There is nothing whatsoever to suggest that his motive in criticising the Mail in his book was to further the commercial objectives of The Guardian - to be honest, it's a risible notion. (How many Mail readers do you suppose are likely to pick up Flat Earth News, be convinced by Davies's thesis, and promptly start buying The Guardian instead?) It simply isn't a valid basis on which to rate the source unreliable.

Your point about the larger papers (in circulation terms) getting more complaints is a perfectly reasonable one but we would need a source to say this if it is indeed true. (Per Davies the Mail gets more than The Sun, with its considerably higher circulation.)

By all means let's use Harcup & Cole as a counterweight to Davies. In fact, the existence of "liberal contempt" for the Mail is a phenomenon which the article should probably recognise. Perhaps 86.156.212.98, who was planning to draft some text to include the Davies points, could include this too? Barnabypage (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This discussion illustrates the value of relying on articles in academic journals. We would then be able to ascertian the degree of acceptance of different views of this matter. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see what Chris Frost (February 2004), "The press complaints commission: a study of ten years of adjudications on press complaints", Journalism Studies, 5 (1): 101–114 says. It has some stats but costs £16. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Likewise. I'll make a mental note to try to find it when I'm next at a university library - the two I visit most often (Essex and East Anglia) don't, as far as I know, teach journalism but UEA especially does have a good library and may stock the journal. Otherwise, if anyone is feeling rich... Barnabypage (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

A comment about the page content

It's the first time I've read this article in some considerable time, in fact the nature of the article has changed a great deal for the better, sticking to facts and history is a good thing. However the libel section seems hugely out of place or at least, it appears to me that the section is there purely as a device to say the daily mail is ill-reputable. I agree that notable lawsuits should be documented - however it should be of the same tone of 'famous stories', 'famous libel' is far more in proportion to the rest of the article then a list of what is mostly inconsequiential, yet by taking up a high proportion of the article it is allowing a certain impression to be painted. RichyBoy (talk) 11:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If you were the person libelled by the Mail I doubt that you would find it 'inconsequential' ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 12:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Most people who get $1 in a lawsuit (figuratively) would prefer to just let the matter be forgotten - the aim is to get the official retraction, not to have the libel live on in perpetuity. Collect (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That isn't a justification for inclusion in this article. Sorry, reporting a long list of court actions in the main article is against NPOV - on two counts, proportionate (to the rest of the article) and significant. A full list of actions would be suitable for its own page, which can then be linked from here. To keep NPOV it needs to be abbreviated to the most significant libels. An uninitiated reader who is unaware of the frequency of law suits instigated against daily national newspapers will be left to think that the Daily Mail is vexatious. It would be just as unbalanced if I created a list of all the press/journalist/industry awards the mail has won and listed them, full in the knowledge that every paper has a wheelbarrow full of them. RichyBoy (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, if we were to say something along the lines of The Mail, like many national newspapers in Britain, is frequently the subject of libel actions. Noteworthy cases in its history include.. - which ones would we include? (Three or four, say.)

In choosing them I think we should bear in mind that the term "substantial damages" means nothing. I have never read of a settlement involving "trivial damages"! Barnabypage (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

3 or 4 is fine -- and lose the one from the 19th century <g> as it has esentially nothing to do with the price of eggs. Collect (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The repetition of libel lawsuits is unhelpful. It would be better to use a reliable source that says something like "the DM's record for libel is better/worse/the same as the broadsheets. Notable libel cases include...." The Four Deuces (talk) 14:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, if we can find a source, all the better. But if we can't, some are more notable than others - for example, if the plaintiff has their own Wikipedia article and even more so if the case is already mentioned there.

On the C19 one - if there are any notable cases (notable not just meaning the amount of damages, but the notability of the plaintiff or significance of the Mail's claims, for example) from earlier than the present day, by all means they or examples of them can be included. (For example, if Aneurin Bevan had sued the Mail because it claimed he was a Soviet spy - an example I'm making up, as far as I know - that would be a lot more interesting than some trivial allegation over a minor celebrity.) Barnabypage (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Per this discussion -= removed those under 30K. Nice clean short list. Collect (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Actual high profile cases included Jeffrey Archer and the Daily Star, Robert Maxwell and Private Eye, Jonathan Aitken and The Guardian, Liberace and The Daily Mirror. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget Max Moseley and The News of the World. Alan Sugar's action against the Mail was highly publicised at the time as well but of course that is already mentioned. Thanks for culling the list, it doesn't quite read right yet but it's more NPOV already :) RichyBoy (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

What we can't have is a catalogue of libels which repeats them - this material is obviously unacceptable per WP:BLP. Whether the case went against the newspaper or not, repetition of the libel would have a derogatory effect upon some readers who may suppose that "there's no smoke without fire". I have therefore removed the section completely. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yellow Journalism claim is from ... Wikipedia!

The additions use cites which make absolutely no mention of "Yellow journalism" -- all but one. And that one is from Wikipedia! Um -- the specific prohibition on using WP as a source for WP is well known now. All are now commented out. Do a Google search on "recursion." Also note that comments in the article regarding living identifiable people must now meet the new WP:BLP rules. Collect (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well said Collect. Also many of those 'sources' are extremely biased, Chasing Evil is a left-wing blog. Such sitrs are NOT reliable sources. Also the Mail is NOT yellow journalism and I getting very fed up with IP users posting that rubbish on here and the Yellow Journalism. I have applied for Semi-Protection to stop them posting. Christian1985 (talk) 23:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

What is funny is using WP as a source for WP where the older article has long since been supplanted <g>. We also are seeing IPs reduce the circulation by a million, and renaming the paper itself. I 3RR warned one IP already. Collect (talk) 00:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the Mail is a notch above yellow journalism. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Collect, I have applied for Semi-protection which hsd been granted but the same vandals are going on the Yellow journalism article posting the same vandalism which is getting very annoying. I have applied for protection for that page. These IP vandals go out of their way to try and find sources which are always biased and unacceptable which I find quite funny really. Christian1985 (talk) 10:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Political alignment

Although the info-box says "traditionalist conservatism" and for some reason links to traditional conservatism, the source used (the BBC) says "Right-leaning with traditionally conservative values". Since traditional conservatism is associated with the Tory Reform Group while the conservatism supported by the Mail (Thatcherism) is associated with the Conservative Way Forward, the info-box description does not correctly reflect the source. If the source is wrong, then another source should be found. Meanwhile I am changing the description to reflect the source. TFD 16:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Already discussed. And discussed. And discussed. Please self-revert now. The term "tradionalist conservative" with the SMALL-C was what was acceptable to a consensus here. Meanwhile the BBC source is and has been accepted as reliable by pretty much everyone, so trying to break consensus by reverting is errant. The idea of BRD is that if you get reverted, you go to talk, not that you make a revert yourself <g>. Get consensus FIRST now for your change, please. The BBC, by the way, does not assert what you know Thanks. Collect (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It is original research to use a source and misstate what it says. Here is a link to the BBC article. If you do not like what the source says, then kindly find another source. The previous conversation as I remember was about whether we should describe the newspaper of having a political leaning. TFD (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me the source firmly backs both 'right wing' and 'traditional conservative'....why not just link both? It'd have the added advantage of being accurate...92.3.54.58 (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The source does not say "traditional conservative", it says " traditionally conservative values". Traditonal conservatives support the welfare state and same sex marriage, which the Mail does not. TFD (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Cite for that particlular claim you seek to make about what a "traditional conservative" is? And a cite for "traditional conservatives" supporting SSM? Absent such, the "tradional conservative" tag would appear to be correct. Collect (talk) 10:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

See "David Cameron backs same-sex marriage"[2] Here is an explanation of "traditional conservatism" in Ideology and politics in Britain today by Ian Adams. In any case when you use a source you should state what that source says, not your personal interpretation. If you want to say that the political alignment of the Mail is traditional conservatism then please find one. BTW you should use high quality reliable sources like peer-reviewed academic journals, not thumbnail sketches from a broadcaster's website. TFD (talk) 11:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

IOW since David Cameron holds a position that therefore it is the position held by anyone who is "traditional conservative"? That is not only WP:SYN is is ludicrous as a claim. And recall this has been at RS/N before and your claim that only a peer-reviewed journal could describe a newspaper was, um, not given credence. Remember? The BBC is RS, and has been held at RS/N, to be a Reliable Source for what is here. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

(out) I will look at the TRG website and see if they have a policy position on this. I would be surprised if other traditional conservatives disagreed with Cameron on this although some of the Mail and Telegraph reading supporters probably do. Your reliable source says "Right-leaning with traditionally conservative values".[3] If you want to use this source then you should report what it says. If you disagree with what it says you should find another source. While the website may be a reliable source, it is not the best source. Generally when you replace a source you should replace it with a more authoritative source. Why do you object to what the BBC says? TFD (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Northcliffe and Kitchener

This page states that the anti-Kitchener article was published on 14 May 1915, not 21 May. Which is correct? Drutt (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Invalid cites

Several claims are made using refs which not only do not make the claims as stated, but in some cases do not even have "Daily Mail" on the page cited! `Collect (talk)

Also these 'references' are just dubious and completely biased websites and many of them are blogs which are not reliable sources as per WP guidelines. The Daily Mail is NOT yellow journalism and it does not and never has supported the BNP. The Mail publicly condemns the BNP. I am so fed up of these ridiculous edits I have had the page semi-protected. Thank you Collect for removing the vandalism promptly. Christian1985 (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this worth mentioning?

The Daily Mail has appeared to have directly copied a topical Wikipedia edit in an article by The Daily Mail Reporter. See discussion on Susanna Reid article.

Says something about how the Daily Mail operates. But it desists from the complimentary tone of the article. Are all newspaper Wikipedia articles now being rigidly controlled by journalists from the same newspaper? The Guardian Wikipedia article is another case in point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marrwatcher (talk • contribs) 19:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this sort of thing probably happens quite a lot. A few months ago I wrote an article on a recently deceased person only to find my text copied almost word for word in a national newspaper's obituary (no the Mail btw). I guess journalism ain't what it used to be. :) 81.151.53.158 (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with journalists copying text from WP - they have been copying stories from press releases and wire services for years. It is only wrong if they copy information that is false. TFD (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Surely they shouldn't copy it word for word though. Use it as a source, yes, but copy it and pass it off as your own work...? Assuming that is the case, however, what's to stop me compiling a book on something like psychology or marketing, using the text of wp articles related to the subject as chapters and then trying to pass it on to an unsuspecting public as my own work. Surely there are issues of plagiarism involved? 86.185.93.197 (talk) 12:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"Word for word" is an overstatement. It is well-established, by the way, that facts qua facts are not copyrightable. Collect (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Why no mention of nickname?

The Daily Mail is widely known as the "Daily Fail" a nickname which is notable enough to deserve mention, whatever your feelings on whether or not the nickname accurately reflects the disassociation of the Daily Mail from reality.

A simple google search for "daily fail" yields more than 30,000 results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.43.142.24 (talk) 11:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Pejpratives are not generally used on WP -- and see also the RfDs where such were specifically ruled as being deleted. Also "number of hits" is not a reason for inclusion of anything - one needs RS for any claims. Collect (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Controversy

How does Britain's most controversial paper not got a controversy section. The sun, the Mirror and the Express all do? When anything negative (but true) is added its instantly edited out. Is the Daily Mail using it's staff to edit this page?

Because the negative material is usually sourced from unreliable spam sites like Urban Dictionary, personal blogs and open comment forums which are not acceptable sources. People are trying to deliberately force negative material. There is no place for biased opinions this is an encyclopedic site Christian1985 (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Not only does Christian censor the web page, but he also censors the discussion page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.223.67 (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It is widely known that the dailymail is held somewhat lower than toilet paper, if 'reliable' sources can't be found that's a problem of wikipedia, and not an indication that the perception is otherwise. 92.3.158.150 (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No it is NOT 'widely known' it is just your opinion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic site which means it needs reliable references not dubious sources that say what you want to hear. Christian1985 (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, the dailymail commands the same respect as the BBC, right? I bet you can't find a reliable source that says otherwise, so it must be true. That's why on current events satire panel shows, the audience always laughs when a story is revealed to be from the dailymail.92.3.158.150 (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

IP92.3 -- please be well-advised that this talk page is exclusively for discussing the article, and improving it. It is not a place for you to spout your personal opinions regarding the newspaper. Collect (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

@Collect-This IS a discussion for improving the article, specifically that the article fails to get across the monumental distain the dailymail is held in by sane people. I repeat, if the point can not be made within wikipedias policies that's a problem with wikipedias policies, or how they're being used, it doesn't change reality. 92.2.192.53 (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, no. We need reliable sources to back up assertions, especially ones such as this. We can't just write my opinion or your opinion as fact. I also suspect that, while your opinions are widely held, opinions of most other British tabloids (particularly the red-tops) are probably at the same level. – Toon 16:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

IP 92.2.192.53 - the simple thing for you to do is to find reliable sources attesting to the existence of the disdain. (They don't need to express disdain themselves, but they have to say that it exists among a significant number of people.) Barnabypage (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think the others are held near as bad as dailymail. Sources...how about a mention of it being known as the dailyfail? (everywhere online, private eye near constantly I think, probably been plenty of mentions, just can they be found) Or the multiple sites set up specifically to attack its veracity...I don't know of a mirror watch, or a sun watch etc? (http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/ http://kill-or-cure.heroku.com/ http://thedailymailoncologicalontologyproject.wordpress.com/) 92.2.192.53 (talk) 10:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that any of those Mailwatch-type sites will pass muster, nor a nickname (Private Eye gives mocking nicknames to everything; it proves nothing). What is really needed is a reliable source (see WP:RS) such as a mainstream newspaper or a serious book, stating that the Mail is held by many people in low regard. I don't think it will be impossible to find. Barnabypage (talk) 10:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are these IP users so obsessed they go out of their way to try and slate The Mail. We don't need comments in the article slagging the Mail off, it is all just opinion. The Mail is unarguably a very popular paper, just because the left don't like it doesn't mean it is a bad thing. It is the second-best selling newspaper in the UK. I agree with Barnabypage sites like Mailwatch or any other left-wing blogs are unacceptable. Please just let it drop the article is fine as it is. Why are people so obsessed with trying to force negative material in? Christian1985 (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Christian1985, with any due respect, your consistent denial that significant disesteem for the dailmail even exists beyond the level of other newspapers rather undermines your point. I don't intend to go searching for a source up to wikipedias standards, though if I happen to come across one I'll link it here, but in the mean time....it's my opinion that wikipedias policy of pretending something doesn't exist until it's written in newspapers doesn't do articles any good (eg, this article)...to extend such bueracratic nonsense to the talk pages as well is just madness. Barnaby....I agree, those sites probably don't qualify for wikipedia (though as I've repeatedly said I think this is a problem with wiki policy)...I'm sure a 'good' source will pop up eventually. 92.3.54.58 (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

WP requires reliable sources for making any claims of any sort. This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, and is ill-suited for making any charges about editors, or suggesting that what you "know" belongs in any article. Collect (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I accept that, I have not tried to edit the article at all, I am just discussing the conspicuous absence. I disagree with wikipolicy in this case, but I accept it is and isn't likely to change. My disagreeing with the policy does not mean that this isn't a discussion about the article. 92.3.54.58 (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why "the Daily Mail wrote in support of Hitler" got in the article while things like arguing against HPV vaccine in the UK while simultaneously arguing for HPV vaccine in the ROI or the MMR hoax or the everything either cures/causes cancer thing didn't get in. Is there a cut off date? In all seriousness, "encyclopedic" doesn't mean "only things that happened long ago" Steviesteveo (talk) 13:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Like all Wikipedia articles, this one is perpetually a work in progress. If you can come up with reliable third-party sources commenting on these aspects of the Mail's medical coverage, by all means add them in. Barnabypage (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I would also like a controversy section! I feel it is a very biased article for a very biased and controversial newspaper, probably written by the very biased readership of said controversial newspaper. From my experience, the controversy and response against this foul rag is enough to warrant a controversy section, obviously not written by myself, but one nevertheless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.38.217 (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Fascism

Thanks to whoever changed the "support for fascism" subheading into "Rothermere and fascism" -- that seems to me to be exactly the right balance. -- Chronulator (talk) 09:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I done it <g>. Though I still suspect it is a better fit in the BLP (if properly sourced) than it is here. Collect (talk) 09:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Another editor decided that the section is specifically about the Daily Mail. I reverted as it seems quite abundantly clear that the section deals with Rothermere qua Rothermere. Collect (talk) 10:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

What is relevant is not that Rothermere supported fascism, but that the Daily Mail did. This article is about the Daily Mail, after all not fascism. Also, you are correct to mention BLP which should guide us here, and the heading does not appear to conform. TFD (talk) 11:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is for Rothermere. Unless you can establish a consensus otherwise, that is what it should say. Collect (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph clearly links Rothermere, the Mail and fascism so perhaps that would be a compromise section heading? The rest of the section may indeed sit better in the Rothermere article, and the bit about the aeroplane is completely out of place unless there's a link between it and fascism that I'm not seeing. Barnabypage (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Every part of the article should be about the Daily Mail - the issue here is that the primary subject of the entire section is, in fact, Rothermere. And the references are primarily about Rothermere. Meaning it does readers a disservice to make the section head anything other than "Rothermere and Fascism" at most. Collect (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I have excised the parts of the section that do not directly relate to the Mail itself (moving some of them to the Rothermere biographical article), and renamed the section to Rothermere, the Mail and fascism, which exactly reflects what it is about. Barnabypage (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It is inconsistent to use the name of a single editor in a section heading. The article describes the influence various editors had but does not name a section after them. (It does not used the name of the DM in any heading, either, which is not surprising because the article is about the DM). Perhaps we could rename the section, "Support for fascism" (perhaps using a reference to the time period to show that the DM did not promote fascism during or after the war. TFD (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the fact that we don't use individuals' names in other headings is an issue if it's the best heading - the heading should indicate what the section is about, and in this case the subject is the paper's support for fascism that was inextricably linked with Rothermere's ownership. (There is also plenty of precedent in other newspaper articles, e.g. The Times has a section headed Rupert Murdoch, The Guardian one headed C.P. Scott.)

I also fear that based on the recent edit history, Support for fascism is just going to be reverted straight away anyway if it is used.

I agree that mentioning the newspaper's name in the section heading is probably superfluous.

So, how about Rothermere and support for fascism, or Support for fascism under Rothermere, or something along those lines? Clearly indicating that it is the newspaper's support for fascism we are discussing, not just Rothermere's personal views, but also that this support was directly linked to, caused by, his views. Barnabypage (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

We do not of course want to imply that they support fascism now so some qualification is necessary, perhaps "1930s"? TFD (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That's another possibility, though I think using Rothermere in the subheading places it clearly enough in the past. Barnabypage (talk) 09:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This article, and the subsection in question, are both about the Daily Mail as their primary subject. I think the key thing here is that the Daily Mail, as a matter of editorial policy, supported fascism in the 1930s. Whether this was at the behest of its proprietor or not is immaterial to its relevance to the article. However, given that we are mentioning the Mail's support for fascism, it's also relevant that Rothermere's involvement is mentioned. We might as well reflect this in the subheading: "Support for fascism under Rothermere" seems fine to me. -- Chronulator (talk) 09:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced material removed

I've removed the following unsourced material from the article, which had been commented out, but was breaking layout:

-- Chronulator (talk) 08:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Right Wing

Is "Right Wing" a correct label? I note that the Guardian and Independent are (probably correctly) described as "centre left" in their approach. "Right wing" is potentially a very loaded term. Would not "centre right" and / or "conservative" not be a more accurate label? Informed Owl (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Informed Owl

I agree Informed Owl, I feel Conservative is the ideal term to describe the Mail. It supports the Conservative Party and it has strong Conservative leanings in its editorial style. Christian1985 (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I shall change it then. I think "right wing" is too loaded a term in this context.Informed Owl (talk) 16:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Informed Owl

I do not see the purpose of any of these terms. Many newspapers were once tied to political parties, but that has changed and news coverage in most papers is more independent. It is one thing to say that the Morning Star is Communist or the Socialist Worker is Trotskyist, but it is wrong to imply that the Daily Mail has the same connection to the Tories that those papers have to their respective parties. TFD (talk) 19:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

IOW, the "conservative" label is preferred by you to a "Conservative" label? Collect (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

infobox problem. What does "Political alignment" mean to the average reader? perhaps vaguer (i.e. centre-right, though really the emphasis should be on the "right") is better. Rd232 talk 22:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

So where's the alignment statement? It seems all the other papers have one - why not this one after the above discussion? 85.17.5.150 (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Daily Mail - Need for a Criticism Section

The Daily Mail is a controversial paper.

While some people might not be comfortable with using such a term, it most certainly qualifies as yellow journalism.

While I vehemently disagree, I think it is possible to address this issues in a criticism section, without using the words "yellow journalism."

Also, wikipedia needs to address serious point of view edit warring that has been carried out by a cabal of biased editors, most notably Christian1985, who is so determined to push her view of the Daily Mail that she ignores all evidence of anything that could possibly suggest that the Daily Mail is not a reference quality source of breathtakingly sophisticated fact checking investigative journalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.59.247.167 (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Adding unsustantiated claims is, however, contrary to WP policies and guidelines. And also read WP:AGF and WP:RS please. Collect (talk) 23:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Firstly I am NOT 'she' I am HE. I am not ignoring 'evidence' at all, the evidence is blogs and biased websites. Wikipedia have acted on this edit warring by semi-protecting the page to stop this rubbish being posted. The only ones engaging in edit warring are you IP users trying to force negative material on the article. The Mail is NOT yellow journalism, that is just your opinion. The only 'sources' you provide are left-wing blogs and spam sites. They do not meet Wikipedia Guidelines as Collect very rightly points out. I will thank not to make such attacks against me, I am simply following WP policy. I have done nothing wrong. Christian1985 (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess the problem is that wikipedia has a higher standard for sources than the daily fail :-p --Ultraspeak 19:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

So the Daily Mail is NOT a controversial paper? 0.o 188.221.161.189 (talk) 03:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say it is. It is widely known for its sensationalist headlines and tendency towards inciting moral panics. I think there should definitely be a criticism section.78.86.61.94 (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a hate preaching paper, well known as the Daily Fail by numerous sources, including their own comments section on the Mail Online and The Register. They are also known for inciting hatred against any and all immigrants and for their biased anti-gay articles and they moderate any comments they do not like or that are critical of them missing half the story to make them biased. Pink News and the Pink Paper being perfect examples as both have archives of their biased news and hate preaching. In keeping with neutrality on Wikipedia then a criticism section should be added, even if i have to do it myself. Jenova20 (talk) 10:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Those statements you have added are NOT facts, they are simply your biased opinions. They are NOT known for inciting hatred against any groups, they are NOT homophobic and they do not moderate comments, don't be so ridiculous. You will not be adding such a criticism section because your views are based on nothing but stereotypes and nonsense. Please get your facts straight first, the article is perfectly neutral as it is, so please leave it as is. Christian1985 (talk) 11:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

"They are NOT known for inciting hatred against any groups, they are NOT homophobic and they do not moderate comments" You are a liar. They DO moderate comments and i am not the only one to point that out, and they have on many occasions made stories biased, whether purposefully or negligently, and lastly they are homophobic. Lets start with an easy one: 1) "The Christian hotelier found guilty of gay bias looks set to lose her home and asks: So who's really being persecuted?" "'Now some people are more equal than others': Despair of Christian hotel owners penalised for turning away gays" The Daily Mail freely admitted in a previous article that their legal bills and fine had been paid in donations, so they aren't going to lose their home and have been inundated with requests for bookings since. 2) "Christian therapist who claims she can help gay men go straight faces being struck off" The Mail actively make out the psychiatrist to be a victim, despite admitting to using treatments banned and discouraged by her own industry for being harmful and having a high rate of suicides. They in a more recent article, claim her witness is being harassed without any proof and with only her word. The undercover reporter claims that she has no witnesses as the sessions were 1 on 1 and in court, when asked if they had any witnesses, she said no. There is no mention of that in the Mail as they never even bothered asking the reporter his side because they wouldn't have been able to make the article biased that way.

NO I am NOT a 'liar', you clearly are looking at the Mail from a very biased and selective view. Those statements are simply your opinions, they are not facts and have no place in the article. They do NOT moderate comments at all, grow up and don't be so ridiculous. All newspapers are biased including The Pink Paper. The Mail is NOT homophobic at all, you could be sued for making such false claims. Please get your facts straight. All you are producing is narrow-minded opinions. Christian1985 (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

And if you want another reference for them inciting hatred then how about this: "http://www.butireaditinthepaper.co.uk/2011/01/19/spot-the-swastika/" They make the gay couple looking for a place to stay into swastika sporting, leather clad neo-nazis. Is that inciting hatred enough for you? Jenova20 (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Note what WP:RS says about blogs and self-published sources. Then note "I’ve been meaning to write about the title of my blog for some time because it appears a few people just don’t understand it." indicating that your source is, in fact, a blog. Thus uit is not under any circumstances usable as a "reliable source" on WP. As for "Pink Paper" - it is not even a print paper - it is only online blogs at this point. And in no circumstance are "readers comments" for any source usable on any WP article. Thanks. Collect (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The Pink Paper is not a blog site - it clearly has editorial staff and editorial oversight - see http://www.pinkpaper.co.uk/Contact.aspx. (It originally appeared in print as a weekly newspaper, from around the early 1990s if I recall correctly, and later went online-only - something that does not militate against it being a reliable source.) Barnabypage (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Is that right? Jenova20 12:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Scottish Edition

The Scottish edition has recently changed it's logo and I can't find one online, anyone happen to have one scanned ?

StephenBHedges (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC).

Edit request from Histree, 9 December 2010

Hello, I want to add the following passage to the "history' section of the article, immediately before the sentence starting 'By 1902":

Lord Salisbury, 19th-century Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, dismissed the Daily Mail as "a newspaper produced by office-boys for office-boys."{{cite web|url=http://www.historyandpolicy.org/papers/policy-paper-27.html|title=Monitoring the popular press: an historical perspective|last=Bingham|first=Adrian|date=May 2005|work=History & Policy|publisher=History & Policy|language=[[English language|English]]|accessdate=9 December 2010|location=[[United Kingdom]]}}

Histree (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Done --Bsherr (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Strange omissions

The fact that the article makes no mention of the well-known phrase 'Daily Mail reader' (with negative connotations) seems very odd - I vaguely remember it doing so some time ago. Has someone connected with the Mail removed it, perhaps? Similarly for negative nicknames for the paper, such as the Daily Hate (after Lord Northcliffe's suggested editorial line) and the Daily Wail. Also it says nothing really about Paul Dacre, who is regularly identified as the source of the Mail's widely criticized editorial policy. E.g. I recall that a few years ago listeners to the Today programme (or it may have been PM) voted for him to be ejected from Britain! Ben Finn (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

See earlier discussions here and at RfD, where "Daily Hate" was fully rejected as a redirect. Collect (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Such opinionated statements have no place in the article. This is an encylopedic article not a DM hate page and any such edits will be removed. It was not removed by anyone from the Mail, it was removed because it violates WP guidelines. Christian1985 (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to matters of fact, not matters of opinion. E.g. it is a matter of fact, not of opinion, that 'Daily Mail reader' is a well-known and widely-used phrase with negative connotations - is it not? There will be thousands of sources out there for it. Also I didn't propose Daily Hate be a redirect, but that it be mentioned in the article. I see the articles for the Telegraph and the Guardian mention their nicknames Torygraph and Grauniad, so why is the Daily Mail article exempt from inclusion of this information? Ben Finn (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

"Otherstuffexists" is a weak argument. The Daily Mail has never referred to itself in any issue as the "Daily Heil" or the like, [4] the Guardian actually uses the word "Grauniad" itself. The Telegraph [5] uses "Torygraph" in articles. I suggest that the terms are substantially less bile filled than "Daily Heil" is. Collect (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

"It's bile-filled" and "they don't call themselves it" are not valid policy arguments, though. If your reason for objecting really is on the grounds that it constitutes stronger criticism than you would like, you should probably recuse yourself. --FormerIP (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Try reading the RfDs where the "strange nicknames" were shot down. Epithets do not generally get into articles. I hold the same position about using derogatory nicknames people, for places, for things etc. as I do here. The information is not encyclopedic at all. Collect (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

RfDs presumably had nothing to do with article content here so are not really relevant. If this material can be sourced so as to satisfy WP:V and WP:WEIGHT that's all we need to know in order to include it in the article. As pointed out by Bfinn above, epithets relating to other UK newspapers are in the articles, so it seems that they do indeed "generally get into articles". --FormerIP (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The other words are used by the newspapers themselves. Hence finding the paper to be a reliable source for what it calls itself is simple. Finding a reliable source that a "nickname" is widely used is likely to require very strong sourcing - I have seen, for example, gross name-calling about individuals which clearly does not fall into the "encyclopedic fact" area at all. I assume you have as well. Collect (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether or not the Mail itself has used the term. If other reliable sources have used it, it's reasonable to propose that it be mentioned in passing in the article. The question is whether those reliable sources exist, and it's kind of pointless pursuing the discussion until they've been identified. Barnabypage (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, see WP:ROC ... unless the factoid is of some reasonable significance to the article, it does not belong. WP is not a collection of trivia (or should not be, in any case). Collect (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's one [6]. This article also gives the origin of the expression: [7]. --FormerIP (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Collect, the significance of the phrase it something to be determined by looking at the sources. The source just cited uses the term right at the beginning of the article as a way of summing up divided opinions on the Mail. This source [8] is a biography of the editor which is only 500 words long, but the "Daily Hate" monicker is considered significant enough for 100 words to be dedicated to the reasons for it. There's no doubting that this is considered significant in reliable sources. --FormerIP (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Nope. The source does not make that claim. It is, first of all, an editorial column by nature. Second it says those who dislike the DM call it names. I can find sources for folks who hate any paper calling it a "piece of shite" but that does not mean the factoid is relevant to an article on the paper! Is this clear enough? Unless you find a reliable source stating that this is a common name for the paper, then it is insufficiently sourced. Collect (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "unless I can find a reliable source". I've just given you too. If you can find a reliable source that something is commonly know by the nickname "piece of shite" then please feel free to add that to the relevant article. You're argument seems to be that it shouldn't go in because it is negative? Or am I misunderstanding that.

Let's not lose focus too much, though. It's not just about a nickname, it's about the fact that you seem to have been POV-sitting the article so that it doesn't contain any reference to common negative perceptions of the paper, which you should stop doing. --FormerIP (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(out) You have an opinion piece which says people who do not like the paper call it names. Period. I am not in the UK, and have no interest in anything other than following WP policies on articles. The article has material on Rothermere etc. which is pretty negative, and it is properly sourced. WP is intended to be an encyclopedia. Period. Full stop. Collect (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Colon.

Since this is about perception and opinion, you would expect op-ed sources to come in to play. In any event, you seem not to have examined all the sources I presented above. This one [9] is obviously not an op-ed but a biographical piece which gives a fair amount of weight to the Daily Hate nickname and the type of material you are trying to keep out of the article. --FormerIP (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Articles which are primarily opinion are "opinion pieces." Seems clear. Collect (talk) 11:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It is a valid source, not editorial; seems clear. Whether it's worth including (WP:WEIGHT) is less clearcut; depends on preponderance of use. As you say, that it's mentioned in this short piece is significant. Rd232 talk 12:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not hard to demonstrate (e.g. by using Private Eye itself as a source) that Private Eye regularly calls the Daily Mail the Daily Wail, Daily Hate etc. I think the Guardian and Telegraph articles do this. It may not be necessary to show that the nicknames are also used by the general public, though they are and it would be good if that could be sourced. Ben Finn (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

So what you can do is source PE and say "Private Eye calls (this paper) the following: " which would be reasonable. I trust, of course, that you are inserting all of PE's nicknames for people and things into their respective articles, of course. Publication in a satirical publication does not show "general common usage" to be sure. Cherrypicking one publication to have its pejorative nicknames enumerated is also a questionable editing practice. Collect (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Especially such stuff as [10] When she told Hewitt about the trip, she said she no longer cared about Charles and Camilla and “Andrew Park-Your-Balls,” the nickname she had picked up from Private Eye* for Brigadier General Bowles. which would go real well, I suspect, in Price Charles' BLP. Collect (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be finding it hard to get anyone to agree with you on this, Collect, so I've gone ahead and added some balancing material. --FormerIP (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Those edits should not have been added, there is no consensus for them. I feel they have no place in the article. Christian1985 (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the talkpage history shows that there is consensus that the article should contain reliably-sourced contemporary criticism of the paper. Why do you think it has no place? --FormerIP (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

They seem highly appropriate additions to me, relevant, attributed to very good sources, and far from disproportionate in length. Barnabypage (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Telegraph only quoted someone using the word on Twitter, which isn't a reliable source. So the issue can't be whether the papers themselves have used it. And "otherstuffexists" is perfectly valid when there is consensus for that other stuff. If you think the other stuff shouldn't exist, go and remove it from those articles, and get back to us when no one objects on those articles. Mdwh (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting Perspective

I think a new section that showed some of the efforts being made to counteract the editorial strategies of misinformation of the Mail would be interesting. In particular, there is a neutral and reliable website - http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/ I anticipate that Christian1984 and Collect will try to remove or censor this comment, since they like to whitewash everything and think they own wikipedia. However, the primary source used by the website is the Daily Mail itself. So, if you don't think this is a RS, then the Daily Mail is not an RS. Note that the page states explicitly "We are not here to hate the readers of the Daily Mail. We are here to show them that they are being lied to. We ask readers and contributors to keep this in mind." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.162.210.117 (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

And where a reliable source has material which belongs here (such as about Rothermere) then the material belongs here. The stuff above about "cancer claims", however, does not, as the "claims" were carried by a large variety of places, and are not specific to the Daily Mail. As for your personal attack, like most editors, I take such from unregistered editors as not being worth the paper they are printed on. Collect (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

No, we are not trying to 'censor or remove' anything and I am sick to death of IPs like you coming on here and making such offensive remarks at me and Collect. We have done nothing wrong and we are NOT 'whitewashing' anything. I suggest you think very carefully in future before making such bold unfounded statements. If you honestly think Mailwatch is 'neutral' and 'reliable' you really must be having a laugh. Mailwatch is the biggest pile of nonsense I have ever seen. It is a completely biased blog site run by left-wing Mail haters. Anything from Mailwatch is absolutely NOT acceptable on this site. It is NOT a reliable source. Anything from Mailwatch will be removed from the article and that is NOT 'whitewashing' that is following WP guidelines. I suggest you apologise for attacking myself and Collect, there was no need for those remarks. Christian1985 (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that mention of the Mail's image and its "pet subjects" really is needed to give a rounded picture of the present-day paper in this article, I agree that Mailwatch is absolutely not a reliable source - it's largely anonymous, for a start. We need the observations of academics or respected commentators. Surely Roy Greenslade or Stephen Glover or the BJR or the Glasgow Media Group have had something to say on this topic? Barnabypage (talk) 12:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Scottish Edition Logo

Can anyone provide an up-to-date version of the logo for the Scottish Daily Mail ? The old one is featured on this page. StephenBHedges (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

BRD

When major edits are made in a "bold" manner, and are reverted, WP:BRD says to "discuss" them rather than to re-revert. In the case at hand, the major edit was to insert "Daily Hate" as a nickname from a competitor, etc. into the article. Alas - no consensus for such an edit has yet been found. Nor does the New York Post have "New York Compost" in it. And so on. Practice is that derogatory nicknames are found for almost any newspaper, and inserting them prominently is not of encyclopedic value. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The above comments are a reference to my edits so I shall try and itemise everything I did of any importance.

In fact, no consensus has been reached over the use of the Daily Hate epithet. Despite the tag being sourced to Julie Burchill, the only supporters for the non-inclusion in the "Strange omissions" section are yourself and Christian1985 who are clearly in a minority. The other comments by Ben Goldacre and Johann Hari are also thought to be unworthy of inclusion on the grounds that they are from competitors. The Guardian, New Statesman, and Independent are not exactly rivals to the Mail, but they do count as reliable sources, and the Mail does divide opinion. According to the NPOV rules all mainstream arguments on a topic should be featured.

You also objected to a wikilink to Lord Kitchener, on the grounds that we all know who he was. To most people he is probably no more than a name; likely curiosity legitimises the wikilink. In your revert a duplication of the “Hurrah for Blackshirts” to the “Famous Stories” section was recreated. This is really a disguised miscellany section covering stories over many decades and material is meant to be more thoroughly incorporated into the article where possible. As it is in this case in the section on the interwar period. I also do not see why Peter Hitchens and his departure from the Express a decade ago has to be mentioned. This is an article about the Mail, for which Hitchens rarely writes. We have had an article on the Mail on Sunday since January 2008, and a reference to Htchens is clearly a remnant which has never been removed..

In this article, we have three lists of journalists and contributors to the newspaper. Why not one? Philip Cross (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

As for the wikilinks I actually think they're useful, people might know who they are, but they might also not. Wikipedia is global and so whereas most Englishmen would know who lord Kitchener is, I'd imagine an Indian or Brazilian reading this might not. As for the daily hate citing, I've never heard anyone refer to the paper as this, whereas in the guardian article you have the insertion that "the guardian reader" has become a synonym for a person holding leftwing/liberal ideas is largely widespread. This is not as much a criticism as an informative addition. It's not inherently bad to be left wing, it is however inherently bad to "hate". Therefore if this is to be included in the article it certainly, in my opinion, does not merit a mention in the OVERVIEW section, but in a subcategory "criticism". However I fear that if such a category were created it would be inundated with all sorts of minor and superfluous comments. What do you think philip? Alexandre8 (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I moved the comments from Burchill et al to the "editorial stance" section from "overview" during the course of my edits where they do seem more appropriate. In order to sustain a neutral point of view criticism sections are not recommended, but when they cannot be connected to specific incidents they are difficult to avoid. BTW, some of the criticisms which have been levelled at Paul Dacre directly are mentioned in his article. Any minor and superfluous comments can be dealt with, if appropriate, by the trivia section and undue weight rules. Philip Cross (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not see how Burhill's nickmane for the paper is notable unless you can show that it has come into wide use. TFD (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It has come into wide use going by the number of Google hits, but this fact is inadmissible for the discussion at hand. It has not been widely used by other notable people it is true, an article by Polly Toynbee citing Northcliffe’s use of the term and an entry on Stephen Fry’s blog are the only other examples I can find quickly, but Burchill's prominence is enough to legitimise its inclusion. Philip Cross (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The fact that someone included the term on their posting to Fry's blog does not make it notable. Not every comment made by Burchill is notable. What you need to find is an article about the Mail that explains the usage of the term. Otherwise it would be undue to include it. TFD (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel it has a place in the article full stop. It is just a silly, offensive name given by left-wingers and it is not NPOV. Polly Toynbee is a hard-left journalist so I don't feel her opinions are fair and neutral, she is strongly biased. Christian1985 (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Christian, the opinions of third-party commentators do not have to be neutral, an editor is quoting the opinion rather than stating his/her own. As the article stands we quote none of the Mail's many prominent critics. That is a serious flaw when articles are supposed to include all significant points of view, not just yours or mine. Toynbee is actually ex-SDP, a party which was created as a reaction to the hard-left in the Labour Party. Philip Cross (talk) 08:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The article incorporates a great deal of criticism - within the appropriate sections. Note the material on Rothermere etc. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Collect, you asked for a debate, but have not yourself responded to most of my points.

The newspaper's defence of Hitler, Mussolini and Mosley during the 1930s is historical fact not criticism/opinion. You have not said why the comments of, for example, the reputable science writer Ben Goldacre, who brings the accusation of pseudo-science against the newspaper, should be omitted. I moved the passage detailing the claims of current Mail critics from "overview" to "editorial stance" where they are best placed as a response. But you still considered that unacceptable. Philip Cross (talk) 09:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Firstly there seems to be no reason listed above to exclude any contribution referring to the nickname of the "Hate Mail" or the "Daily Hate". Private Eye uses both regularly, much in the same way as it uses the "Grauniad". In such a lengthy and extensive article they're arguably a reasonable representation of some peoples' perceptions or the basis of their opposition to the paper - part of it's character. As for the argument that it should be excluded on the grounds that 'Polly Toynbee is left wing' - I think we've covered this many, many times now. Quotes do not all have to come from entirely politically neutral beings! Not only is such a thing impossible, but the belief that this is how Wikipedia operates is becoming damaging to the comprehensive nature of articles, making them more partisan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marty jar (talk • contribs) 19:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

(od)Material critical of the topic is generally considered to be criticism. Wikipedia does not need to say "and critics call this paper despicable" because that sort of opinion is not really the stuff of an encyclopedia. In this article is: On 21 May 1915, Northcliffe wrote a blistering attack on Lord Kitchener, the Secretary of State for War. Kitchener was considered a national hero, and, overnight, the paper's circulation dropped from 1,386,000 to 238,000. 1,500 members of the London Stock Exchange ceremonially burned the unsold copies and launched a boycott against the Harmsworth Press. Prime Minister H. H. Asquith accused the paper of being disloyal to the country. There were 40,000 entries and the winner was a cross between a top hat and a bowler christened the Daily Mail Sandringham Hat. The paper subsequently promoted the wearing of it but without much success Rothermere's 1933 leader "Youth Triumphant" praised the new Nazi regime's accomplishments, and was subsequently used as propaganda by them.[26] " The minor misdeeds of individual Nazis would be submerged by the immense benefits the new regime is already bestowing on Germany (1933). ” —Lord Rothermere, publisher Rothermere and the Mail were also editorially sympathetic to Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists.[27] Rothermere wrote an article entitled "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" in January 1934, praising Mosley for his "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine".[28] This support ended after violence at a BUF rally in Kensington Olympia later that year. The article also contains a list of major libel lawsuits. Writing for the New Statesman, Johann Hari accused Littlejohn of having a "psychiatric disorder" about homosexuality with a "pornographic imagination. Almost all of the "famous stories" section is critical of the paper.

In short: plenty of criticism and critical material about the paper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

"Material critical of the topic is generally considered to be criticism" Where? You have itemised embarrassing details in the paper's history not criticism. Why is Hari allowed in, a liberal journalist in deep trouble, but no one else? I have removed the reference to Peter Hitchens again, a contributor to the MoS, as you have chosen not to defend his inclusion in this article. Philip Cross (talk) 13:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed the first reference to Richard Littlejohn, his periods with the Mail are detailed in his own WP article for anyone who urgently wishes to know about them. Why should Littlejohn's connection be favoured over, say, Melanie Phillips? I also considered the first passage on the beginnings of the Ideal Homne Exhibition to be insufficiently worked into the article. As the second reference at the beginning of the "Supplements and features" section concentrated on Northcliffe's changing attitudes to the event it seemed best to place the passage chronologically where his connection with the Mail is discussed. Philip Cross (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Um -- so covering people callling someone homophobic is not criticism? Try asking others - I fear you are now having an IDIDNTHEARTHAT moment. By the way, "Mail on Sunday" I think is part of the Daily Mail empire. But on Hitchens - who cares? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Where do I deny Hari criticised the Mail? You did not respond to my query about why Hari is allowed in, but no one else. BTW, I think we have an article on the Mail on Sunday (and the Daily Mail and General Trust holding company). Philip Cross (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Daily Mail Libel Section

Given the near constant nature of the acts of libel committed by the Daily Mail, it would surely be informative to have a separate section detailing this aspect of the Mail. This section could have three parts: 1. themes of libel - environment, dodgy immigrants, NHS, silly celebrities, political enemies of Murdoch. 2. The reasons the Mail uses libel as part of its editorial and sales strategy. 3. The effectiveness of the libel in manipulating/shaping public opinion in certain insufficiently educated sectors of the British populace.

I can help out with numerous references, yet unfortunately do not have the time to write all of the copy myself.

This could greatly improve the accuracy of the Daily Mail wiki, which seems to have been written and sanitized by employees of the Daily Mail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.255.172.254 (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

This talk page is for improving this article - not for coatracking every possible charge levelled against the newspaper. Note that The Times and other papers have also had libel cases - which are not listed in their articles. Collect (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

If that content is notable, verifiable, and unbiased, it can be included in the article. --Bsherr (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

This does seem a bit agenda-driven. I agree there is no reason we shouldn't cover notable libel cases, and if there is reliable third-party material out there on the "themes", motivations and effectiveness of libellous statements by the Mail, perhaps we could briefly summarise it. What we shouldn't be doing is trying to imply these themes on our own, for example by grouping libel cases into different categories.

Also, as a reality check, bear in mind that the number/"themes" of libel cases brought against any newspaper probably bear little resemblance to the number/"themes" of its actual defamatory misstatements, because very very often no case is brought.

Why would the Mail have it in for enemies of Rupert Murdoch? Barnabypage (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

This article has NOT been 'written and sanatized by Mail employees' as the IP user above ridiculously claims. That is just the sort of opinionated nonsense that we are keeping out of the article for good reason. Those comments are simply your opinions they are not facts. The article is perfectly accurate and balanced, if anything this page is dominated by left-wingers. Christian1985 (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Just read through this article and it is completely biased towards the Mail, there's nothing on the death of Stephen Gately and the 40,000+ complaints against Jan Moir, the reporting of the Daily Mail defending itself from this, any bad nicknames they have for their biased articles (Daily Hate, Daily Fail) nothing on their constant anti-gay articles (there being 2 this week alone), their anti-gay cartoon showing a gay couple as leather-clad skinheads (again this week) and it's all perfectly chronicled on "Pink News" "Pink Paper" and in fact their OWN comments sections of the articles.

It appears the article is being watched carefully by a few users with no intent to add anything bad the Mail have done and still do, this is against Wikipedia rules and it needs to stop. Jenova20 (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You're at it again hurling unfounded accusations around. The article is NOT biased toward the Mail, it is a balanced and fair article. The Pink Paper is just as biased as the Mail so it is not a realiable source. You are clearly LGBT, but this article is not an opportunity to publish your hatred of the Mail, it is an encyclopedic article. Your views are clearly very very biased against the Mail. The article is fully in accordanced with Wikipedia guidelines so get your facts straight please. No rules have been broken. Christian1985 (talk) 11:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest The Pink Paper is a reliable source, at least in terms of news coverage (as opposed to comment). Reliable sources aren't required to have no ideological position, just to be reliable in their recounting of fact. The issue shouldn't be treated disproportionately - it is not the salient issue in the entire history of the Daily Mail - but I suggest it's not unreasonable to mention it if a source can be provided. Barnabypage (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I can provide clear proof to each fact just stated and the Jan Moir debaccle alone generated international coverage and should be mentioned. It does not matter about me at all, what matters is that you are clearly sitting on the article and claiming ownership, and resisting any changes you do not approve of. That is in violation of rules. Jenova20 (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Jan Moir has made the New York Times - but not in the context you assert. [Nor will the United States, in conformity with its treaty obligations, permit the establishment of a regime dominated by international, atheistic Communism in the Western Hemisphere] would be a reliable source for quoting " The ganging up on Twitter against people who have somehow run afoul of others has become increasingly common here. The same thing happened last month when the journalist Jan Moir wrote a column in The Daily Mail criticizing the lifestyle of Stephen Gately, a gay member of the pop band Boyzone who was found dead at 33 in his vacation apartment in Majorca. Many people — including Mr. Fry — believed that the article had homophobic undertones, and said so on Twitter, where Ms. Moir then became one of the topics of hate du jour. An organized campaign helped ensure that her article led to about 23,000 formal complaints to the Press Complaints Commission of Britain. " In short - that Moir was a victim of an organized campaign. But nothing more. And nothing directed at the Daily Mail, nor any assertion that the DM prints regular anti-gay articles. I suggest you read WP:RS and WP:V to see why "Pink Paper comments" are not allowed on WP. Thanks. Collect (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Well said Collect, no Jenova20 I am NOT 'sitting on the article' claiming 'ownership' of the article at all. Please do not make such rash judgements about me. Just proves yet again how biased you are. You clearly have a personal hatred of the Mail, this site is not the place for you to express that. I am simply following guidelines and standards set by Wikipedia. I have not violated any rules whatsoever so keep such accusations to yourself. Christian1985 (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not biased for requesting a criticism section and your talk page is proof enough that you do indeed have a personal interest in keeping this article devoid of change. Jenova20 (talk) 13:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

So you feel the sections on Rothermere etc. are somehow pro-Daily Mail? WP policy is that where criticism is included properly in other sections, that a separate section is improper. Collect (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

So you would have no problem with more being added to the article with sources? Jenova20 (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Claims about "living persons" must meet WP:BLP, and all sources must meet WP:RS, and the claims must reasonably meet reasonable weight (trivia about the brand of coffee used in the cafeteria is likely not worthy :) ) but solid claims fully backed by reliable sources are fine. The claims must be properly worded, as always, and opinions should always be cited as opinion. Collect (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

How about this controversial cartoon they featured in the paper after the Preddys won damages for being banned from a hotel: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348384/Mac--Damages-payout-gay-couple.html The Mail took the hotel owners' side and then made the couple who were barred out to look like neo-nazi skinheads with swastika and 666 tattoos.

Looks like inciting hatred or at the least controversial from here, anyone else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenova20 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Provide an RS soutce for the claim demonstrating that it is of enough significance to be in this article. And you likely would have to name the cartoonist, since, AFAICT, the DM does little drawing. Collect (talk) 11:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Their own site is not a reliable source? Mac drew the cartoon. Jenova20 (talk) 12:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

A harmless cartoon is not an RS for making such a claim against the DM. The cartoon being 'evidence' of 'inciting hatred' is simply YOUR opinion, it is not a fact. I saw that cartoon and I found it rather harmless. It does not support the claims you are making in any way. Christian1985 (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion

I've reviewed the article and the above commentary as an unsolicited WP:3O third opinion. I see no evidence of "sanitizing" the article in support of the DM; a true "sanitizing" effort, IMO, would attempt to suppress the listing of awards listed in the Libel section. That said, I find it curious that this publication has had so many awards ordered, or settlements, in recent times, and from the standpoint of one who takes more than a casual interest in journalism and ethics, that series of awards/settlements does call the DM's motives into question. But as was stated above, this isn't a venue for arguing journalistic ethics or integrity. It is a forum for seeking consensus on improving the article, and as such, any information added or proposed must meet the tests of WP:RS and WP:V. There is, however, an appearance of ownership of the article by Collect. As I'm just now looking at the article and its Discussion page for the first time, I see what some might consider a disproportionate number of reversions by that worthy, albeit reversions made in good faith, and reversions with clear and concise edit summaries to support them. I'm not certain that there's call for a full examination and comment cycle, but it's a possibility, and one the interested editors might wish to consider as part of what looks to be a necessary dispute resolution. Cheers, --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Eh? I am not even in the UK fer gosh sakes. By the way, all of the British tabloids, and most of the broadsheets, have quite similar libel suit records :). BTW, virtually all of my "reverts" are based in WP policy, and are not aimed at "protecting" a newspaper I have never even read. Collect (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Collect is right, there is no 'ownership' by myself or Collect. We are simply adhering to Wikipedia policy by blocking nonsensical and unsourced edits. An IP vandal once claimed the Mail supported the controversial BNP because of an article titled 'Cheers as BNP Leader walks free' citing the actual article as a reference. Yet the article was condemning the BNP referring to the 'cheers' of Nick Griffin's supporters NOT the DM. Christian1985 (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Collect, don't you think it is a bit odd that you would spend hours of your time defending a newspaper you have never read? Here by the way is a link to their site so that you may read it on-line. It is the sort of paper I'll read when someone leaves it behind in the pub. TFD (talk) 05:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Collect's claim, as I understand it, is that he or she is defending wikipedia by enforcing its policies, not defending the paper. I find it more odd that you would seek to misrepresent his/her actions, than that a wikipedian has a page on his/her watchlist and acts to enforce policy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of seeking to misrepresent his actions. It would be fine if Collect's concern was consistent for news media and organizations that did share his political orientation . See for example Collect's long arguments at Talk:Democracy Now! or Talk:Unite Against Fascism where he Google mines for obscure references to them as left-wing, then tenaciously but unsuccessfully defends this clear violation of NPOV across numerous noticeboards and RfCs. TFD (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Amazingly enough, I recall a poster saying that "other articles should not be discussed." I find, in addition, that calling a newspaper "pro-Nazi" as some sought here in the past is not quite the same as calling a Socialist Workers Party organization "left wing" when that is what The Times called it (noting, of course, that you call The Times an "obscure reference" :) ). Lastly, I suggest you examine my User:Collect/watchlisted articles and see the full spectrum of articles I follow. Now might you restrict yourself to this article as you insist others do? Thank you most kindly. [11] shows the type of comments some editors seem to find valid on article talk pages. Collect (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

There you go. Unite Against Fascism is not a "Socialist Workers Party orgnaization", but a broad coalition of people, ranging from the Conservative Prime minister and members of the 1922 committee to the left fringe of British politics. Opposing fascism btw is not left-wing. On the other hand, there is no need to airbrush out of the history section the fact that the DM was sympathetic to Hitler in the 1930s - many people in the UK and US were. And yes, the reference is obscure because it is not typical of the way The Times describes the UAF - is The Times another newspaper that you have never read? TFD (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

(od) Tell the SWP not to claim that they founded it then. Nor, by the way, has Rothermere's infatuation with Hitler been "airbrushed" in this article. And since at least six UK newpspaers use the term "left wing" with regard to the UAF, and the SWP calls it "left wing" I suppose it is really "radical right wing"? FWIW, I do not recall you gainsaying [12]. Or worrying about such edits as [13] (your very first edit on the article AFAICT). Which occurred shortly after [14] my revert of an editor specifying "neo-Nazism" for the paper. Now are you done this silly personal aside about me? Thank you mist kindly. Collect (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You have never have provided the link to the SWP claim that they set up the UAF. Is there any reason why you would consider the SWP website as more reliable than the mainstream media? (BTW there was nothing wrong with my removal of unsourced original research from the article. I am surprised that you did not remove it yourself.) TFD (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You are right - no one should believe the SWP making a statement about itself. Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not say that. The SWP website is not a reliable source for statements about other organizations. Do you think for example that it would be a good source for this article? You have not btw ever provided the source to which you refer. I can only conclude that it does not exist. TFD (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The SWP claim is, in fact, about itself. And look at the past discussions - I have provided a substantial number of cites, and repeating them seems silly. Collect (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You have not provided any link to this claim. and no one has been able to find it. Perhaps you read the source repeated somewhere else? TFD (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

So far we have -- The SWP is not a valid source on the SWP and besides you can't find the cites from past discussions on WP, so therefore the cite which was not valid because the SWP can not talk about itself therefore did not exist in the first place? That appears to be what passes for "discussion." Sorry TFD, I decline to play this game further. Collect (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

So you think you saw something on the SWP website, cannot find it, but expect us to take your word and you want to use it as a source for a separate article on a separate organization. Those are the standards you apply to articles about organizations that you oppose, which are different from the standards you apply to this article. TFD (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

(od) the cite has been on my UT page now for a while, and FRD has not emended his charges. The cite exists, did exist, and will continue to exist. Collect (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Fourth Opinion

Since things have got a little off topic, I thought I'd bring things back to the matter at hand. I also don't see a sanitising of the article - it does include a libel section and their support of Hitler, though the paper clearly has a bias in the modern which could be expanded in the editorial stance section. I would heartily disapprove of a "criticsm" section, and in general I see this as not far from WP:NPOV. As to WP:OWNership, that's something to watch. I've watchlisted the article and will try to help out. Worm 12:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I can only see that as being a good thing. Thanks Jenova20 (talk) 13:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the article as a whole is overly sanitised, but I think the problems are more specific than that, and a look at the talk page archive shows that there is definitely a problem with WP:OWN and editor after editor making the same arguments and eventually getting bored and going away.

The most problematic aspect of the article, IMO, is the "editorial stance" section. At least part of this section should be given over to the fact that the paper is controversial and divides opinion on a number of issues, which is easily (and was previously) sourced. There is good sourcing for the fact that the Mail is criticised by some for the quality of its science writing, for example (health scares, global warming and such like), but other editors may have additional suggestions as to what is notable in terms of the paper's editorial line. And there is no reason they should have to find doing so such a joyless and pointless process.

At present, the "editorial stance section" appears to be put together at random mostly using the Mail itself as the source and without guidance from any secondary sources. Why has South Ossetia been included? Is Melanie Philips an editorial stance as such? --FormerIP (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Cross suggested that Melanie Philips be added. "Editorial stance: "It has" is an advertisement, why Littlejohn but not Phillips, see talk)" Which seemed rather reasonable and was complied with. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It was a largely rhetorical point rather than a request. Still, if a criticism of Littlejohn can be allowed, cited RS criticism of Phillips might also escape deletion. I agree with the points FormerIP makes, and am at a loss to think who s/he might be accusing of WP:OWN. Philip Cross (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Middle Market?

On this page and Middle-market newspaper (an article with no references or sources), it is claimed that the Daily Mail is a Middle-market newspaper. However, judging by the Mail Online, I think that the more appropriate label would be downmarket, as (quoted from Middle-market newspaper) down-market newspapers favor sensationalist stories. Currently featured articles on the front page include one about Cheryl Cole (Head to toe: Cheryl Cole launches shoe collection with big hair), an anti-Traveller article regarding Dale Farm (Fiasco down on eviction farm: Travellers' glee as judge halts closure of illegal site at eleventh hour). Other common articles that often appear include anti-immigrant, anti-Traveller, anti-Muslim, anti-gay undertones, as well as sensationalist anti-benefit-cheats articles, not exactly things that springs to mind when one thinks of a middle-market newspaper.

Though this is of course original research and POV, my point is that the claim about it being Middle-market should still have a source. Vuvuzela2010 (talk) 04:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually it was fully sourced, and then was cleaned up. I fear using "down market" would be explicitly POV. [15] among many others explicitly calls it "middle market." [16] explicitly differentiates the Daily Mail from the eplicitly named "down market" newspapers. Collect (talk) 11:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Your sources are from 1992 and 1994. I would occassionally read the tabloid then if someone left it behind on the bus, but checking its website, it appears to have moved down market since. It used to be on the same level of the Daily Express but now seems to be too "salacious" for the Blue rinse brigade. TFD (talk) 13:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd be cautious about judging the paper based on the Mail Online which is quite a different beast. The online version contains stories from the paper version, of course, but seems to be substantially enriched with celebrity stories etc. shellac (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No doubt there are better sources, but for example this article by Peter Preston explains how the Mail is pretty unusual in running the online version as a distinct entity. Note the the reference to sniping about "...those yards of celebrity gossip and pictures on the site; this isn't the Mail we know..." etc shellac (talk) 13:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is absolutely not 'downmarket', it is a middle-market newspaper, I am a reader myself. I agree with Collect, labelling it 'downmarket' is POV and not acceptable. The Mail is not anti-muslim, anti-immigrant or anti-gay at all. You can't go around hurling such wild accusations they are not appropriate on here. Please leave these ridiculous statements out of the article they are absolutely not appropriate. The article should remain how it is. Christian1985 (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

In fairness they provide reasonable news coverage, which puts them in a class above the "tabloids". TFD (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd argue that up/middle/downmarket is about choice of subject matter and presentation (in terms of both the language used and the visual design) rather than any political positions or prejudices the paper may or may not hold. The Mail clearly falls into the mid-market by UK standards on those points, and also meets our own definition of Middle-market newspaper. Barnabypage (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd query whether "our" definition is correct though. In any event, surely what's needed is strong and clear sourcing. I'm also not sure that the different terms sit together within a spectrum in the way that is being presumed. Conceivably, the Mail is downmarket in its content and middle-market in terms of its target demographic. All very subjective, though. --FormerIP (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a pretty well-established tri-partite division of the British industry into downmarket "red-tops" (Sun, Mirror, Star, Sport if it's still going), middle-market (Mail, Express) and "quality" (Times, Telegraph, Guardian, Independent, FT). Of course, as you say, it's subjective and not necessarily the best way to slice up the pie - nevertheless it is the way the pie's generally perceived within the newspaper industry and by advertisers (less so, I'd suspect, by readers).

Couple of sources:

http://www.ejc.net/media_landscape/article/uk/ (on the tri-partite division in general)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade+tone/analysis (on the middle-market position of the Mail specifically) Barnabypage (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The current entry for Middle-market newspaper is woeful; with no external references it is clearly no more than original research. Better to remove the reference in the introduction until a better entry for Middle-market newspaper can be created? Markb (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It is still the common term used to describe the market position of the Daily Mail, as has already been stated, despite the flawed nature of the linked article. Philip Cross (talk) 15:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

[17] directly connects the Daily Mail with "middle market" (by saying until a specific time, the Express on Sunday was the only "middle market" newspaper as a reason for the "Mail on Sunday" being launched) in an official House of Lords paper. [18] specifically identifies the Daily Mail as "middle market." As does [19]. [20] and other exceedingly strong sources also use the term specifically about the Daily Mail, and Daily Express. In 2008. Seems enough for me. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

If it is a "common term" , then surely there must be citations, like Collect has come up with? I suggest you update the Middle-market newspaper entry with this, rather than this talk page? Markb (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I see Collect has reverted my edit, on the basis that this non-contentious claim is supported by a great number of RS sources . It isn't, there are no references on the Middle-market newspaper, it is simply a POV entry. If there are a great number of RS sources then they should be on that page, not in the talk section of this entry. Please do nor re-revert my edit without addressing the core issue. Markb (talk) 10:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It is highly unusual to ask for cites in the lede - but I figure the House of Lords cite well ought to suffice. Collect (talk) 12

36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I see what you've done, & the update to Middle-market newspaper, thank-you for your effort. Markb (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

My Chemical Romance

Why is there no mention of this entire section from the My Chemical Romance article:? "UK tabloid incident

On May 8, 2008, British tabloid The Sun published an article entitled "Suicide of Hannah, the Secret emo", which reported the death of a thirteen year-old British girl named Hannah Bond, who had hanged herself supposedly because of her involvement with a reported "self-harming 'emo' cult", which the newspaper directly associated with My Chemical Romance, and their then-current album The Black Parade, which was said to be linked to her suicide. In the article, coroner Roger Sykes expressed concern that Bond's "emo" lifestyle glamorized suicide, and suggested that her obsession with My Chemical Romance was linked to her death.[54][55] Regardless, The Sun's article, and an article in NME about The Sun's article, had linked My Chemical Romance to the suicide.[56] Supporters of emo music contacted NME to defend the genre against accusations that it promotes suicide.[57]

A group of British fans eventually planned a march across London in protest against the depiction of the band in the media. The march was expected to be held on May 31, beginning at Hyde Park's West Pond and ending outside the offices of tabloid newspaper the Daily Mail, which widely criticized My Chemical Romance and had published general pieces about the dangers of "suicide cults". The march was expected to attract 500–1000 protesters, according to the organizers.[58][59] After concerns by police, the march was called off and instead about 100 fans congregated at Marble Arch[60] and the band repeated the statement "fuck the Daily Mail" during their gigs in the United Kingdom.

The Daily Mail defended its position saying its coverage was "balanced, and restrained" and "in the public interest" and they were reporting genuine concerns raised by the coroner at the inquest and claim that their coverage of the incident has been misrepresented and confused with rumor. They state that their coverage of the coroner's remarks and the parents' comments was in common with that of other newspapers, and point to their publishing of readers letters defending the band and positive reviews of the band's albums and tours.[61]" 90.209.124.27 (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The vast and extensive criticism of the Daily Mail cannot all be included in the article. Philip Cross (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The appropriate policy is WP:WEIGHT. You need to show not only that the story is significant but that it is significant to how The Mail is viewed. TFD (talk) 00:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

WEIGHT is clearly not present for such material in this article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Seriously - If you want to know why this article has no "controversy" sections, or any negative news, it's quite simple. The user "collect" policies it on almost an hourly basis, and removes anything he doesn't personally like - usually trying to find a grey area in wikipedia rules to justify the deletion, in the hope that he can drag out the dispute long enough for the person who made the addition to give up.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjmooney9 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 27 February 2012‎

Well, the Jan Moir debacle is in there, if nothing else. But feel free to bring back up any dusty talk threads which weren't resolved - if someone's been filibustering to suppress content they personally dislike, then some more eyes or an RFC might clear it up. We should all assume good faith of fellow editors, though. --McGeddon (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Vanished

The Mail had "For King and Empire" on the top of the front page at one time. This seems to have vanished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.124.253 (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

No more king, no more empire. TFD (talk) 02:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Redirect

Shouldn't DailyMail.co.uk and Dailymail.co.uk redirect to Mail Online, instead of the current redirection to Daily Mail? 212.139.106.114 (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Potentially, however, there is currently not really much info on the Mail Online, outside of "number of hits" and so for most readers, the information that they are looking for would most likely be in this article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of the Mail's treatment of its female employees

Started this as a "Criticism" section, but it's been expanded. Seems a bit of a long title to me. Any thoughts? Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is a single opinion/point of view piece by a Guardian columnist of such note that it warrants inclusion? If every obscure article about the Daily Mail is listed we're going to end up with a very long entry. Wikiplan2012 (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It shouldnt be a "Criticism" section at all. There should probably be a "Critique" section where our article shows what third parties have said about the paper and its reputation and practices in general or through time. but not so much on specific incidents. And perhaps a "Popular view" section in which we have third parties talk about the paper's particlar place in the popular mind and representation in the media.

and i think the emphasis on this particular incident about the treatment of women is UNDUE at this time. its just another "scandal" that for some reason wikipedia editors have this fixation the "dirt" needs to be covered. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with The Red Pen of Doom above. This is one of the big issues I have always had with this article. There seems to be a small coup of determined editors who go scoruing the net, most often The Guardian website finding every negative quote, story or article about the DM they can. I think there is an element on bias personally as the Guardian is practically the left-wing equivalent of the Mail. I have seen this sort of thing on here so many times before. Someone finds one quote or article by a Guardian columnist and then wastes no time in putting it on here. I don't mean to point the finger but it seems to me some people just have a vendetta against the DM and are using the article to vent their anger. Like I say I am not accusing anyone there just a feeling I get in my experience. Christian1985 (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I will confess to despising the Daily Mail, and also to thinking that Hadley Freeman's article was one of the more interesting takes on the whole Brick yawnfest, but I also dislike WP's habit of acquiring "criticism" sections and/or building whole articles or sections on the basis of individual op-eds. Fortunately, policy also dislikes the latter two habits. Now the Brick article itself has correctly gone, I wonder if there might not be a better way to integrate some of the material relating to that brief and passing fuss here - it does actually serve as a pretty good (albeit extreme) example both of the type of feature journalism the Mail frequently engages in and of its website's self-promoting PR fun. I'm sure both those points can be made a neutral and genuinely informative way, while also briefly noting the Brick issue itself, with due weight, as an incident in the Mail's long history. N-HH talk/edits 16:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Mention of the Freeman article was originally added in a section titled "Treatment of contributors" (see this version) which I didn't feel was appropriate so I started a criticism section with that information, and added the stuff about Brick. Another editor then appears to have added a flavour of agenda by expanding the title. There is nothing wrong with controversy or criticism sections, providing the article is balanced, and of course the Mail is one of those topics which polarises opinion. Certainly I believe there is a place for the information here as N-HH has mentioned above, but my decision to add it was not politically motivated. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

But the problem is that the more controversial the topic, the more such sections get bogged down and act as a magnet for pov contributions - you can always find and source criticism of some sort and there are plenty of editors here willing to shovel it in to articles about things they don't like. And if properly balanced and npov within themselves, such sections unbalance the article as a whole even more. I think this article needs dedicated sections on the Mail Online website and the paper's Femail features anyway, where, as I say, this stuff would probably sit best. Anyway, I doubt it'll be me devoting much time to doing that I'm afraid .. N-HH talk/edits 17:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

There is already a (stub) for Mail Online. It could use some work. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It is undue, and the Brick item properly belongs in the Famous Stories section. – Lionel ^(talk) 23:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Critique

A nine-page article of 8,800 words about the Daily Mail in The New Yorker doesn't get mentioned? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I think "critique" is an overstatement. This is nothing but an POV/opinion piece in a paper which is known for using a satirical style similar to Private Eye here in the UK. This article is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Thank You Christian1985 (talk) 08:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Even so there's a lot of good stuff that's usable in there if it can be sourced from other places. Thanks Jenova20 08:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The New Yorker is about as RS as you can get (famous for being one of the last publications to hang on to the process of rigorous fact-checking) and while certainly some of the piece is opinion, there's plenty of reportage in there too. Barnabypage (talk) 11:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Political sympathies

Is it not simplistic to say, as above, that the Mail supports the Conservatives? It loathes the Coalition with the Lib Dems, and disdains the 'Cameroons', and David Cameron personally. With any newspaper it is surely fallacious to talk about "The Mail says -", "The Telegraph says -" etc. But not a bad indicator of basic position is the Readers' Letters that are chosen to be published. The Mail's are full of scorn for the Cameron administration.

Rogersansom (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The aim is to present the general editorial position of the newspaper - and over a very extended period of time it has been considered "Conservative." And "letters to the editor" are generally chosen to present disparate views - that you would say that such a column represents the editorial position of a newspaper is odd. Collect (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done - I believe that claim constitutes WP:SYNTHESIS since i don't know of (and none has been provided) any instance where the Mail has specifically mentioned their support for the Conservatives. You linking up multiple things does not in any way reaffirm this as a fact. Sorry ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 12:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Circulation

The second paragraph of the introduction states that DM is the second biggest selling daily after The Sun, but in the Overview section is says it's the 3rd biggest. Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vans74 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

As each claim has a "reliable source" it likely depends on the criteria each source used. It is not up to us to make such determinations otherwise. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The claims aren't contradictory - the first relates to newspaper sales within the UK, the second covers English-language newspapers throughout the world (including the United States). It's maybe worth checking if the latter needs updating, though, as we're reporting it in present tense even though the figures are from 2005. --McGeddon (talk) 12:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

"Daily"

Is this - or was this - "daily" ever published seven days a week?--78.53.85.49 (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Like many dailies - it appears to have a companion Sunday edition. As the term "mail" used to indicate delivery by post, and in the UK Sunday deliveries were not general, the term "mail" would have indicated 6 days a week publication. Collect (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The Mail on Sunday? It's in the first part of the article ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 21:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)