Talk:MailOnline/Archive 1

Addition regarding user comments
What is wrong with adding this section to the article?

"The Mail Online actively filter and edit comments on their articles and sometimes do not feature submitted comments at all. They also do not allow comments on certain articles for legal reasons."

It's nothing the Daily Mail do not state themselves and not vandalism.  J e n o v a  20 15:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't state that. It doesn't say they 'filter' comments and certainly doesn't say they 'edit' comments. You are trying to accuse the Mail of 'blocking' comments they don't like. Virtually all comment forums moderate comments, it is not the Mail being 'biased', it is standard practice. You are making POV claims not cited in the reference. That is the issue. The 'Legal Reasons' comment doesn't prove anything, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. Christian1985 (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Could one of you please copy and paste what it does say below. I can't access the page, I keep getting security errors  Worm    TT   15:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Here it is;

Thank you for choosing to comment on MailOnline To allow more of our readers to contribute we have changed our processes and only moderate comments in advance on some of our articles. However, we do need you to fill in a short registration form accept our Terms and read our House Rules. After you have registered you can remain permanently logged in on this computer if you wish.

Please note that, for legal reasons, we do not allow comments on all articles.

Please be assured that we will safeguard any information that you provide and will only use your information in accordance with your stated preferences. For details on how we use your information, see our Privacy Policy

See nowhere does it say 'filter' or 'edit'. It says 'moderate' which is standard practice for an internet forum. Jenova20 is basically just trying to create claims out of thin air that aren't there in the article. Christian1985 (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Moderate by definition can mean edit Christian. http://www.libdemvoice.org/daily-mail-website-editing-users-comments-552.html http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2008/09/04/reasons-not-to-ignore-comments-2-the-daily-mail-and-julie-moult/ http://blog.fluidcreativity.co.uk/the-daily-mail-to-stop-moderating-comments-so-how-should-they-display-comments/ http://econsultancy.com/uk/blog/4415-daily-mail-s-new-comment-moderation-policy-a-good-idea

They clearly do edit comments, granted some of these are blogs, but they're also news sources and the last link is the best there.  J e n o v a  20 15:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Moderate does not mean 'edit' in the way you are insinuating. Those references are just biased blogs, they don't prove anything. You are making some very bold accusations against the Mail without verifiable proof. Blogs are not reliable sources. The Mail does NOT 'edit' users comments so we should just leave it at that. Christian1985 (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that there was different text when you were logged in. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/readerCommentsSecurity.html, says that when you are logged out, Jenova is the text that Christian has pointed to the text you were referring to as the source?
 * Also, moderate does not mean "to edit", it means "to preside over". In the case of online fora, it generally means removal of inappropriate comments, not editing them to change their meaning.  Worm    TT   15:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also I have viewed those blog sites and they don't prove anything of the claims Jenova20 is trying to make. Christian1985 (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec - will look at what's just been said)I've looked at them too. Just because they are blogs doesn't mean they are wrong, but it does mean we shouldn't be using them (with a few exceptions). However, the Daily Mail's terms and conditions do state 4.1 We may publish, check, edit or remove all or part of the comments or other material, including your name, town and country, which you submit to us ('Your Content'), at our sole discretion. - allows editing... Also, under 4.3, they state they can "Remove Your Content, even if you have not breached these Terms or our House Rules" and "Edit your Content, which may result in a part of it being modified and displayed, including without your name." Finally their house rules state that "usually" they remove whole content - but only usually. I'm not certain that suggested addition is an unreasonable one.  Worm    TT   16:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But that does not prove the claims Jenova20 is trying to make. He is trying to claim the Mail is 'sanitising' the site and blocking comments they don't like, which is completely untrue. Those blog sites don't prove anything, I have read them, they certainly don't back Jenova20's assertions. All websites can remove comments at their discretion to avoid legal action etc but it does not prove what Jenova20 says. Christian1985 (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * He may think that, but that's not what he's written. The sentence proposed appears to be neutrally worded and reasonable. I see no suggestion of sanitisation, nor about what the Mail may or may not like.  Worm    TT   16:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

"Thank you! Thank you for adding a comment to MailOnline. Comments on this article are being checked in advance. We aim to publish as many as possible. MailOnline receives thousands of comments every day, so please be patient. If your comments do not appear, this may be due to the volume we receive or due to the content of your comment." That's what it said when i commented. Each of those links is an article about the Daily Mail editing their comment or editing it and later removing it.  J e n o v a  20 16:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, that doesn't prove the claims you are trying to make. Comments not appearing due to volume that happens on many popular sites, doesn't prove anything. Those 'articles' don't prove anything. Moderating comments is not the same as 'editing'. Please just accept you are wrong and leave the section out of the article. Christian1985 (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure what claims you think are trying to be made here. They clearly do "actively" filter comments in that they don't let every comment through, they reserve the right to edit comments, they confirm that they will not submit all comments. They do not allow edits on certain articles for legal reasons. I do not see a reason that the section should be left out of the article  Worm    TT   16:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the claims Jenova20 are trying to make are NOT supported by reliable references. He is trying to claim the Mail Online blocks comments they don't like, they are not doing this and never have done. Like all websites they reserve the right to remove inappropriate material such as spam. advertising and libellous/false comments. That doesn't mean they are being 'biased' as Jenova is trying to claim. Christian1985 (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also it does NOT say anywhere they 'filter' comments. This is pointless trivial information that does not belong in an encyclopedic article. I feel it is simply Jenova20 trying to have a go at the Mail. Would he do the same on a left-wing article one wonders? Christian1985 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)As I said above, Jenova's views are not in question, but the suggested text is. The suggested text is neutral and does not imply the Mail is being biased, nor does it claim the block comments that they don't like. I don't give a crap about whether the Mail do block comments they don't like or your or Jenova's opinion on the matter. What I do care about is a sensible discussion about reasonable text.  Worm    TT   16:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough but NOWHERE does it say 'filter' comments. That statement has been fabricated out of thin air. Plus it is pointless trivial information does it really need to be in the article? Should we include the name of the webmaster in the article or the company that created the site. It is pointless information. Christian1985 (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "moderate comments in advance" = filter. That's semantics and I'm sure the sentence could be modified to address the issue. Trivia, I can see your point, but per WP:TRIVIA, it can be integrated into the article. It's not like this is a massive, well written article which needs to be trimmed down.  Worm    TT   16:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you lost this one Christian. Besides, someone else has emailled to ask why their comments are edited and got this respons "Thank you for your correspondence which has finally reached me. I am the senior Communities Editor for the Daily Mail online.

I would firstly like to thank you for using the site and submitting your comments. All comments get put into a queue where they then pass through moderation and although we try to publish as many as we can, not all comments are published, once a story has left the homepage is becomes low priority. We have recently changed our policy and are not editing comments except if they contain anything libellous, racist or homophobic, this means that more are going up. However there are still far too many for us to get through all of them. Please be assured that there is no editorial policy in place that would seek to prevent the discussion of both sides of the story and we value comments from all perspectives.

I hope that this has not discouraged you from continuing to use the website and share your views with our other readers. " =]  J e n o v a  20 16:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no winning and losing here Jenova, we're trying to form a consensus. If we can find a sentence that we're all happy with, surely we all win. I'm also going to point out that the email is not verifiable and should not be published without the permission of both parties  Worm    TT   16:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=42215213905&topic=6080 There's the link, i can't produce my own as it would be original research you would claim. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 16:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

That Facebook page doesn't prove anything, you are wrong Jenova20. I haven't 'lost' anything. You have not presented a single constructive argument in favour of that section. The Worm That Turned has done all the work and I still disagree personally, I feel it is pointless trivia and could easily be misinterpreted by readers of the article. Christian1985 (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Facebook is not a reliable source, and we're discussion a neutrally worded addition to the page here. I remind you of what I just said to Christian, I don't give a crap about whether the Mail do block comments they don't like or either of your opinion on the matter. What I do care about is a sensible discussion about reasonable text.   Worm    TT   16:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree completely Worm That Turned. All Facebook pages are OR/POV. They are absolutely not acceptable as references. Christian1985 (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

What i am trying to do is add content to an article and Christian is unnecessarily in the way here. There is no reason this should concern you, it is an addition to an article with previous discussion and will likely no be edited again in the near future. It has a proper source and is correct, why should it not be added to such a small article with no contributors or any discussion on the page before today? Thanks  J e n o v a  20 16:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Jenova, everyone has every right to article every article. That's the way the encyclopedia works. There's more to adding information that just a source and irrelevent trivia is something that we should try to avoid. Having said that, I do not think this is an unreasonable addition, as I've explained above. On that note, I'm going to go home now. I'll be unavailable, probably until tomorrow morning. Christian, would you consider suggesting a wording you might be happy with or are you still against the section in principle? Jenova, please do not add anything to the article until I return. Thank you both for remaining civil, I know your view points are diametrically opposite, but as long as you Comment on content, not on the contributor things should remain smooth.  Worm    TT   16:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Worm is right. I am perfectly entitled to comment on this. There is no need for you to be so rude Jenova20, 'there is no reason this should concern you, there was no need for that remark and I suggest you apologise. You really need to be more civil to other users. You can't tell me what I can write on and what I can't. I am still against the section in principle especially the use of 'filter' it does not state filter anywhere. Thank you for your assistance Worm That Turned. I sincerely hope Jenova20 will apologise for his behaviour towards me. Christian1985 (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I never said you didn't have the right to comment, what i'm saying is that there's no reason to draw all this out for adding a neutral comment to a small article. As was pointed out before you stop anyone else editing the Daily Mail or Mail Online articles, consider any edits vandalism as you did to another editor on their talk page aswell and as a result only you get to edit those two articles. You disagree for whatever reason you do and because of it the article stays at a paltry 2 paragraphs, with no sources and is barely an article.  J e n o v a  20 17:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You didn't say it but you distinctly tried to point out I am not welcome here with insulting remarks like 'There is no reason this should concern you'. Who do you think you are to dictate who can write on a thread? There you go again with wild unfounded accusations you hsve got to stop accusing me. I am NOT stopping anyone from editing articles, don't be so petty and childish. I have the right to scrutinise articles especially articles which recieve high levels of vandalism and opinionated nonsense like the DM article. I am perfectly entitled to question sources and edits. If you don't like that then that is your problem. I am simply following WP policy and I am fed up of you attacking me saying I am 'claiming ownership' and 'sanatising' articles. You want to be very careful making such bold accusations. I have done absolutely nothing wrong and it is about time you stopped being so rude and abusive to me. I await your apology Christian1985 (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to say much about the 3 comments made after I left, except that I'm not particularly impressed. Jenova, implying that Christian is trying to control the article is a show of bad faith which is why he's upset. Christian, asking for an apology is not generally considered helpful but if you insist upon one I do think you should consider apologising for showing bad faith yourself in calling good faith edits vandalism. I'm not big on wiki apologies, so I'd rather we all take a deep breath, remember that this is a collaborative environment and we are trying to work to build an encyclopedia, then move on. I've opened a section below regarding a suggested rewording and I invite you both to comment since it is noticeably different to what was there before.  Worm    TT   09:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Good that it's almost sorted, thumbs up there as this wouldn't be possible without a third opinion. And regarding the apology, you wouldn't get one even if you apologised to me Christian as you did this on the last article and the Admin clearly pointed out everything i have said was within reason and you had no reason to "vandalise" my talk page as you put it. Thanks for the help worm  J e n o v a  20 11:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you have to be so nasty to me? I have done nothing wrong yet you keep bullying me. I did NOT 'vandalise' your talk page. I made comments as I am perfectly entitled to do and you snapped at me claiming I was 'stalking' you. This is why I cannot work with you because you are rude, abusive and unfriendly to anyone who questions you. The Administrators agreed with me that your comments were inappropriate. But because you couldn't accept that you start hurling accusations at me. You really need to grow up. Christian1985 (talk) 11:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The administrators agreed that my additions would be okay as long as they had proper sources, which i couldn't get for most of them and most agreed you were too protective of the article. And it's clear reading the Daily Mail talk page that you cannot work with anyone other than Collect as you use these same scare tactics against them, so there's no point saying it's me. It is not bullying to claim that i will not apologise to you since you started this with the vandalism claims. There is no vandalism, just your baseless claim  J e n o v a  20 12:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Jenova, the text has been added to the article, agreed with Christian below. We will discuss this later in the week, when the adoption gets into full swing. I might even invite Christian to your adoption page at some point during your adoption (if he is agreeable) to see how your collaboration has improved. For now, I request that you drop the matter and walk away. Christian, if you would be so good as to do the same, I would really appreciate it.  Worm    TT   12:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The Administrators did NOT say I was 'too protective' atall, there you are again hurling baseless accusations and attacks at me. You are a bully, I am perfectly entitled to scrutinise the sources and edits on any article and when I question you, you start ranting and raving 'You are biased' and 'sitting on the article stopping others from contributing'. I am getting very upset with being attacked and bullied for moderating the page stopping nonsense from being added as per WP policy. You really should listen to your mentor because your attitude stinks and it will get you nowhere on this site. You need to stop with these rude comments and accusations and respect other people's right to comment. Christian1985 (talk) 13:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

"You need to stop with these rude comments and accusations and respect other people's right to comment." Take your own advice  J e n o v a  20 14:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Moving forward
Right, as I understand it - Christian is against the section in principle due its 'trivial' nature. His major gripe is regarding the word "filtering". So, I'm proposing a different version below. "The Mail Online allows users to comment on articles and have introduced a system of "pre-moderation", moderation before publishing. Their house rules state that they usually remove inappropriate content in full, though they do reserve the right to edit comments. The site also does not allow comments on some articles for legal reasons."

The wording is different to that proposed by Jenova, and I would be sourcing the paragraph to the house rules and terms and conditions above. I'd appreciate it if you both would comment on the revised wording. Worm   TT   09:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Still looks pretty much the same with things moved around, i have no problem, but then i didn't anyway as long as it's pointed out that they do moderate and edit comments. Which link are you using for this? Thanks  J e n o v a  20 11:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I still feel it is pointless and trivial information and does not warrant being in the article. I would accept your wording if you add 'they reserve the right to edit inappropriate comments', I would accept that as a compromise. Thank you very much for your help Worm That Turned. I am just sorry Jenova20 couldn't be more civilised and stop attacking me. Thank You. Christian1985 (talk) 11:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure about that if I'm honest. It seemed to me that the reserved the right to edit any comment in any way they choose, though the reason I used "reserved the right" was because it doesn't claim that they do it or not - I'm not certain that they do "edit" inappropriate comments or indeed any comments, but they do reserve the right to. As to Jenova's temperment, I have just agreed to adopt him and this will be something that we will be discussing. Please do look on your next encounter (and I'm sure you will encounter each other again!) as a fresh start.  Worm    TT   11:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds fair enough to me Worm That Turned, I just wish he would stop hurling these ridiculous offensive accusations at me and be civil to me. I have done nothing wrong. Thank You for your help Christian1985 (talk) 12:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No problems, I'll stick the amended sentence into the article and will take on your comments re: Jenova in my adoption. Let me know if there's ever anything else I can help out with, you know where my talk page is  Worm    TT   12:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

When did i attack you? When you classed my edit as vandalism or when you ask for an apology for accusing me of vandalism?  J e n o v a  20 13:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Jenova, this is the last time I am going to ask you this. I have asked you on both your talk page AND in the section above, please walk away and do not make any more comments to this talk page. I ask you this as your adopter and as one of the agreed terms of my adoption of you. Christian has been good enough to not reply to your last comment, and I am telling you now, in no uncertain terms WALK AWAY.  Worm    TT   13:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Just commented again before i read this last piece, that's the reason for this comment to explain that. I'm done here as the addition to the article was made and don't have anything to add. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 14:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Controversy Section
I have removed the "Controversy" section completely, it was very poorly written and full of dubious POV/SYNTH statements. Jeonva20's edits are a significant improvement but the "sources" are nothing but blogs which are not acceptable. A site like "Tabloid Watch" is not an appropriate source. Also the dentist story was printed by several newspapers and websites not just the Mail Online. Criticism/Controversy sections are not recommended anyway. I do not feel this belongs in the article. Thank you Christian1985 (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The dentist story was fabricated and firstly published in Mail Online. Controversy section is absolutely adequate in the case of the Mail Online, lying is the style of work in it. I have many examples of these lies, which I will add to the Controversy section soon, eventually with more suitable sources. Pscorp19 (talk) 09:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It is necessary to emphasize - all these fabricated or distorted stories under consideration come from MailOnline, as is clear from the references. Pscorp19 (talk) 12:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I have amended the "Controversy" section, it was poorly written and full of SYNTH/POV. imediaethics aka "Stinky Journalism" is not an appropriate source. Christian1985 (talk) 12:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The Amanda Knox controversy was significant. The Mail Online even made up quotes for that. Please restore it as it is an act of censorship. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 13:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Jenova, the problem is the sources being provided are not reliable. Sites like "Tabloid Watch" and "Stinky Journalism" are hardly reputable sources. Also the user is making allegations of their own making which is not acceptable. Thanks Christian1985 (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * More reliable sources are easily available. The Guardian for instance. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 14:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine Jenova, if there are reliable, reputable sources then fair play but the other user is attempting to use dubious sites like "Stinky Journalism" and "Tabloid Watch", hardly reliable sources for an encyclopedic article. They are also fabricating their own material for the article which is SYNTH and not acceptable practice. Thanks Christian1985 (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

To Pscorp19; the problem with your edits is that they are just your opinions. A reference must support what is stated in the article. You are simply making your own conclusions and interpretations from the sources, this is not proper practice on Wikipedia. You are also trying to imply that the Mail "fabricated" the article which was also published by The Guardian and other papers so it is not fair to single out the Mail. Christian1985 (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What is my opinion?? These are all facts. MailOnline published fabricated parts of article for a specific time and then corrected them. This is clearly stated for example in the reference . In this reference, MailOnline was criticised for such system of the work. This is fact. Further, MailOnline published sensational story, which, as msnbc.com clearly proved by questioning the MailOnline and others, is completely fabricated. This is another fact. And that I am trying to imply that Mail "fabricated" the article, it is a joke? The fact, that Mail fabricated the article, is clearly stated for example in the reference again. I can cite from this reference: "The Mail found itself at the centre of the controversy after its website Mail Online not only reported a guilty verdict for Knox and her former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito but published a prepared story that purported to detail the reaction of those in the court room and quotes from prosecutors." Mail reported prepared, thus fabricated quotes eg from prosecutors, which are huge parts of the article. These parts of the story were published only by the MailOnline, not by Guardian etc. And this is usual practice in MailOnline. If you have complaints against other newspapers, write them in their articles. If you do not allow me to add the "Controversial system of the work" section, it is censorship. Please restore this section. Thanks. Pscorp19 (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not censorship, I am simply following Wikipedia policy. It doesn't require me to restore the section, you are free to do that, I am just following procedure. The statements you are making are not facts they are opinions. This for example "this is usual practice at MailOnline", that is YOUR opinion not a fact. I don't have a problem with any edits as long as they are supported by the references, you are simply making your own interpretations, this is not what Wikipedia is for. This statement "Mail Online has been questioned or even criticised for its controversial system of work, for example for publishing fabricated parts of articles for a specific time and then correcting them" is not supported by the reference. Personally I feel the section is not appropriate for the article and should be left out. This is NOT censorship, I do not take kindly to such accusations, I am simply following Wikipedia policy. The claims you are trying to make are not supported by the reference. Thanks. Christian1985 (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My advice if you are not happy with the situation would be to refer this for a 3rd opinion by where an independent editor will review the edits. Christian1985 (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, 3rd opinion is not necessary, that section is so clear, but I will have to write it much better sometimes in the future. Now I will be filling the Controversial stories section. Pscorp19 (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I have referred for a 3rd opinion, this is the problem, the section is not clear it is full of POV/SYNTH and I do not feel it is appropriate. I feel this needs an independent review. Christian1985 (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The last story in the Controversial stories section is not controversial at all, it just lacks fact checking and shows the Mail Online believes pretty much anything and publishes it. That's bad reporting, not controversy. I suggest moving it to another section and explaining it a bit better. The first story about the tooth pulling also needs more to explain what controversy was created. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 22:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion

 * Hello, guys. I am Codename Lisa and I am responding to WP:3O request. Before I proceed, however, if you do not know what is a third opinion and what is not a third opinion, I invite you to study WP:3O page.


 * Now, the instance of the page I am looking at has a "controversial stories" section, which is poorly written. It requires copy editing. Apart from that, I'd remove sources [11] and [12] since they serve no purpose beyond that of what [10] serves. Same goes for [13], [14] and [15] as [16] is more credible than all of them. Finally, I'd keep the Amanda Knox fiasco shorter; Wikipedia is supposed to report it, not batter Mail Online for doing it. That's all.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I saw this on WP:3O as well. It's best to avoid criticism/controversy sections - see this essay: "Rather than create a section dedicated to criticisms, instead try to incorporate negative material into the appropriate topical or thematic section that the negative material relates to (such as a particular event, policy, or product)." Controversy sections tend to be a form of Content forking. Instead, this article could have a "notable stories" section that neutrally covered both negative and positive responses to Daily Mail articles. Dreamyshade (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What? The only reason there is an Amanda Knox controversy is because the Mail Online made stuff up and got caught. If we remove reference to that then there is no controversy...? Multiple papers have published the wrong article before, but not many have been caught making quotes up from people who obviously never made them. And it's only about two lines anyway. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 22:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for your input Codenamelisa and Dreamyshades, it is most helpful. I am in strong agreement with Dreamyshades that these sort of sections are best avoided as they are often created by people with a personal agenda (I am not accusing anyone here, just a general point). User Pscorp19 seems determined to only include negative material and this is really not helpful for an encyclopedic article. My personal recommendation is for the section to be left out of the article altogether as I feel it is not appropriate. However I don't have a problem with properly sourced edits but personal opinions like "The Mail is well known for using these tactics..." is not acceptable. Thanks very much. Christian1985 (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * So what's your opinion on the Amand Knox section as it is now? Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 22:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I can cite from the Criticism "section" of the wikipedia: "In some situations the term "criticism" may be appropriate in an article or section title, for example, if there is a large body of critical material, and if independent secondary sources comment, analyze or discuss the critical material." MailOnline is in my opinion this case, there is large "body" of critical (and also controversy) material. MailOnline is full of fake, semi-fake etc. material, which causes controversy or criticism. So it could have criticism and/or controversy section. But if not, I do not see any problem to create "notable stories" section (as was suggested), for example as a simple list, with positive and negative responses, but with some explanation. Pscorp19 (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It makes sense to include some coverage of responses to Daily Mail articles, since there are good sources available for this - MSNBC, The Guardian, etc. But we have to be extremely careful to describe the material in neutral terms, to make sure the sources are strong, and to make sure that notable responses of all kinds are covered, not just controversies. Phrases like "Mail Online even published" and "MailOnline was easily fooled" are not neutral. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Jenova, I don't personally have any problems with the Amanda Knox section as is. Like I said previously and as Dreamyshade says above such statements as "Mail Online is full of fake stories" are not neutral and not facts. I am concerned Pscorp19 is simply trying to round up negative stories to try and attack Mail Online. I think a neutral "Notable Stories" section, properly sourced and NO POV statements is perfectly acceptable and I would see no issue with this. Christian1985 (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Jenova, I don't personally have any problems with the Amanda Knox section as is, too. It properly states, that MailOnline fakes parts of the article. In such manner could be described another stories, negative or positive. For Christian1985: Yes, I want to round up negative stories, because I want to say the truth about the MailOnline. I also tried to find something positive about MailOnline, but it is very difficult, the Internet is full of negative reactions to MailOnline and positive are somewhere hidden. But I believe that there is something positive about it, and I hope that you help me in this matter. Do you want? Pscorp19 (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's OK to include primarily negative information if that's what's truly available, but we have to try our best to look for sources in an unbiased way. An example of positive information could be the Mail being the first to report on a significant story, if that's addressed in any secondary sources. (I don't know if that's happened; it's just an example.) It still makes sense to have a neutral section title though, and to precisely explain the negative responses - whether they say that the story was a hoax reported as true, whether the Mail misreported a detail about a true story, whether the Mail published news before the news was actually available, etc. It also seems appropriate to include follow-up information reported by secondary sources - if the Mail apologized for the mistake, announced implementing better policies after the mistake was reported, etc. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with you completely, but what's now, when Christian1985 do not want to discuss? Who will say what is an unbiased way etc? Pscorp19 (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest that both of you write drafts for how you think this section should be written, post them here on the talk page, and discuss them. If you can't come to an agreement, you can ask for another third opinion on the specific text of the section. You can also post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism (or another relevant WikiProject) to ask for additional help. Dreamyshade (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I made an effort to rewrite that section - it may not be balanced or complete, but at least it's neutrally-phrased now. While looking around for potential additional sources, I found this New Yorker article with a lot of background material we could use. I also believe it'd be appropriate to use this Guardian article and this Poynter article as long as the material can be described neutrally. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your effort, it is well written. I do not believe that the "material can be described neutrally". The Guardian and Poynter articles are full of criticism of MailOnline regarding plagiarism. I think that there should be a section about plagiarism, as was suggested by some user (75.147.4.157). I have rewritten his/her attempt, my version is: ""The MailOnline was accused that its business model relies on theft of work of other online publications without giving credit.[the Poynter article] A host of news organizations have complained that the Daily Mail steals their content.[][][]"" Theft of work of other online publications without giving credit by MailOnline is revealed in that Poynter article. Maybe the first sentence could look differently, we can use words from that article: ""The MailOnline was accused that it has been stealing stories from other online publications without giving credit for years.[]"" The section title can be "Theft and plagiarism allegations" or "Allegations of plagiarism", as it is in the wikipedia article en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Telegraph_(Australia) Pscorp19 (talk) 12:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I added "Allegations of plagiarism" section. Pscorp19 (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * We can describe the criticism neutrally. I don't think there's enough material in the article yet to support a whole section about plagiarism. Based on the available material, and since I haven't found any notable positive material to include yet, I'm going to merge the two critical sections into one "Criticism" section. Dreamyshade (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe in that one article there's not enough material, but there are other (similar) articles. Extent of plagiarism in the case of MailOnline is enormous, using google (keywords: "daily mail" plagiarism -site:.dailymail.co.uk) I have found that they stole from eg. Newsweek/Daily Beast, The Independent, The Scotsman and Wikipedia, Bikya Masr, BBC, New York Times, Slate Magazine, WND, Open magazine, Guardian, SF Weekly, scientificamerican.com, Los Angeles Times, wonderlandblog.com, yahoo.com, The Daily, scientificamerican.com ... And I checked only first 5 pages on google! They stole stories, images, videos, everything. Try to find something similar for example for huffingtonpost. Then it is difficult to find something relevant in such ocean of plagiarism. But maybe in the future I will find more suitable article. Pscorp19 (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we should work on expanding the whole article - both the main part of it describing the newspaper in general, and the responses to their stories - and then sort out the sections based on the resulting material. We also have to keep in mind Neutral point of view along the way. Dreamyshade (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, the article should be expanded. Pscorp19 (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

To Pscorp19 this is my problem, you have a very prejudiced view of Mail Online "I want to say the true (truth?) about Mail Online. It is not the truth, it is a one-sided view and it is simply your opinion. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for people to dig up criticisms on everything, it is an encyclopedic site. If you can find reputable sources and post neutral edits I have no problem but please keep your personal opinions out of the article. You can't make statements like "it is full of fake stories", that is not a fact, it is your opinion. Thanks very much Christian1985 (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is only your opinion, that I have a very prejudiced view of MailOnline. I was also searching for positive responses, but as I said, it is problem to find any. Pscorp19 (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Criticism article proposal
The problem you'll have here is that the Daily Mail attracts waaaaaay more criticism than many other publications simply because of the way they operate. I can pull up examples here all day, just as Pscorp can. If none of it is added then the article is being protected in an unneutral way from the criticism it attracts. If all of it is added then it looks like an attack page. What about a criticism or controversies of the Daily Mail article? For anyone watching who hasn't seen how much criticism there is in reliable sources i'll post them up as i find them so you get the idea. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 13:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Daily Mail cites video game as proof of terrorist doomsday plot"
 * "the Mail Online published incredibly unflattering photos of me all over the internet." - Despite them being of the wrong person...
 * Daily Mail runs with iPhone recall story from Steve Jobs Twitter account clearly marked as a fake
 * " ten seconds of Googling appears to be beyond the scope of BBC or Daily Mail photo researchers"
 * There's a lot about the Daily Mail nicking images...
 * Daily Mail getting a bill 3-times larger than usual for copying copyrighted images without permission
 * Daily Mail sued for large scale copyright infringement by Mavrix Images
 * "The Daily Mail knowingly and commercially used my photos despite my denying them permission"
 * "The Daily Mail's website is notorious for grabbing images found on the internet and using them without permission - even incorrectly attributing them, eg, "© Twitter""
 * Daily Mail predicts demise of digital radio when it's booming, then promotes it when it's falling out of fashion/favour
 * Daily Mail claims Google streetview is revealling women's refuge locations - Refuge, the UK-based domestic violence charity says no, they're not
 * Amusingly the same article has an apology to Google for accusing them of "selling individual users data to third parties", What better way to apologise for making stuff up than in another article where they do the same against the same company
 * Daily Mail site infection blamed on ad server - actually from Daily Mail publisher's computer
 * Daily Mail picture editor grilled at Leveson Inquiry
 * This one's pretty funny - the Mail removed an image from a story which some people mistook for a cock (in a piece about a dominatrix)
 * "Daily Mail prints article even after scientist says it "misrepresents" his work"
 * Daily Mail makes unfounded claims on crime statistics and gets caught
 * "The Mail on Sunday carried on using a private investigator after he was charged with using illegal means to obtain information, the newspaper’s editor has told the Leveson Inquiry".
 * Daily Mail lobbies for default opt-out internet filters. The government refuses, Daily Mail declares it a victory for their campaign...Even though default filters would likely block their site for the images commonly showed on the right
 * Mail Online rarely embeds links to stories. Writers from both the Washington Post and Gawker have recently criticized Mail Online for this practice. Danny Gold, of Gawker, wrote that Mail Online goes “out of their way to fuck over journalists and they reap the benefits by becoming the most highly trafficked newspaper on the Internet.”

If nothing else, this list will show eventually they don't fact check a story at all before publishing it. At worst it will show a lot of criticism, almost none of which has a presence on Wikipedia despite garnering controversy and gathering criticism and attention from reliable sources. The BBC has a criticism article, the Daily Mail easily has as much and deserves an article. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 13:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a clear pattern from multiple sources that they use images without permission in the hope people will not complain when they notice. There's also a pattern of publishing sensationalist articles and titles without fact checking and making unfounded claims. Opinions? I think if we don't already have a criticism of the Daily Mail article (like for the BBC), then we need one. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 14:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * MailOnline should have a section about plagiarism or stealing, definitely. Pscorp19 (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * One important issue to consider here is that we need to distinguish between criticism of MailOnline and criticism of the Daily Mail, since they're run somewhat differently and cover somewhat different material. I recommend starting a conversation at Talk:Daily Mail about the sources you've found. That article does have a "Famous stories" section that covers some criticism (along with its "Libel lawsuits" section), so I'd be more in favor of integrating the material into that section instead of making a new section for it.
 * Note that even if we can spot a pattern, we can't say there's a pattern unless a reliable source says there's a pattern - see No original research.
 * Another important issue is that we need to avoid Content forking. I believe it'd only be justified to make a separate "Criticism of the Daily Mail" article after making an effort to include the material in Daily Mail and finding that the material was way too long to be covered in just one article. Dreamyshade (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A criticism article is not a good idea, these sort of articles are strongly recommended against by Wikipedia and are often just hijacked by people with a personal agenda (again not accusing anyone here), the Daily Mail article is a perfect example. It has finally been semi-protected after years of IP vandalism. I would personally strongly advise against such an article. Jenova; As with your proposed Homophobia in the Media article as WormTT advised a simple list of "incidents" would not make a proper article and would not be acceptable for WP. But the article you have actually set out in making is much more appropriate. Thanks very much Christian1985 (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a brush-off Dreamyshade. The majority of those sources are about the Mail Online. Did you even look at any of them before commenting?
 * Thanks Christian, but that has nothing to do with this at all. This is about sizeable absent and notable criticism of the Daily Mail or Mail Online, not a side-project i have on the world media. There are enough examples above to have a sizeable amount of examples added to the article or get a spin off article. Otherwise we should be deleting the BBC criticism article for the same arguments used here, which not a single policy has been used to push. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 09:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If there is effort to censor and deter reliably sourced and appropriate information from the article to protect it in an unneutral way, then it should be added to Criticism of the Daily Mail and Mail Online or simply Criticism of the Daily Mail. Such articles are not against Wikipedia policy as is clear from Criticism, specifically the "Criticism of ..." article section. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 10:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I didn't look at all of the links since there were so many, and the headlines aren't careful to distinguish between the MailOnline and the Daily Mail; I didn't mean to brush off your research. I've now looked at each of them, and this 2012 journalism.co.uk article about misleading statistics seems like a useful reliable source, but I believe we should look for stronger sources for these topics:
 * From The Register: 2008 misreporting of image, 2010 story based on fake tweet (already covered in article actually), 2010 contested usage of image without attribution, 2010 instance of the Mail contradicting itself, 2010 instance of the Mail contradicting itself in a different way, 2008 instance of malware problems with the website, 2008 instance of using a dubious-looking photo. The Register mixes news and opinion; it doesn't try very hard to be neutral or balanced. I believe it's fine to cite it in limited ways for non-controversial information, but it wouldn't be good to depend on it for controversial/contentious information. Were these incidents covered in other news sources?
 * Blog posts: The Independent blog post about a misreported image, The Next Web post about a contested usage of an image without attribution, a non-commercial/academic blog post about factual mistakes, a self-published post from a non-profit about use of images. Similarly, I think it's OK to cite these in limited ways for non-controversial information, but for controversial information, we should see if we can find stronger sources.
 * I believe that we can't use these sources:
 * From The Register: mentioning the Mail while discussing an issue with the BBC, mentioning the Mail while discussing copyright, mentioning the Mail while discussing an announcement in it. These articles aren't focused on the Mail.
 * From self-published blogs: post on misattribution of images, post on misattribution of images.
 * This Telegraph article is about an issue in the print edition (if I'm reading the article correctly).
 * We can also ask Reliable sources/Noticeboard for neutral opinions.
 * Dreamyshade (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that if you want to take action due to your concerns that this article is being protected from critical material in a non-neutral way, the best next step would be to start the RFC process (and then try dispute resolution) instead of starting a separate article. The separate article would just get argued over too, so it's more efficient to try to resolve the argument with the help of outside perspectives. Dreamyshade (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not looking for an RFC, i would just appreciate an answer on if the notable criticism would go in this article or a criticism of... article. Clearly there would be more examples and sources as i found all of the above in one search. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 10:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I'm just saying that an RFC could help figure out what to do. Like above with the Daily Mail example, my perspective is that we should first try to add the material to this article, and then if the article becomes very long and detailed, we should evaluate splitting it. Dreamyshade (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine. If...it did come to a Criticism of... article then would you have any problem with grouping it into a Criticism of the Daily Mail article? I don't see a difference there between Mail Online and Daily Mail, just like the BBC article doesn't make a distinction. And it is the website for the Daily Mail, carrying some of the same stories, run by the same company, etc. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 09:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure; we'd have to look at the material and ask for more opinions. I think it's a somewhat different case than the BBC. This New Yorker article from April 2012 draws a distinction:
 * "In April, 2006, the paper reconsidered the site. It would be free, with a stand-alone staff. “We took the decision to not integrate Mail Online, because the Daily Mail was a fantastically successful newspaper, and we didn’t want to do anything that was going to compromise that,” Clarke said."
 * "Mail Online’s personality is distinct from that of its parent publication, from which it derives only about twenty-five per cent of its content. It emanates tabloid energy, focussing on human-interest stories, fashion, entertainment, popular science, and crime, but it gives somewhat shorter shrift to the right-wing politics that turn people off the Daily Mail. Mail Online’s readers are, as Clarke put it in a 2010 presentation to investors, “a younger, richer version of the people who read our papers.” Most obviously, Mail Online is both more enthusiastic and more irreverent about celebrity than the Mail."
 * "Clarke dismisses the suggestion that the discrepancies in content between Mail Online and the Mail dilute the brand. He said, “You might as well say, Why is the Scottish Daily Mail full of Scottish stories? Mail Online is full of Internet stories because it’s on the Internet!”"
 * Dreamyshade (talk) 09:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's very similar...I'm not sure...Some of the campaigns started in the Daily Mail appear on the Mail online, complete with logos, that's no coincidence...but Mail Online, is clearly Daily Mail Online...I'm not sure..there are differences, but it still has pretty much the same layout, look, stories, affiliations, interests. In fact i'd say the only difference is that the website has American news aswell. What's Christian's opinion? Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 10:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact, to clarify, it's no different from the Daily Mail, except for having American news in addition to its UK news. There's no difference other than that, and that's just to attract more site visitors from America. The Daily Mail advertises it as its website, and the website promotes the newspaper. It's the same entity, owned by the same group. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 11:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Here are the relevant parts of a New York Times article from December 2010:
 * "Until it introduced Mail Online with content from the newspaper in June 2008, the editors worried that giving it away on the Web would undermine the print version. Now, while the biggest scoops are still reserved for print, most of the newspaper’s articles appear on the Web, too. But The Mail has preserved differences between the print and online editions by keeping their staffs separate — a strategy that runs counter to the trend at other newspapers, where the buzzword is integration. “Rather than talking about synergies, The Mail is being honest about this: These are very different products, with very different audiences and very different business models,” said Douglas McCabe, an analyst at Enders Analysis in London."
 * "Celebrity news is less prominent in the print edition, which often highlights tales of immigrants, European Union officials, single mothers or carcinogens run amok. Those are the bogeymen that stalk Middle England, the bastion of the printed newspaper’s readership. The Mail’s Web site has a broader audience. Not only does the site contain more celebrity news, it also has more foreign coverage, as well as writing about science, history and other topics that get shorter shrift in print, Mr. Clarke said."
 * This June 2008 Independent article says "One can't imagine Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre, a man of sound family values, putting it on the cover of his newspaper, but the recently relaunched Mail Online isn't so shy." So, I think we could cover them in the same hypothetical article, but based on these sources, I believe it'd have to be titled "Criticism of the Daily Mail and Mail Online" instead of "Criticism of the Daily Mail", since they're related but somewhat different. While looking for sources on the distinction, I found a Guardian article and a Guardian category that could be helpful for the article. Dreamyshade (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've started User:Jenova20/Criticism of the Daily Mail and Mail Online. I'll invite Pscorp to have a look-see and chip in too, but the offer is open to everyone here. Thanks Dreamyshade ツ Je no va  20  (email) 15:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Knox details

 * I'd like to suggest keeping the criticism section in the Mail Online article short by only listing the very notable criticisms there. So not the iphone recall story in this instance. I'll stick that in User:Jenova20/Criticism of the Daily Mail and Mail Online instead once it's up and running. Also i reverted two changes from Collect for removing the Amanda Knox controversy details and suggesting he join the discussion here. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 09:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The claims you reinserted are not supported by the cites given. Most newspapers create "dummy articles" and the source does not support the extended apparent added claim that somehow the "fabricated quote" would ever have been used in an actual article.  The claim that it was "publsihed" needs to note it was online for a half hour - which is elided in your version, but made clear in the source cited.    In the Poynter example, the claim is worded in a manner which is not supported byy the source given, and I used the original source as closely as possible for what it actually says.  Thus I revert both of your revert on WP:BLP and WP:RS grounds - we must never misrepresent what the sources actually state.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As you just state yourself, they did publish the article complete with the fabricated quotes. The source does state both claims made also ツ Je no va  20  (email) 14:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For all of a half hour - which by eliding makes the Wikipedia claim misleading entirely. And your reasoning for misusing the Poynter cite is? Collect (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think the others got caught making up quotes or incidents in their wrongly published articles, or attracted criticism from it. And i haven't read the Poynter section or source. There's a discussion about this at the Dispute resolution noticeboard for anyone else here who wants to join in. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 15:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually - they have. Most notably in obits intended to provide "boilerplate" for whoever does the final obit.  And being online for under two minutes and removal as soon as the actual court decision was made should be noted in any Wikipedia claim.  See List of premature obituaries and note that CNN killed off seven world leaders in 2003.    Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/not-that-greatly-exaggerated-when-obituaries-go-premature-8434286.html] Der Spiegel killed off G. H. W. Bush recently. Bloomberg killed off Steve Jobs. ''Worse still is CNN, which in 2003 managed to reveal dozens of obits on its website. The news organisation had been perfecting their design rather than content and many details were confused. Some followed the template of the obituary of the Queen Mother from the previous year. Thus the site noted the Pope's "love of racing" and described Dick Cheney as the "UK's favourite grandmother".'' Collect (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC) As for "wrong verdict" see. On Amanda Knox - the Guardian made the same error in its online edition. . Collect (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's changing the topic. Where's the evidence that any other news outlets faked quotes and events at the Amanda Knox trial when they released the wrong article? Your examples are funny, but they're not the same incident. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 16:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh? The MO had a holder-article online for 90 seconds.  Other papers did the same thing.  Any claim made inthis article should note the 90 seconds involved, and that other papers made the same error in announcing the verdict.  And the obit generally include "quotes" in case you were unaware - and I suggest that calling Cheney a "grandmother" is a "fabrication" but your mileage appears to vary.  Let's stick with facts in a Wikipedia article, and avoid polemics, please. Collect (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Collect's changes look OK to me; I agree that this section needs to stick closely to the sources. Jenova20, have you considered proposing alternate wording for the section that sticks even more closely to the sources (if possible)? That could be a helpful next step. Looking at the four sources for the Knox issue, two mention the suicide watch claim, so it might not be justified to include that detail, but all four include the detail about dummy quotes, so I can see an argument for including that in the sentence somehow. Dreamyshade (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As the CNN articles confirm - usage of "dummy quotes'' is SOP when making placeholder articles for newspapers - the intent is to measure length in likely column-inches to see how the layout of the paper will be affected. Else one might say calling Cheney a "grandmother" was also false, to be sure. Collect (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's not unusual that an accidentally-published prepared article included dummy quotes, but the sources remark on it, and I believe dummy quotes are a somewhat bigger deal for an accidentally-published news article about a highly-watched case than for an accidentally-published normal obituary; I don't think it's absolutely necessary to include that detail, but I think it'd be OK. Looking at this more closely, I also think that the current text is somewhat unclear about the nature of the mistake - the articles were announcing an upholding of the guilty verdict, based on a misinterpretation of the early information (jumping the gun before the verdict was fully announced), instead of describing a possible upholding of the guilty verdict. I don't think the second interpretation is what you meant to convey, just a potential reading of the sentence by a reader unfamiliar with the trial. Here's a proposal.
 * Previous text: In October 2011, MailOnline and several other newspapers mistakenly published articles on Amanda Knox's trial, reporting that the appeal led to upholding the original guilty verdict, which was incorrect; the verdict was overturned. The mistakenly published article included fabricated quotes and falsely claimed she was put on suicide watch.
 * Current text: In October 2011, MailOnline and several other newspapers published articles on Amanda Knox's trial, based on a possible upholding of the guilty verdict. The articles remained online until the announcememt of the reversal of the guilty verdict.
 * New suggestion: In October 2011, MailOnline and several other newspapers published prepared articles on Amanda Knox's trial reporting an upholding of the guilty verdict, which they removed soon afterward when the judge finished announcing the reversal of the guilty verdict.
 * And hmm, the Hollywood Reporter source says "stayed up for nearly half an hour" instead of the 90 seconds said in the Press Gazette article. Seems like we shouldn't mention a specific amount of time since they disagree. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We have an upper limit of half an hour for it being on cached sites - but the 90 second claim may also be true, and has a reliable source -- caching is widely done on news articles by other sites. No actual contradiction is apparent.  Your proposal seems to imply that the dummy article was up for an appreciable period of time, which the Hollywood Reporter does not claim. As we all are agreed that it was a "dummy article" ("placeholder") in anticipation of an actual article, I suggest that making too much of it is UNDUE. Collect (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Definitely have to be careful about undue weight. Re-reading the sources about what happened, here are quotes that seemed useful to me for reference on what happened:
 * journalism.co.uk says "The confusion arose after the judge began his statement by returning a guilty verdict for a charge of slander against Knox – over accusations she levelled at local bar owner Patrick Lamumba. He went on to announce that the murder conviction had been overturned but, having heard the word "guilty", several news organisations rushed to publish."
 * Press Gazette says "Coles claimed the Mail, and other media outlets that got it wrong, were caught out by Knox being found guilty of slander and 'at the sound of the word 'guilty', they hit publish on a story about her appeal being rejected"."
 * The Guardian post says "It would appear that a false translation of the judge's summing up caused the problem, leading to papers jumping the gun."
 * I can't find the cached sites detail in the Hollywood Reporter article, but I must be missing something. Not important though, since I tried looking for more sources on the timing, and this Press Complaints Commission document says 90 seconds (secondary coverage by Press Gazette), so the 90 second claim seems reliable. That Press Gazette article also says "This is understood to include The Sun website, Sky News and The Guardian's live blog, though the Mail appeared to be the only news outlet that ran a full-length article", and being the subject of a formal complaint seems unusual; we should take that into consideration while figuring out the due weight. I think the current text is also somewhat unclear about the amount of time the articles were available. Here's a new suggestion, attempting to integrate all of this information:
 * In October 2011, MailOnline and several other newspapers temporarily published prepared articles on Amanda Knox's trial reporting an upholding of the guilty verdict before the judge finished announcing the reversal of the guilty verdict. MailOnline removed the article within 90 seconds and apologized, and the error was the subject of a Press Complaints Commission complaint.
 * Dreamyshade (talk) 06:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So we're going to remove all record of the controversy, which in this instance was the making up of quotes from people and the false claims of suicide watch? Just wondering. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 10:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The question is whether the quotes and suicide watch detail are remarkable/notable enough to qualify for weight in the article; this controversy was over both the publishing of a mistaken guilty report and the details of the published report. Checking the Press Gazette coverage of the PCC complaint, it says "According to the PCC, in its defence the paper said that the quotes had been obtained from the prosecution in advance of the trial 'to be published in the event that the appeal was rejected". 'In addition, the Italian authorities had advised the reporter that all those found guilty of murder were placed on suicide watch as a matter of course," it said." The PCC complaint did consider those speculative details "not acceptable" though: "'As a result, 'set and hold' stories would now be commissioned to include only the basic verdict and factual background material: there would be no colour and no quotes based on possible outcomes." It added: 'In the commission's view, the article had sought to present contemporaneous reporting of events (describing, in colourful terms, how individuals had physically behaved) which simply had not taken place. This was clearly not acceptable." Looking for additional sources, the PCC complaint was also covered by journalism.co.uk, Poynter, and a Guardian columnist, so this issue seems notable enough for a few more details. New suggestion:
 * In October 2011, MailOnline and several other newspapers temporarily published prepared articles on Amanda Knox's trial reporting an upholding of the guilty verdict before the judge finished announcing the reversal of the guilty verdict. MailOnline removed the article within 90 seconds and apologized, and the error was the subject of a Press Complaints Commission complaint that noted the article's reporting of reactions that had not taken place and said that was "not acceptable".
 * Dreamyshade (talk) 10:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's an improvement, but no mention of the fabricated suicide watch claim from many of the sources?
 * 'Both will be put on a suicide watch for the next few days as psychological assessments are made on each of them but this is usual practice for long term prisoners."
 * I believe not including this, but blaming all the papers for publishing the wrong verdict instead to be biased in favour of deflecting blame to rivals and protection of the Mail by removing details, which appear to show the Mail did something similar to the others. It in fact did not. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 11:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The suicide watch detail isn't specifically noted in the PCC's summary or in three of the four articles I found about the complaint, so I don't think it should be specifically mentioned; it sounds like the PCC accepted the Mail's statement that "the Italian authorities had advised the reporter that all those found guilty of murder were placed on suicide watch as a matter of course". My idea is that the first sentence covers the general situation where multiple newspapers published the wrong thing, and the second sentence covers the particulars of the MailOnline article. Dreamyshade (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But it was in the article, and even the Mail Online acknowledges that the suicide claim drew complaints to the Press Complaints Commission here. Just search for the word "suicide" and there it is. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 12:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That MailOnline article is the PCC complaint and adjudication, published by the MailOnline as the PCC recommended - compare it with this, and see the "notes to editors" here. Yes, the suicide watch detail was in the original MailOnline article, and the PCC complaint mentions it along with other details from the article, but the PCC summary and three of four articles on the complaint don't mention it, so I believe including it would be undue. Instead, I summarized that detail (and the quotes and descriptions) with "reporting of reactions that had not taken place". Dreamyshade (talk) 13:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that all "placeholder" articles contain material "not yet taken place" and thus the 90 second "publication" must not be given undue weight. Collect (talk) 13:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So your proposed wording is:
 * In October 2011, MailOnline and several other newspapers temporarily published prepared articles on Amanda Knox's trial reporting an upholding of the guilty verdict before the judge finished announcing the reversal of the guilty verdict. MailOnline removed the article within 90 seconds and apologized, and the error was the subject of a Press Complaints Commission complaint that noted the article's reporting of reactions that had not taken place and said that was "not acceptable".
 * Would you support a slightly longer wording of:
 * In October 2011, MailOnline and several other newspapers temporarily published prepared articles on Amanda Knox's trial reporting an upholding of the guilty verdict before the judge finished announcing the reversal of the guilty verdict. MailOnline removed the article within 90 seconds and apologized, and the error was the subject of a Press Complaints Commission complaint that noted the article's reporting of fictional quotes and reactions that had not taken place and said that was "not acceptable".
 * To me that seems reasonable supported by the sources. And it actually explains the controversy. Your opinion? Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 13:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

nope. It includes the claim of "fictional quotes" which is specifically not borne out by your own cites. And it becomes UNDUE length and weight as a result. I consider my terse version to be more than sufficient for encyclopedia readers. There is not a lot of "there" there. Unless the purpose is to show that having an article online for 90 seconds was a tortious event? I woukld note that CNN has had placeholder stories online for far longer than 90 seconds, and trust you will assiduously add them to the CNN article? The PCC pages states clearly: It explained that - in high-profile cases such as this - it was standard practice for newspapers to prepare two stories in advance. which is precisely what a "placeholder article" is.
 * In October 2011, MailOnline and several other newspapers accidentally released placeholder "set and hold" articles based on a possible guilty verdict in the Amanda Knox case.  The Mail Online article was viewable for about 90 seconds, before being replaced with the article prepared for a "not guilty" verdict.  The Mail OnLine apologized, and was the subject of a Press Complaints Commission complaint. The PCC said 'It also welcomed the swiftness of the newspaper's response and its decision to examine its procedures in light of the events.' 

Which covers the actual PCC conclusion, and still gives UNDUE weight to something which occurs frequently in this world. Vide CNN calling Cheney a "grandmother" in a published story. Collect (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's completely biased. Most of it is about what multiple papers did (Coatrack) and then congratulating the Mail Online. Nothing about the controversy, you state "accidentally" even though they did it on purpose in a rush, and where's the evidence this is a placeholder article and not just a piece of made up journalism as the sources say? Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 14:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Bosh. And you need not iterate your claims that I am "censoring" anything at all -- WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:BLP are Wikipedia absolute policies, and your apparent desire to ignore them is the real problem here.  The "incident" was minor in nature, as the PCC states, and they praise the MO for removing the material at the 90 second mark.  There is not much to say other than your apparent desire to make a minor issue into the world's biggest example of a newspaper lying deliberately about the news - which is not what the PCC concluded. And that they "purposefully" lied about the news.  As a result, please go away from this and have a cup of tea.  And read the policies involved before making accusations about other editors.  As for the "evidence" that it was a placeholder written in advance, read the damn PCC report you linked to!
 * It explained that - in high-profile cases such as this - it was standard practice for newspapers to prepare two stories in advance.
 * The Commission did not see any difficulty in newspapers writing ‘set and hold' articles.
 * Seems remarkably clear indeed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've read them before. Have you read WP:COI or WP:Bias since you're so intent on ignoring what the sources say to instead say what the Mail Online would prefer? And i can't have a cuppa just yet, will do in an hour though and i look forward to it. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 15:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You make aspersions which are improper, wrong, false, fabricated and errant.  I have absolutely zero bias on this -- what I am trying to do is uphold Wikipedia policies and please accept that.  Upi likely should also read WP:AGF and WP:NPA while you are having your tea.  As for your COI charge -- make it at WP:COI/N.  Your real problem is that I have absolutely no connection whatsoever with the Mail in any way, shape, manner or form.  Your implication that I am a COI editor is unwelcome, abusive, inapt, and abhorrent.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not a problem for me. I'm using your edits against your interpretation of policy, not an assumption. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 16:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Quoting Collect above at 13:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC): "The problem is that all "placeholder" articles contain material "not yet taken place" and thus the 90 second "publication" must not be given undue weight."

The thing I'm seeing is that the MailOnline article was unusual enough for the PCC to go through the process of upholding a complaint about it, unlike the errors published by the other newspapers. If the MailOnline had published a brief prepared story reporting on the guilty verdict as if it had happened, this wouldn't have been particularly notable; the problem was that the MailOnline included "colourful" speculative details as well. I think these links show that reliable sources didn't consider it routine. The PCC complaint was not heavy though, balancing a reprimand for the story and details with an acknowledgement of removing it quickly and apologizing, so I want to include it but not overstate it.

Jenova20, I agree that saying "fictional quotes" wouldn't be supported by the sources, and I agree with the importance of assuming good faith. Let's stick to WP:CIVIL discussion of policy and sources.

Collect, looking at your suggestion, I believe saying "accidentally" and "possible guilty verdict" also isn't quite supported by the sources; according to the "quotes that seemed useful to me for reference on what happened" above, the articles were published on purpose since the newspapers thought a guilty verdict had happened - they were just mistakes. Is the term "set and hold" familiar to most UK readers, or do we need to define that if we use it? (I'm in the US and hadn't heard the term before looking at these sources.) It's also important to be clear that this event was about the appeal's upholding or reversal of the guilty verdict, not the original guilty verdict. I think we should also briefly summarize the PCC complaint instead of quoting part of it, to help with due weight. Dreamyshade (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was using "possible" to mean "one of the two possibilities for which the 'set and hold' articles were prepared".  Is there another word which would more accurately set forth that fact?  "Set and hold" is the term used in the PCC report.  I am used to "placeholder" and the derivations thereof. (You might also find "greeking" in use where meaningless text is used as a placeholder, but which is not a normal newspaper practice) I agree the term should refer to the "upholding or reversal of the guilty verdict" as being accurate. The PCC summary, in effect, was "MO did bad in releasing the 'set and hold' article containing facts which had not occurred at the time the 'set and hold' article was released, but the MO took it down quickly, apologised, and is taking steps to prevent a repetition, which is good."  Might you suggest wording to cover what I think is a fair summary?  Thanks. Collect (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've been using "prepared articles" in my proposals to convey that they were pre-made stock articles; I think saying "placeholder" isn't supported by the sources, and according to a quick Google search, "set and hold" isn't a very common term (and sadly it's not defined in wiktionary). What do you think about "prepared article" or possibly "pre-written article"? PressGazette says "pre-prepared story", journalism.co.uk says "prepared "guilty" story", and the Guardian says "it prepared a story" and "standby story", and the other Guardian post says "prepared in advance" - I think generally they support using the word "prepared" for this. "Standby article" is an interesting option, but only one article mentions it. Here's the new proposal that I posted at DRN to try to include more balanced coverage of the PCC complaint:
 * ''In October 2011, MailOnline and several other newspapers temporarily published prepared articles on Amanda Knox's trial reporting an upholding of the guilty verdict before the judge finished announcing the reversal of the guilty verdict. MailOnline removed the article within 90 seconds and apologized, and the error was the subject of a Press Complaints Commission complaint that noted the article's reporting of reactions that had not taken place and said that was "not acceptable" but commented positively on the handling of the error.
 * Dreamyshade (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Set and hold" appears to be standard UK usage found in journalism books for what is called a "hold" or "placeholder" story in the US. Would "standby" work for you?  All stories are "prepared" in some sense or another, I daresay. And instead of "temporarily" (if it was removed, it was indeed "temporary" making it a "D'oh" term) and use "prematurely" to indicate that the articles were released before the paper could actually know the verdict?  News reports seem to indicate that the wording as the judge read the verdict was a tad confusing to all the reporters.  Thanks. Collect (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That's true about all articles being prepared in some way, so the word could be ambiguous; "standby" seems fine. My concern with replacing "temporarily" is that it's clear the MailOnline removed its article after 90 seconds, but we don't say what the other newspapers did - the reader just has to guess that they similarily removed their articles. This isn't an article about the other newspapers though, so if that ambiguity doesn't sound like a problem to you, replacing it with "prematurely" is fine with me. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Done then -- see below where ABC managed to get both standby news flashes out prematurely in the McVeigh case . Collect (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've opposed this new wording on the DRN for airbrushing the controversy to instead praise the Mail Online. The previous wording made excuses for the Mail Online, which weren't supported by the sources and instead pushes out mention of what happened. I'm challenging it for that reason. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 09:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Following up on DRN
A volunteer on the dispute resolution noticeboard has asked this question: "This discussion seems it's progessing well without volunteer input. Would it be alright if we closed off the discussion here and for it to continue on the article talk page?" I'm OK with that - any other opinions? Dreamyshade (talk) 04:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with that. I consider the matter dealt with and compromises found. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 15:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)