The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles
Hello - under 'successful libel' - 2019, 2021 the initials AP occur. That's the Associated Press not the Mail's publisher, Associated Newspapers Ltd. I'll correct in a while unless there's some good reason.Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Daily Hate
As The Times is known by the nickname The Thunderer, and The Guardian as The Grauniad, I'm surprised no mention is made of the Mail's popular sobriquet of The Daily Hate; especially as so much criticism of its more objectionable content is listed in voluminous detail.
Nuttyskin (talk) 09:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fairly obscure nickname. I was unable to find it mentioned in any reliable sources. The Daily Fail is much more common, but not as much as The Grauniad. TFD (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So were is this going? The lede of other similar, tho a little more notorious tabloids, like Bild, are different than this one, aren't they? Daily Mail is a little better than Bild, but other language wikipedias like fr.wiki are more objective. The newspaper is still sensationalist and populist, a majority (majority, despite some disagreeing) of reliable sources say so at least. How about we change the lede? Encyclopédisme (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2022
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Missing verb in sentence after footnote 62: “ Rothemere argued that it unjust that…” 2001:1970:4E28:4200:0:0:0:1237 (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessarily, on 2 April 2023, supported the designation "Right-wing" by adding a cite of uco.edu, tagging the edit as minor and adding edit summary = "Adding/improving reference(s)". I reverted with edit summary = "... don't see how the cited source directly supports the text". Unnecessarily, without going to the talk page, re-inserted with edit summary = "Academic source, more reliable than fringe journals. Adding/improving reference(s))". It's false that it's an "academic source", the cited uco.edu (University of Central Oklahoma) page has a label showing the chart is from Ad Fontes Media in 2022. And it's false that Ad Fontes says Daily Mail is right-wing, their 2023 edition does not have Daily Mail in its "skews right" etc. columns. Therefore I believe Unnecessarily's insertion should be removed again. Any other opinions? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that opinion pieces in Feminist Media Studies, Critical Discourse Studies, and The Political Quarterly are better sources, then feel free to delete anything I added. I will not be offended.Unnecessarily (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or, do you think the label should be changed from "right-wing"Unnecessarily (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel they are better sources so I can't meet your condition for agreeing to removal of your insertion. I again ask whether there are other opinions about it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There were no further comments. I have reverted. I suggest that WP:3O exists, if there is desire to continue this. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it is more important to limit different viewpoints, so I will leave it at that Unnecessarily (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Edited the above comment to display the category as a link instead of categorizing this talk page as a British news website – Recoil16 (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
The redirect Laura Clark has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 5 § Laura Clark until a consensus is reached. ★Trekker (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)