Talk:Daily Mail/Archive 6

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Daily Mail Controversies?

The Mail is an old and widely-read paper and like many tabloid newspapers, it has a long-standing reputation for sensationalism and severe partisanship. I don't feel the article is providing properly unbiased history, especially regarding contemporary incidents in which the Mail has published articles that have incited very forceful reactions from certain groups, demographics. Honestly, I hate the Mail so it's natural that I'd want to see negative aspects of the rag's history highlighted, but it really does seem to me that this article, while not clearly biased in favour of the Mail, doesn't make any real effort to provide an objective review of the Mail's history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.137.59 (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

That's because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a soapbox for people to vent their personal grievances about things they hate. I despise the left-wing rag the Daily Mirror and republican rag The Guardian but I am not trying to fill their articles with negative content. This article is perfectly balanced as it is. It has actually been significantly improved over the years as it was full of completely biased partisan content. Christian1985 (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The article is nowhere near balanced, the daily mail has been involved in a lot more controversies than this article highlights, the sun, is a much better example of a newspaper that has caused a stir. The Daily Mail, despite being involved in far more controversies isn't even close to mentioning them as much, The Gaurdian's article has a section covering the fact they often contain more spelling mistakes, yet the Daily Mail article doesn't even have a section dedicated to thier support of the brownshirts! Stop pretending this article is neutral just because you like it!--89.242.28.172 (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Major ones are in the article. Minor "stuff" does 'not belong per WP:UNDUE etc. The bit about Moseley is in the article, and given weight proportional to the importance to the entire article, and you likely should read the talk page archives at this point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a lot of easily citable stuff missing. How about the notorious "sidebar of shame" or their publishing of child pornography? I'll see if I can gather some suitable citations and write something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.190.4 (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

"sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine"

[Moved to its own section. shellac (talk) 10:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)]

Re the bit about Mosley being described in the "Hurrah for the blackshirts" article as having a "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine" - the link given as a reference (Voice of the turtle) doesn't use that phrase and I can't find it in this image: http://i.imgur.com/5MsbfxS.jpg which appears to be a scan of the article itself. I can't find a reliable source that actually supports the claim. Prak Mann (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Ouch, good catch. The specious reference seems to appear here, but the phrase itself dates from the dawn of time. shellac (talk) 09:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Reverted the deletion of the phrase after finding a perfectly good source, which is now cited. Philip Cross (talk) 11:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
All I found was "sources" using the exact same wording as Wikipedia -- was there a copyvio by chance? BTW, I can not find the source in "snippet view" at all -- can you give a link please? Is this sentence simply lifted from that source? Collect (talk) 11:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Here. Philip Cross (talk) 12:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The phrase is in the book, but that is all Google says -- does the book ascribe the phrase to the specific article on the Blackshirts? Was the phrase used in another article by Rothermere and appended to this sentence? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for finding a decent source Philip. And yet it doesn't appear to be in images of the article that I can find. Ultimately this is a minor thing, but I'd love a definitive answer. Especially since there are an awful lot of people quoting this post-2003 (when it was added). shellac (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Either Wikipedia copied the sentence, or a whole slew of places copied it from Wikipedia. Absent a source linking it directly to the Blackshirts article, it likely ought to be a separate sentence. Collect (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Orme v. Associated Newspapers

The section referring to the libel action by the Moonies makes no sense. The Unification Church claimed that it had been libelled by the Mail, but failed in the action, so the jury could not have awarded damages. It's quite possible that the Church faced costs of £750,000 (which would be a matter for the judge, not the jury) as a consequence of their failed action, but I've been unable to pin down a clear link to confirm that.

StephenJPC (talk) 11:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Miller v. Associated Newspapers

No mention of the 6 year libel case won by Andy Miller in 2012 when he was awarded aggravated damages of £65,000. Story reported by The Guardian on 14 Nov 2014 with "Daily Mail faces £3m bill after libel battle with businessman Andy Miller" as headline.

No edit option on page to correct information [1]

George Clooney

In the Famous Stories section, is George's brush with the Mail really notable? First I've heard of it, not that that means anything. Ditto Samantha Brick's piece. Bromley86 (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Not quite accurate there: I had heard about the Brick article/backlash. Just questioning whether it's as important as the other mentions. Full disclosure, Twitter confuses the hell out of me, so it may be something that twitterers consider important. Bromley86 (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thailand blocked access

The Ministry of Information and Communication Technology (Thailand) as of the time-stamp on this post is redirecting attempts to reach the Daily Mail website to MICT notice

Thai: เว็ปไซด์นี้มีเนื้อหาและข้อมูลที่ไม่เหมาะสม

this website has content and data which is unfit
กระทรวงเทคโนโลยีสารสนเทศและการสื่อสาร
Ministry of Information and Communication Technology

And further deponent saith not.--Pawyilee (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocked because one video clip or more (about very important persons) in the website. --Love Krittaya (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Libel Lawsuits: Proposed Addition

While I appreciate efforts to keep this article succinct, I believe there is a high-profile libel lawsuit that has been overlooked: that of Keira Knightley in 2007, regarding claims that she has anorexia, and is thus an unhealthy role model for young women. My proposed edits are:

2007: Keira Knightley was awarded £3,000 after the Daily Mail alleged that she had an eating disorder, and thus promoted the unhealthy beauty standards that had led to the recent death of a 19-year-old girl suffering from anorexia. While Knightley acknowledged that members of her family have struggled with eating disorders in the past, and offered her condolences to the girl’s family, she was vehement that she herself has never had such an issue. All funds won in the case were donated to Beat, an organization dedicated to helping those with eating disorders. While the original article in question seems to have been retracted, a similar one published three days earlier can still be found here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-427243/Its-itsy-bitsy-teeny-weeny-Keira-Knightley.html

My source is: Dowell, B. (2007, May 24). Mail pays our over anorexia story. The Guardian. Retrieved 2015, February 17 from: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/may/24/dailymail.pressandpublishing

Thank you for your consideration!

Kateoyston (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Famous stories: proposed addition

On March 19th 2014, a column by Ephraim Hardcastle implied that two prominent scientists and University College London academics, Dr Hiranya Peiris and Dr Maggie Aderin-Pocock, had appeared on a televised show to discuss a major scientific breakthrough due to their gender and skin colour. Citing "Newsnight’s Guardian-trained editor, Ian Katz, is keen on diversity". The Vice-Provost for Research at UCL, Professor David Price, issued an open letter in protest to Paul Dacre, the Daily Mail's editor defending the credentials. The author of the column also wrongly stated that the discovery was made by a team of "white, male American" scientists when it was conducted by a diverse team around the world. Dr Maggie Aderin-Pocock stated that she had on that day received "10 requests for news interviews" and honoured several of them.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/mar/21/daily-mail-accused-of-insulting-top-female-scientists

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/phys/news/physics-news-publications/hp_20_03_14

(This is a case of the Mail receiving wide coverage for controversy on a science & tech story and the statement issued by top university UCL is unprecedented) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayngel (talk • contribs) 18:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Boxer rebellion?

Many years ago my school history master told me that at the time of the Boxer rebellion, when Europeans in Peking had been surrounded and no news had been heard from them for some time, the Mail printed a story (a scoop) that they had been massacred, with lurid details. Some weeks later, when the besieged people were relieved by western troops, the story was proved to have been wholly fictional. 

If true, perhaps this should be included?

86.189.232.181 (talk) 13:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Overhaul introduction

I feel like the introduction should have more added to it about the Mail's controversial stances. It regularly stirs up passions and criticisms, amongst right-wing and left-wing people alike, for various articles and features on a range of topics. 46.28.51.68 (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree, at least a sentence or two on this issue should be mentioned in the lead. How would you go about re-writing the introduction? Zumoarirodoka (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Aw no, I'd only mess it up... 46.28.53.168 (talk) 12:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah, come on, be bold! I've added a sentence to the lead; if you have any improvements to say then please tell me, as I know I'm being quite reserved due to being personally somewhat biased in this area. Zumoarirodoka (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks like a good intro. I think we should fit in somewhere that quote that its plan is to classify every substance into causing or curing cancer (as an example of its just funny science reporting), but this is great as a lede.Blythwood (talk) 13:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Which quote are you referring to? I can think of several regarding the cancer link, but mostly from comedians (which don't really belong in this article unless their joke was notable somehow).
I was very tempted to add about its... let's say "questionable" scientific reporting into the lead, but considering that this isn't covered in the article in as much detail as I'd hoped (this article doesn't even mention the word "cancer" at all(!)), I left it out. Surely there are some reliable sources about this issue? It's not exactly a one-off event. Zumoarirodoka (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


The sentence added ("The paper has received harsh criticism from political commentators and politicians alike for its sensationalist reporting on a wide variety of subjects, as well as the controversial political views of its contributors.") is fully and utterly unreferenced, nor is its wording comported with the content of the article. It is also notable that all editorial columnists for all newspapers state opinions which may be "controversial", and singling out the DM for having such columnists is nicely absurd. It was restored with the incorrect claim "This isn't editorialising, it's backed up by information further down in the article which has the minor problem that the claim is not backed up at all by "information further down in the article." Collect (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Please be civil about this. I think the "Famous stories" section (esp. the Jan Moir article) backs up the statement of the contributors' controversial views (maybe not political views, admittedly), and "criticism ... on a wide variety of subjects" is backed up by pretty much the whole "Famous stories" section as well. Okay, the sensationalist bit is unreferenced on closer inspection, but it's really not going to be that difficult to find reliable sources saying that the paper is sensationalist. The Mail is notorious for its sensational headlines; I incorrectly assumed this information would be covered in the article or non-controversial to add.
And effectively saying "it's not just the Mail, other papers do it too!" doesn't affect the relevance of this information to the article, nor is it "nicely absurd". The Mail has a much wider circulation and is therefore much more notable than various other papers. Zumoarirodoka (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
As I am exceedingly civil here, I wot not why you raise that cavil. Unless material is fully sourced somewhere in the article, it does not belong per WP:RS and WP:NPOV. "Sensationalist" is specifically not backed by anything n the article, and the idea that somehow the DM is unusual in airing "controversial" views is not a matter of "other papers do it too" - it is a matter of whether we are engaging specifically in WP:OR here - and it clearly runs afoul of that. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Apologies, I might have gotten the wrong impression from what you wrote. I agree that "sensationalist" was a mistake to add: I'm sure there are WP:RS stating this, but as of now they are not mentioned in the article. But as was raised above, the Mail is known for its controversial views in Britain, and the controversies the paper has caused are certainly notable (mentioned in "Famous stories") and I think that as per WP:LEAD they should be mentioned. Zumoarirodoka (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Should we black list this as a source?

Any newspaper which writes something of piss poor quality as [1] "Irina, having kept her glossy brunette locks down around her shoulders for the day, looked naturally gorgeous as she laughed away with her boyfriend, who just couldn't keep his hands off her as they enjoyed each other and the gorgeous subeating down on them" no longer has a place in my book on wikipedia. They don't even seem to spell check their pieces of crap journalism. The problem is that in some architectural articles it has been useful but the quality and reliability is very questionable if they have clumsy writers like Lucy Mapstone writing for the paper.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Sources should be discussed at WP:RSN not here. Also whether or not a source is reliable depends on the specific circumstance. The main reason I would not use this article as a source is that there is nothing important in it, not that I think it is inaccurate. TFD (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
DM (actually most newspapers AFAICT), should not be used for any sensational allegations about living persons (and just about the same number for dead persons, now that I reflect.). This includes The Times, The Guardian, The New York Times, USA Today and innumerable others - they all run "soft news" fluff about "celebrities". Ditto every single "news channel" and "news show" - most of which run "reports" on entertainment stuff which (I am sure this is pure coincidence) happens to be produced by their parent corporation. Collect (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2015

Writer for libel lawsuit against Gawker is named James King, not Jason King, as clearly bylined in the article linked for verification from Gawker. Wiki editor has it wrong in the wiki. 128.177.123.162 (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Done - thanks for pointing out the error. In future, edit requests should be made in a "please change XX to YY" format. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Please explain. 31.54.202.204 (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Slander about racism

Should we really have the slander about racism here? If you are racist you have to write hatefull things about a race, because of their race. The sources never prove they have done that. 2A02:2121:46:8BE:0:1:337C:5E01 (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The article does not say the paper is racist, just that it has been accused of racism in some of its coverage. TFD (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Although some of the sources used verge on being trivia in some respects - I found no source which said the DM is officially "racist" and I note the "racist" immigration cartoon has now been emulated by many other European journals. I suspect this article overplays the "racism" angle, alas. Collect (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Editorial stance

The Editorial Stance section needs to be updated to reflect the fact the Daily Mail was arguably the most pro-Brexit of the tabloids and its headlines and coverage after the referendum continues to be noticeably pro-Leave with most pro-Remain groups and individuals being covered negatively. 68.146.233.86 (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2016

Can somebody add the Start date and age template from the current "{Start date|1896|05|04}" to {start date and age|1896|5|4} to correspond to the Daily Mail's official founding date of May 4, 1896?

96.255.209.103 (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Suggested intro change: conservative or far right/quasi-fascist?

Conservative seems inaccurate, the Daily Mail is to the far right of the political spectrum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.46.197.78 (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Interesting claim, but we would need strong reliable sourcing to change what was already found to be strongly reliably sourced. Collect (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Best ignore this comment: the Daily Mail sits right of centre, not far right. The original poster is evidently prejudiced Kentish 14:48 11 January 2017

What to include under "Other Criticisms"?

Under the heading, "Other Criticisms", could the article include a line with referenced information about some of the more general criticisms, such as the Mail being accused of obsession with celebrity, pictures of celebrity children, property prices, asylum seekers and general scare stories?

There are a number of criticisms of the Mail in the article, for example, accusations of racism and criticisms regarding the Mail's coverage of medical stories, the BBC and Kate Middleton. There are also details of specific lawsuits. However, there is no reference at all to the more general accusations regarding celebrity, property prices, etc. Would a referenced sentence listing those kind of criticisms not give a more complete picture? CN3777 (talk) 09:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The body text of this article is over 50% critical of the Daily Mail. I suggest that 50% being "criticism" is actually quite ample. Gross "word count" is 6338 - including lists and section titles. 5150 nett after removing lists and section titles, etc. After removing all clearly POV material we have 3172 words remaining - of which abut 1000 are from the lead, or describe newspaper sections. So about 2000 actual words of straight text in the body of the article. And about 2000 words of criticism. Collect (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. That is a valid point well made. Certainly, as a 'B' class article, there is room for improvement. In which case, would an attempted clean up of the critical parts not be the way forward, so that some brief general criticisms may be included under "Other Criticisms"? CN3777 (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Feel free - just please try to get the total back to a sensible percentage <g>. Collect (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try. Suggestions welcome. CN3777 (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Criticism sections are not recommended. Criticism should be incorporated into other parts of the article. Why not just say that it contains significant coverage of celebrities? And if you want to add "and some people say that's a bad thing," you need to say who those people are, per WP:WEASEL. I don't see many people complaining that TV guide has too much coverage of TV programming, what's the deal with the Daily Mail covering celebrities? TFD (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Daily Mail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2017

In the Awards/Recieved section, please change "The Daily Mail has been awarded the National Newspaper of the Year in 1995, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2003 and 2012 by the British Press Awards[2]"

to

"The Daily Mail has been awarded the National Newspaper of the Year in 1995, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2003 and 2011 by the British Press Awards[3]"

because cited Guardian reference is incorrect - 2012 winner is the The Time [4]. Daily Mail is the winner of Newspaper of the Year 2011 as referenced [5] SammyHuman (talk) 12:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/nov/14/daily-mail-faces-3m-bill-libel-battle-andy-miller
  2. ^ "Press Awards 2012: full list of winners". The Guardian. London. 21 March 2012.
  3. ^ "Winners List". The Press Awards. 2012.
  4. ^ "Winners List for The Press Awards for 2012". The Press Awards. 2013.
  5. ^ "Winners List". The Press Awards. 2012.
The Daily Mail won 1994, 95, 97, 2000, 2002, 2011. Yes, the Times won in 2012.

National Newspaper of the Year from British Press Awards 2014 The Times[22] 2013 The Guardian[23] 2012 The Times[24] 2011 The Daily Mail[25] 2010 The Guardian[26] 2009 The Daily Telegraph[27] 2008 The Times[28] 2007 Financial Times[28] 2006 The Observer[28] 2005 The Guardian[28] (see British Press Awards 2006) 2004 News of the World[28] 2003 The Independent[28] 2002 Daily Mail[28] 2001 The Daily Mirror[28] 2000 Daily Mail[28] 1999 The Sunday Telegraph[29] 1998 The Guardian[29] 1997 Daily Mail[29] 1996 The Daily Telegraph[29] 1995 Daily Mail[29] 1994 Daily Mail[29] 1993 The Daily Telegraph[29] Peter K Burian (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

remove the link to the website so we don;t give this abysmal paper anymore traffic 86.175.9.183 (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done - at the very least WP:CENSOR is broadly applicable here... Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding Wikipedia's classifying of Daily Mail as unreliable source

Can we have this updated to include the pertinent detail reported today that DM articles are not deemed credible sources for articles on here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.42.207 (talk) 08:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

A: Well, first, Wikipedia should extinguish Daily Mail's article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.250.149.70 (talk) 08:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article link to the "month-long" (per news stories) internal Wikipedia debate over the DM ban? That debate was obviously noteworthy. Brad (talk) 05:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The lead is innaccurate

The last paragraph of the lead is factually wrong, even if it summarizes the source accurately. The "panel of contributors" did not conclude that the Daily Mail could not be used. The panel of contributors participated in the consensus process, which a group of closing administrators then assessed. The source also describes this process as a "vote," which is clearly at odds with WP:NOTVOTE. What we have a is a paragraph pulled from a source pulled from comments on Wikipedia, placed squarely in the lead. This is poor encyclopedic form. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, seems to me like it also fails WP:Lead and WP:Undue as well as WP:Recent. There is certainly no precedent for this. It should not be in the lead. Marquis de Faux (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes as well to all 3. I will attempt to improve the lead. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

It's well sourced. Unless you can present sources to the contrary, the removal is against policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Well sourced does not merit its inclusion in the lead. The entire article is well sourced. Why not put the entire history, all notable stories, all awards, all related lawsuits in the lead? Tell me why a consensus reached by an online discussion panel is notable enough to be included in the lead section for a major newspaper. It certainly should be included in the body, but it seems to me like it fails WP:Lead and WP:Undue as well as WP:Recent. There is certainly no precedent for this, and other editors seem to agree. Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
First, two folks in a new discussion is not "talk page consensus". Second ... you're actually right. I thought this was being removed from the body, my bad for not paying attention. I agree this is not lede material.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
There were at least 6 different folks in a discussion about this if you scroll up. Thanks for recognizing mistake though. Marquis de Faux (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source

Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source Online encyclopaedia editors rule out publisher as a reference citing ‘reputation for poor fact checking and sensationalism’ It said: “Based on the requests for comments section [on the reliable sources noticeboard], volunteer editors on English Wikipedia have come to a consensus that the Daily Mail is ‘generally unreliable and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist’. Summarising the discussion, a Wikipedia editor wrote: “Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. An edit filter should be put in place, going forward to warn editors attempting to use the Daily Mail as a reference.”

Peter K Burian (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC) https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website

I agree that it needs to be added, but we don't need a long list. Several reasons that's not desirable, among them WP:UNDUE and also that the Huffpo article repeats what is in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Also it's inside-baseball stuff. Let's not go overboard please. Coretheapple (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
@Coretheapple I won't argue with you as to how much of the Huffpo article was necessary BUT, the content I added was not in the Wikipedia press release. The Huffpo person did a lot of work finding those examples on the Talk pages. None of the other news reports I saw mentioned concrete examples.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter K Burian (talk • contribs)
Ok, but the WP:UNDUE issue was my main concern. Coretheapple (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
@Coretheapple Keeping WP:UNDUE in mind, I added a few words to the brief content re: Huffpo to make the examples more readily understandable. Peter K Burian (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Is it necessary to have this in the lead? Seems to fail WP:Lead and WP:Undue to have this featured here, this is done nowhere else for any other publication. Marquis de Faux (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't belong in the lead but should be included in a general discussion of the perceived accuracy of the paper. Note too that recentism applies. We will have to see what the ban really means, whether it is extended to the other UK tabloids or whether it is dropped, in which case it would not worth be mentioning at all. TFD (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I think it does belong in the lead. It's a question of degree: on health, science and many other topics, it's not that the Mail slips up every now and then, or approaches topics from a conservative perspective many of their critics in the media disagree with. They get the facts really, really, really wrong (i.e. their ridiculous "does X cause cancer" scare stories, which run every other week and are never anything but a complete joke), and to an extent unusual for such a large-market newspaper (as opposed to aggregation shops like the downmarket end of Buzzfeed, which is at least honest about what they do). While I didn't take part in the discussion, then, I fully support its conclusions. I mean, let's be clear, the paper has published good articles (for example they've let Ben Goldacre, who's strongly criticised their health coverage, write a guest editorial) but that's despite, not because of, their general approach, and we can consider articles like that by recognised experts as if they'd been self-published. (And, to be clear to the people asking "where does this end", yes we should be putting other news sites on notice here. Publish more obviously hoax stories about how chocolate makes you lose weight and we might put you in the sin bin too.)
If they show signs of cleaning up their act I'm very happy to discuss this again. Blythwood (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think anybody is arguing about the substance of the Daily Mail. The main question is whether or not a consensus reached by an oneline discussion panel is notable enough to be included in the lead section for a major newspaper. It certainly should be included in the body, but it seems to me like it fails WP:Lead and WP:Undue as well as WP:Recent. There is certainly no precedent for this. Marquis de Faux (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no real evidence here, other than prejudice. Most tabloids in the U.K. are sensationalist and many people will remember the lies published by the Daily Mirror about British soldiers in the Middle East. There is nothing really wrong with the Mail but there is hate directed at it because it leans to the right politically. Is the Sun or Mirror or Star banned? Are the state owned media of extremist states banned? It's too easy to cry "fascist" but this is how the Wikipedia editors are behaving. A handful of editors reacting to their own regressive, prejudice, determining what millions can read. Just goes to prove....if you want a reliable, accurate encyclopaedia, don't read Wikipedia. Kentish 14 February 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.62.161 (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned because per weight it received a lot of coverage. But it is not very important to the overall topic and therefore does not belong in the lead. Perhaps include in a section on the general reliability of the paper, adequately sourced of course, which could be mentioned in the lead. TFD (talk) 02:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
While Britain does not have press censorship in real terms, there is a Press Complaints body which can be complained to and the law as a last resort. Britain has an adversarial press where most are deemed either right or left wing, and the left wingers like The Guardian can be guaranteed to launch attacks on right wing political parties and the right wing press, such as the Daily Mail though right wing newspapers almost never attack left wing newspapers. According to "newsworks", The Guardian has a daily circulation of 156,176 while the Daily Mail has a daily circulation of 1,511,357. That shows who the British people trust the most.(124.122.183.10 (talk) 08:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC))

Editors

who are the 'editor(s)' who decided on behalf of entire Wiki community that the DM was an unreliable source? Someone trying to get a foot in the door at Conservative HQ? 78.147.137.165 (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)puzzled democrat78.147.137.165 (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion can be found here. Coretheapple (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Is it worth adding a link to said discussion to the talk page template at the top? It's hot news right now, but when the brouhaha has died down it would be useful to be able to either point editors to the discussion, or to have it easily reached. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion is closed. The decision to ban the DM is nothing to do with accuracy; rather it is the political bias of the unelected Wikipedia editors. Very similar to the Nazi book burning period. The editors don't like the Mail, so they have banned it and have decided to hide behind claims of "inaccuracy". Kentish 14 February 2017 GMT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.62.161 (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Pointing out for reference that the discussion and result have been archived since, with its new location being here. —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 22:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The fourth paragraph of the OTHER CRITICISMS section says, "users of the English Wikipedia rejected the Daily Mail as being a reliable source for its articles, deeming its reporting to be "generally unreliable"." Read literally, that would be true if only two (2) users rejected the Daily Mail. It would also be literally true if each and every user rejected the Daily Mail. That wording is, therefore, in desperate need of re-writing to remove the ambiguity and false impression of how important that event was. 97.120.31.14 (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2017

I have noticed the article includes very small, very very basic, very contemporary references to homophobic, racial, and sexist accusations against the Daily Mail. Given the newspaper's output spans decades and decades, and given there are numerous historical grievances against it, I believe these sections ought to be expanded to well beyond - only, currently - the past year or two. These sections give no impression whatsoever of the scale of abuse (or rather, the accusations of cultural abuse and litigation) that the Daily Mail is renowned and indeed infamous for. BeanHash (talk) 12:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)— BeanHash (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I note that the requester is a WP:SPA, and that the amount of negative material in this article is already very substantial. Piling Ossa on Pelion is unwise and contrary to policy. Collect (talk) 12:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP (talk • contribs) 12:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Daily Fail/Wail redirects

There are currently a number of perjorative redirects up for discussion. I was initially against keeping, but having read about Template:R from non-neutral name, it seems fair. And there's a The Grauniad redirect.

That The Grauniad links to a specific section that deals with it. Should there not be such a section here? If these names are significant, and if they appear in RS, there should be a short, neutral sub-section here, possibly under criticisms. Certainly, there's a Torygraph redirect, and The Telegraph mentions it. Thoughts? Bromley86 (talk) 09:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not fairness that matters, but weight. The world alas is unfair. The Guardian's reputation for typos lead to use by some of the humorous name, but no one says Daily Fail. Maybe that's because people who don't read the DM have better things to talk about. TFD (talk) 06:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add a hatnote to WP:DAILYMAIL

{{selfref|For information about how "The Daily Mail" affects Wikipedia sourcing, see WP:DAILYMAIL}}

For information about how "The Daily Mail" affects Wikipedia sourcing, see WP:DAILYMAIL

-- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 04:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

No, that would not be appropriate—only in extremely rare cases is it useful to link to Wikipedia's internal workings from an article. You added the hatnote to this talk page (diff) and that should be removed because it has nothing to do with improving this article. Johnuniq (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I just removed it. We don't link to Wikipedia RfC's from article talk space because article talk space is reserved for discussions about improving the article, not for discussions about what sources to use when editing Wikipedia. The reliable sources noticeboard would be a good place for any such discussions.
I am considering removing the "This article has been mentioned by a media organization" hatnote for a similar reason; the media mention was The Daily Mail talking about the RfC, not about our Daily Mail article. Thoughts? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Agreed (but then again I'm not sure if there's a precedent to do this for other sources), —PaleoNeonate - 19:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

DM response to WP RfC

This content has quotes from DM reacting to the RfC. WP is not a newspaper. We aren't quotation driven at all. And it is unsurprising and uninteresting that DM reacted negatively, disagreeing with WP's decision. Somebody is under the misperception that NPOV means "fair and balanced", like newspapers are when they report "both sides" of an issue. That is not what WP does and not what NPOV means. We give WEIGHT per sources. Not per "side". Jytdog (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

It is fairly standard when accusations have been made against people that we mention their reply, and is usually justified per WP:QS and WP:SPS. Note too that the sources on the ban mentioned that it had the support of 58 out of 90 editors participating and mentioned some of the reasons dissenters provided. The current wording is misleading because it uses the term "consensus" which while correct as defined in Wikipedia policy is generally understood to mean near unanimity. Also, sources use the term "ban," which this article does not. It's not about weight, it's about accuracy. TFD (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
No "accusation" was made against "people". "Accuracy" has nothing to do with this. It is a question of what WEIGHT the DM's response should be given. I would be fine with providing further reporting on the RfC and its results to the extent that overall WEIGHT of the paragraph remains appropriate for the whole article. (and adding more discussion means we would give even less WEIGHT to what the DM said). Done, in these edits Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Saying that a newspaper is "generally unreliable" is an accusation. Criticism sections btw are generally considered poor style and come across as amateur agitprop. It's better to use a reliable secondary source that specifically discusses the general reliability and tone of the paper and compares it to similar publications, i.e., middle market newspapers such as the Express and Evening Standard in the UK and the NY Post and NY Daily News in the U.S. Also, I don't think that coverage of the Wikipedia ban establishes it as very important to the overall topic. TFD (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the last bit there. It should not get much WEIGHT overall.Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • User:Aircorn about this, please see here. I am fine with taking it out, but if it is going to be anywhere, the place you removed it from is where it should be. Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Did not know about that discussion or realise that it was previously linked in the see also. If I had noticed that link I would have removed it myself earlier. My reasoning is that we generally don't reference unreliable primary sources if they don't add any more relevant information than the reliable secondary sources are. I also don't like naval gazing, which this feels a lot like. Saying that I don't feel strongly enough about it to fight too hard to keep it out, and it is pretty unobtrusive having it listed as a reference. As always will follow whatever consensus is reached. AIRcorn (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Enemies of the People

Under "Criticism," the Mail's actions are headed "Homophobia accusations."

That may be bad enough, but it is surely far from being the worst line of criticism about that headline and article, which was an attack on the independence of the judiciary and hence on the British democratic system.

The judges are also variously portrayed as "Blair's Pal," and having "... a record of displaying short-tempered impatience,"

Unfortunately there is some lack of precision in the current Wikipedia article on this: the references do not support the points that are being made, and the Daily Mail Online in fact still refers to one judge as being 'Openly Gay' on its site today http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3903436/Enemies-people-Fury-touch-judges-defied-17-4m-Brexit-voters-trigger-constitutional-crisis.html

Citing the supposed sexual orientation of the judge was just one of several devices to undermine the authority of their judgement because the Mail didn't like it, not just or even for 'anti-gay motives.'

It is the revelatory and ad hominem nature of the Mail's attack that caused most offence, and concern that any argument would have been considered if it helped to denigrate the individuals who carried out their duty to uphold the Law: individuals who are prevented from responding, and definitely won't sue.

Thus there is a strong case that the headline here should be 'Sedition' or at least 'Attempt to Undermine Constitutional Judgement by Personal Attack on Judges,' but, lest those invite unnecessary controversy, may I suggest that at least some supported commentary along the lines of my two prior paragraphs be added here, as they are indeed the criticisms that have most concerned observers about the way the Mail has gone about promoting its view.

In fact the Mail's tactics here here have become further important mobilisers of the argument against press self-regulation, especially self-regulation of the press by the Mail's editor and his appointed successors.

Amusingly the Mail's online article today includes the phrase, "The judge who has threw a spanner in the works yesterday...," which offer lots of scope for criticism in its own right.

Atconsul (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Attacking court judgments is not sedition, at least not under UK law. TFD (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Glad to hear it. Apart from anything else it's one unfettered aspect of free speech that is probably uncontroversial. It's the personal attacks that are subversive, even if not an offence in law, an offence against international reason. Atconsul (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM Marquis de Faux (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, but the point I am making at the top here is that the page should be more direct and informed in reporting widely-expressed concerns about the ad hominem attacks on the person of the judges, concerns as reported in these sources, for example, to cite just a few that report criticism of the Mail even by Conservative Cabinet Ministers:
"British newspapers react to judges' Brexit ruling: 'Enemies of the people'".
"Daily Mail accused of 'attack on the rule of law' amid criticism of tabloid Brexit legal challenge coverage".
"MailOnline Attacks Brexit Judge For Being 'Openly Gay'".
"Theresa May defends press attacks on High Court judges".
"Neuberger: attacks on judges undermine rule of law".
"Attacks on judges undermine law - Supreme Court president".
"Britain's top selling newspapers are spewing hatred over Thursday's landmark Brexit court ruling".

Atconsul (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

"Even supporting fascism in the 1930s" in the lead

This is WP:Undue. The 1930s is a long time ago and is not relevant to today. The Times supported the Confederates in the 1860s and anti-Semitism in the 1920s, do we put in the lead "The Times even supported Confederate secessionists in the 1860s and anti-Semitism in the 1920s"? Marquis de Faux (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Nothing undue about it at all. This gutter rag should be officially renamed the Völkischer Beobachter because all it ever does is spew out a plethora of right-wing propaganda and lies. For example, the useless Mrs May showed her incompetence and ineptitude on the BBC's Question Time during the election run-up. She could answer questions about Brexit but on subjects that really matter to ordinary people, she was a waste of space with no answers at all because she is out of touch. She was followed by Jeremy Corbyn giving what must be called a professional speaking performance. Next day, this rag tried to denounce Corbyn because of his answers to a lunatic who wants the PM (any PM) to use Trident. Corbyn said, echoing Churchill no less, that talks must precede military action and that Britain under him would never use Trident first. The scumbag who asked the "question" clearly wants GB to nuke North Korea. The Beobachter's headline story was that Corbyn evaded "reasonable" questions about Trident and said he would never use it in any circumstances. Blatant lies and clearly designed to cover up May's abysmal performance. This right-wing propaganda rag is a disgrace to our country. Never mind Hitler in the 1930s, it supports fascism even now. 86.148.184.43 (talk) 00:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:NOT_A_FORUM Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
The WP:LEAD summarizes the body. There is a significant discussion of support for the Nazis in the body. The few words are well justified. Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Support for fascism is mentioned in one small subsection in the history section, not a significant enough detail to merit inclusion in the lead. Furthermore, the lead wording suggests its support for fascist movemenets in the context of 90 years ago is entwined with modern accusations for racism. No article for any other published newspaper in the entirety of Wikipedia singles out ideological stances from a near century ago for criticism in the lead. Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I think it's appropriate and not WP:UNDUE (though emphasising it any further probably would be), and the entwining with modern accusations of racism is in fact the important point. The Mail's 1930s Fascist sympathies clearly have no actual practical bearing on the way it's edited and marketed today, but they remain significant in perceptions of the newspaper. Barnabypage (talk) 06:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
You say it yourself: supporting fascism nearly a century ago has no bearing on it's editorial policy today, and singling it out in the lead for criticism unfairly ties it to the current paper. Again, no article for any other published newspaper in the entirety of Wikipedia singles out ideological stances from a near century ago for criticism in the lead. The very tone "even supporting" is accusatory and biased, saying "look how racist this paper is, they supported fascism 100 years ago!" Marquis de Faux (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I am no fan of The Daily Mail, as evidenced by the fact that The Daily Mail has publicly called me "an anonymous activist who appointed himself as censor to promote his own warped agenda on a website that's a byword for inaccuracy".[2] Nonetheless, I fully agree with Marquis de Faux. and when I finish writing this I am going to remove the ""Even supporting fascism in the 1930s" from the lead as being a violation of WP:NPOV. I am open to arguments for keeping it based upon evidence and logic, but if all you have to say is "the daily mail is bad so we can say whatever we want about it" please go to WP:DAILYMAIL and search on "Guy Macon" first. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I voted against the ban. My view is that the support of fascism is an important aspect of the history of the paper and therefore should be mentioned. I don't think it is meant to say the paper is bad, but to show that it occupies a particular place in the British Right, a place which happened to support Fascism until the outbreak of the Second World War. TFD (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
We have a section (Daily Mail#Support of fascism) that gives extensive coverage to the support of fascism in the 1930's, and nobody is advocating removing that section. Putting it in the lead gives it undue WP:WEIGHT. Also, It is clear a violation of WP:NPOV to insert something in the lead to "show that it occupies a particular place in the British Right". If you have a reliable source that supports that claim, please place the claim and the citation in the Daily Mail#Editorial stance section. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • as i noted above, the history section is a big chunk of the body and should be summarized in the lead. The support for fascism should be included in that. I don't disagree that the way fascism was mentioned was poor, but it should be there. I'll add an npov summary of the history section soon if no one else does it first Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Is it your intent to cover everything that "is a big chunk of the body" in the lead, or just some things? If the latter, what criteria are you using to decide what to include? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
See WP:LEAD. Jytdog (talk) 06:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I would note that the "supporting Fascism" material is far more properly ascribable as a position of its then-publisher than an ongoing position of the newspaper. Collect (talk) 12:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

If anything, the remarks about the Mail's support for Fascism in the 1930's are a feeble red herring. The Mail produced a long series of anti-Jewish articles as soon as it was founded in about 1896. With the right-wing press generally, it called for a ban on Jewish immigration, which the government finally imposed in 1905 and 1919. I want more detail of this, from someone with access to old editions of the Mail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grand146Duke (talk • contribs) 10:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Do you have any reliable sources discussing that? Jytdog (talk) 11:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
See http://www.gale.com/c/daily-mail-historical-archive . This has copies of the Mail from 1896 to 2004. You have to pay to read them.
It would be WP:OR for anyone to read the old issues, judge that they tend to have anti-Jewish content, and write that in WP. We need reliable, secondary sources that says this. Jytdog (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2017

Early History The Daily Mail, devised by Alfred Harmsworth (later Lord Northcliffe) and his brother Harold (later Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener), was first published on 4 May 1896.

The deignation of Harold Harmsworth as Herbert Kitchener is wrong (may be mischievous) It should read Harold Harmsworth, 1st Viscount Rothermere RobmacLta (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

RFC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is an unanimous consensus to oppose the floated proposal.Winged Blades Godric 06:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Should the article have:

The Daily Mail is not to be used as a reference for Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Citing Daily Mail
For Wikipedia's editorial policy on using the Daily Mail as a reference, see Wikipedia:Citing Daily Mail

at the top of the page, similar to other hatnotes about usage. Currently a mass deletion of Daily Mail links is ongoing, and we should have our policy clearly listed. Other articles have links to usage guidelines including the article RFC. You can see here one editor removing the references on a massive scale. The rationale for deleting the hatnote was this RFC which does not have a clear consensus. --RAN (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Addendum: This decision will also affect Findagrave which has been banned from being used as a reference, but has not been blacklisted since it is allowed as an external link. --RAN (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Restore the hatnote on usage

  • checkY We need a link to the guide, currently it is difficult to find the rationale for the mass deletion. We have cross space hatnotes at AFD and RFC and here is the first 500 usages of the template:selfref which we use for cross space links to policy here. Perhaps changing the wording to "For Wikipedia's editorial policy on using the Daily Mail as a reference, see Wikipedia:Citing Daily Mail." --RAN (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Remove the hatnote on usage

  • Lean no - It may be useful for us, but the vast majority of readers are not editors, and we tend to avoid using WP:XNRs that drop readers onto policy pages without warning. If anything, a link could perhaps be added to the DAB, with a clear explanation that it's a Wikipedia policy, and not just a link to another article. GMGtalk 16:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • No Making rules where the discussion thereon was far from black-and-white is likely to result in misuse thereof. Collect (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment Actually the rule was quite clear, even though I oppose it: "Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited". The consensus for removing the hatnote was unclear, not the rule for deleting Daily Mail references. --RAN (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • No. We do not need any such hatnote. This is not an encyclopedic content. Such things belong to guideline pages. My very best wishes (talk) 14:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • no, not about daily mail and an expression of confusion about mainspace is for. Jytdog (talk) 05:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • No - that is an incorrect pointer. It goes to a RFC confusion, not to a "editorial policy" or otherwise useful and clear guidance. There are some bullets re what to do about past usage but seems like editors have already tossed those. (p.s. Seriously, shouldn't what to say and how to implement things have been discussed before starting ?) Markbassett (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • No Encyclopedic space proper should'nt link to project page in such conspicuous place. The vast majority of readers don't know what goes on behind articles space and we should'nt be confusing them for something not really worth it.  — Ammarpad (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments

Please also see this: Special:Permalink/803050951#Is_linking_to_WP:DAILYMAIL_in_article_main_space_appropriate.3F. —PaleoNeonate – 07:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Daily Mail referenced in Harry Potter

The Daily Mail is specifically mentioned in Chapter 3 of the Goblet of Fire, with Uncle Vernon reading it. J.K. Rowling has criticized the newspaper publicly as well. This should be mentioned in the "appearances in literature" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:579:6280:65:2C43:5CCD:9712:4D43 (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Stance on refugees in 1930s

Reading the section under "Support of fascism" it strikes me that the last sentence being placed there which states:

The paper editorially continued to oppose the arrival of Jewish refugees escaping Germany, describing their arrival as "a problem to which the Daily Mail has repeatedly pointed."

Is rather stretching encyclopaedic standards (its position I mean, not the sentence itself). By including it under "support for fascism" it implies that all those who, for whatever reason, had a negative view of refugees from Germany also supported fascism - obviously untrue (and indeed by that time the Daily Mail had come out against fasism as noted in the same section) - and also the way it reads is as if to undermine the previous two sentences, in particular the one discussing the end of the Daily Mail's support for the British fascists. The only source given is an opinion piece at the Guardian that is written about current events and uses the events from the 1930s to advance a political argument about current events. I don't dispute the quote or the facts but juxtaposing them in that fashion is not neutral.

It strikes me that it is perfectly sensible to have mention of the Daily Mail's edtorial stance on this issue and frankly I can't work out where else it could be placed so thought I would raise the flag and see if anyone else can figure this out. However as it currently reads it isn't neutral, it implies strongly that they didn't *really* stop supporting fascism and this ediotiral stance is the evidence. I realise looking at other discussions on this page that some will believe that to be so, I offer no comment, but it needs tidying up.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c5:2385:9400:b490:6c2:f059:313 (talk) 02:04, 27 October 2017‎ (UTC)

The Daily Mail has published articles in support of facism, most notably this by the paper's owner: https://tompride.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/hurrah-for-the-blackshirts.jpg?w=768 Philipwhiuk (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

FTSE 250 Membership

Section - Overview

Will someone please remove the long false bollocks, that -
The publisher of the Mail, the Daily Mail and General Trust, is currently a FTSE 250 company.

DMGT isn't even in the top 350. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.221.9 (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done[3]. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Audit Bureau of Circulations - Update Required

Section - Overview -
Will some also update the dead-tree bollocks at -

From -
Circulation figures according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations in March 2014 show gross daily sales of 1,708,006 for the Daily Mail.[8]

To -
Circulation figures according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations at November 2017 show gross daily sales of 1,383,932 for the Daily Mail.
ABC URL - https://www.abc.org.uk/product/2115 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.221.9 (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done[4] -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


Cheers zzuuzz

My apologies, I missed similar duplicate bollocks in the preceding paragraph. Could someone also please remove the 13 year old crap -
The paper has a circulation of around two million, which is the fourth largest circulation of any English-language daily newspaper in the world.[19] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.221.9 (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I haven't done this yet, as I'm sure this part should be improved rather than simply removed. According to List of newspapers by circulation this is still probably the fifth largest English language paper circulation in the world, which would be notable, though it's lacking references at this time. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi zzuuzz

The cite is 13 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.221.9 (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Wiki can't falsely say DM has 2 million circ, then on next line say actually 1.3 million.  ;-)

Daily Mail is 38th in world ranking List of newspapers by circulation,
version you cited was also using same old outdated data from MARCH 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.221.9 (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

..**English language**.. I do plan on updating the first part, but would prefer to update the whole thing unless someone else does it before me. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Other criticisms

The "Other criticisms: section contains the following wording.

In February 2017, the English Wikipedia community decided that the Daily Mail was "generally unreliable" to use as a reference in Wikipedia. Some in the discussion objected on the grounds that the more formal decision had no precedent, that it would be widely misinterpreted, and that the Daily Mail is useful for some topics, such as sports reporting. The Daily Mail issued a statement objecting to the decision, while other parties expressed little surprise.

I have a couple of problems with this.

First, why no link to the source for the claim made in the first sentence? The source can be found at WP:DAILYMAIL.

Secondly, why are the only opinions cited those from the minority who opposed, with no mention of why the majority supported?

The following is a bit wordy, but I believe that is accurately summarizes the reasons why we made that decision. The above paragraph should reflect at least some of the following:

  • The Daily Mail regularly fabricates entire stories. When they know that something is going to happen (a verdict in a trial, an election result, a sporting event being won of lost) they write two stories, one for each possible result, and hit the publish button within seconds of the event happening. These prewritten stories contain detailed descriptions of how people reacted, direct quotes from the participants, and eyewitness accounts, all completely made up out of whole cloth.
  • The Daily Mail regularly plagiarizes articles from other publications. They do a quick rewrite so that they aren't using the exact same wording, then they add fake details that make the story more salacious and exciting and slap on a fake byline. Wikipedia has a strong policy against linking to plagiarism.
  • The Daily Mail regularly fabricates entire interviews. Instead of bothering to talk with the person, they just pretend that they did and publish the fake interview. Why bother getting an actual interview when it is easier and cheaper to simply make up some quotes rather than bothering to interview someone?
  • When The Daily Mail gets sued or fined for doing any of this, they pay up, knowing that they made far more money off the original story than they lost in the lawsuit.
  • I will finish with this quote:
"The Mail's editorial model depends on little more than dishonesty, theft of copyrighted material, and sensationalism so absurd that it crosses into fabrication. Yes, most outlets regularly aggregate other publications' work in the quest for readership and material, and yes, papers throughout history have strived for the grabbiest headlines facts will allow. But what DailyMail.com does goes beyond anything practiced by anything else calling itself a newspaper. In a little more than a year of working in the Mail's New York newsroom, I saw basic journalism standards and ethics casually and routinely ignored. I saw other publications' work lifted wholesale. I watched editors at the most highly trafficked English-language online newspaper in the world publish information they knew to be inaccurate." ---Source: My Year Ripping Off the Web With the Daily Mail Online
--Guy Macon (talk) 10:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
That's the very link I came here to find - cheers! I wonder if linking to an editable wikipedia discussion would itself violate the reliable source policy.Shtove (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
It would, except as detailed at WP:CIRCULAR. The general priniple is this; we really need to make it a close to impossible as possible for anyone to write something, have it published somewhere like Facebook, Twitter, or Wikipedia, and then turn around and use what they wrote as a reference. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I have edited the section per the above lack of objections to my proposal. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: In effect, what you've done here is to insert several highly contentious allegations about the Mail's journalism without providing adequate citation. These are not allegations discussed anywhere else in the article. I think this is inappropriate even if all you're doing is synthesising material from the discussion. In any case, I think one line is sufficient to cover this. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
If you want discussion of the fabrication of direct quotes by the Mail to be included in the article, please insert it with references. It's obviously not appropriate for you to cite your own contributions to the RfC discussion in order to fork your personal views into the article, which is what you have done. Each of the paragraphs—which also fail WP:SYNTHESIS—make claims which, if we were to apply normal standards for citation, couldn't be supported, such as the following: "They do a quick rewrite so that they aren't using the exact same wording, add fake details that make the story more salacious. then publish them as original works under a fake byline". L.R. Wormwood (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
The actual claim made ("The arguments that led to the Wikipedia community making this decision include") was already cited. A claim that an RfC said something only needs a citation confirming that it said it, not a citation confirming that what it said was true. If you wish, I will provide direct quotes from the RfC establishing that multiple editors agreed with each of the claims. Furthermore, this source shows independent third-party coverage of the arguments made in the RfC.
It appears that you want to whitewash the article by removing the reasons why Wikipedia made the decision ("The general themes of the support !votes centred on the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication. Examples were provided to back up these claims."). --Guy Macon (talk) 10:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
The text should be sourced to secondary sources, in this case the Guardian and Huffington Post. While Wikipedia would be reliable as a primary source, it would require synthesis to determine why editors came to that conclusion and reporting anything not picked up by mainstream media would violate weight. As for using the Daily Mail as a source, that would violate rs, since it is not a reliable source. TFD (talk) 12:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I'm mostly satisfied with your most recent changes. It may already have been cited using WP:PRIMARY sources, but secondary sources are preferred (which you have since included). Your original contribution contained obviously improper WP:SYNTHESIS, and clearly referenced your own contributions to the RfC (highly inappropriate). Citing (largely) un-referenced allegations posted on a Wikipedia project page to support otherwise non-policy compliant material is certainly a novel way of circumventing policies/guidelines. Wikipedia could generate its own sources that way.

In future, note that it is very bad form to respond to criticism by baselessly alleging the "whitewashing" of articles. It looks even worse if you do so while referencing a different version of the article to the one reverted; i.e., the one which replaced your original, inappropriate changes (and which I did not revert). L.R. Wormwood (talk) 12:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Per above, the following sentence is synthesis based on a primary source (which has since been removed):
The general themes of the support !votes centred on the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication. Examples were provided to back up these claims.
In your view, should it remain on the page? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 12:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
It is in the secondary sources so it could remain although the wording should be changed - it assumes the reasons provided are facts rather than assertions by editors. Also, per weight, the objections should be mentioned too. TFD (talk) 12:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I didn't see that due to the way it had been inserted on the end without in-line citation (which I have now included). I have also provided quotation marks for the line copied from the RfC/article. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I have also amended the wording according to your suggestion. Someone may like to rewrite that sentence. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
A quick for for User:Guy Macon: You appear to be confused about what I was saying in your initial response, so I'll clarify. In your revision, the claims made in the RfC—which you pasted onto the article—were stated as fact, when you ought to have introduced them as claims/assertions/allegations made by users. In this sense, in effect, you inserted some contentious (and often unsupported) allegations about the Mail into the article, even though you were synthesising material from the RfC discussion. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I do not believe that I am confused. I believe that you are wrong. You just claimed that "the claims made in the RfC were stated as fact" when the material you deleted clearly specified "The arguments that led to the Wikipedia community making this decision include..." Arguments and facts are two different things. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Regarding Wikipedia as a primary source, please read WP:CIRCULAR again: "An exception is allowed when Wikipedia itself is being discussed in the article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic, or other content from Wikipedia (or a sister project) to support a statement about Wikipedia." The read WP:PRIMARY again: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.... A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." The material you removed met these criteria. Whether X,Y, and Z were arguments that led to the Wikipedia community making this decision is a straightforward, descriptive statement of facts that can be verified by anyone who reads the RfC.
My conclusion is that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines do not say what you think they say, and therefore your good-faith attempts to make the page conform to policies that don't exist should be reverted as being well-meaning but misguided.
BTW, I fully agree with TFD who said above that per weight, the objections should be mentioned too. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
The wording suggests that the DM has a "reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication." Given those facts, editors voted to ban it as a reliable source. TFD (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: This is absurd. You clearly haven’t understood anything that has been discussed if you are under the impression that I argued that primary sources cannot be used. Secondary sources are preferred. The objections are included in the current version of the article.
You haven’t explained what you believe is wrong with the current version of the article. I’m afraid your gaslighting above won’t wash with me. We’re not debating WP:PRIMARY, so you’re either very confused or attempting to derail the discussion.
Your attempt to synthesise material from the RfC was really dreadful, and if you attempt to restore your version I will seek intervention from elsewhere. @The Four Deuces: I’d appreciate some support here. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Please don't ping me. I watchlist pages where there I am involved in an ongoing discussion.
Based on your arguments ("This is absurd." "You clearly haven’t understood anything that has been discussed" "your gaslighting above won’t wash with me." "you’re either very confused or attempting to derail the discussion") this discussion is ended. I am nor required to listen to your Personal attacks. You might want to consider the possibility that you, and editor with less that a year of experience and a thousand edits are not qualified to lecture an editor who has been editing Wikipedia for 12 years and has made 39,000 edits.
Re: "if you attempt to restore your version I will seek intervention from elsewhere", see WP:OWNERSHIP. Go ahead and "seek intervention from elsewhere" if that's what you feel you have to do instead of having a calm, reasoned discussion without your threats , but be aware of WP:BOOMERANG. The most likely result of you doing that would be you being told to go back to the article talk page and discuss the content dispute without being an asshat about it. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
There is a consensus between myself and User:The Four Deuces in favour of the current version. There is no point in discussing this further with you. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I've been content to sit in the background and observe - but I have to get involved when an editor claims that agreement between himself and one single editor is an overriding and infallible consensus. "agreement" <> "consensus". Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to WP:CONSENSUS, but rather that to the fact that there is a consensus between us. I'll redact to avoid confusion—sorry about that. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
It may not be WP:CONSENSUS, but in my view the previous version is clearly more consistent with the general standard on en.wikipedia. I have changed the RfC question below accordingly. Your reference to an "overriding and infallible consensus" is an unfair characterisation of my actions. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Only just noticed this. At the time you made a statement claiming that you had consensus, and subsequently changed the article back to your preferred version with the edit summary of "Reverted inappropriate changes to consensus version" - my emphasis - while discussion was still ongoing and there was clearly no consensus either way. At the time it was a perfectly reasonable comment on your actions, but I accept that given your clarification it may no longer be applicable. Good faith and all that - I've also struck the comment, as fair play to you it's now being discussed without further changes being made. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment: Other criticisms section

Closing this RFC as per a request at Wikipedia:Requests for closure. The consensus is very clear that of the two choices presented, the version of 12:30 26 February 2018 is preferred (this one). Fish+Karate 11:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Do we prefer the 12:30, 26 February 2018 version, or the 18:10, 26 January 2018 version, of the paragraph on the February 2017 decision to ban the Daily Mail as a source on English Wikipedia? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 12:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Survey

  • Support 12:30, 26 February 2018 version: The 12:30, 26 February 2018 version provides due weight to the rationale for blacklisting the Daily Mail on English Wikipedia, and relies only on material taken from secondary sources.
The 18:10, 26 January 2018 version, in summarising the "general themes of the support" for the blacklisting, relies on questionable WP:SYNTHESIS of specific arguments and allegations made in the RfC itself (WP:PRIMARY), with no clear rationale provided for why particular arguments have been picked out and restated over others. Many of the allegations made in the RfC are restated as fact in this version, rather than as the opinions of Wikipedia users. The 12:30, 26 February 2018 version quotes the summary in the RfC decision, which states—explicitly—that:
"The general themes of the support !votes centred on the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication."
It is clearly much better to quote this summary (of the general themes of support for the ban) from the actual RfC decision to explain the rationale for the ban, than to have a bullet-point list detailing one user's interpretation of the arguments in the RfC. This line was later reprinted in The Guardian and the Huffington Post.
The 12:30, 26 February 2018 version is also written in a more professional way. For example, please revisit the final bullet point of the 18:10, 26 January 2018 version:
"The Daily Mail regularly fabricates entire interviews. Instead of talking with the person, they just pretend that they did and publish the fake interview."
Not only is this badly written, but the second sentence is entirely redundant. We are not need of an explanation of what fabricating an interview involves. This specific allegation in the RfC is covered in the 12:30, 26 February 2018 version, and is supported by secondary WP:RS. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 18:10, 26 January 2018 version See Talk:Daily Mail#Other criticisms. L.R. Wormwood conflates two completely different questions: [A] Whether the paragraph that details the support arguments made can be improved, rewritten, expanded with details of the oppose arguments, etc., and [B] whether the paragraph that details the support arguments must be removed per Wikipedia policy. I agree 100% with [A], but as for [B], it is my considered opinion that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines do not say what L.R. Wormwood thinks they say, and therefore his good-faith attempts to make the page conform to policies that don't exist should be reverted as being well-meaning but misguided. In particular he appears to have a deep misunderstanding of the actual content of WP:SYNTHESIS.
Here is the passage that L.R. Wormwood incorrectly believes to be synthesis (note that what is being actually being claimed is "the following arguments led to the Wikipedia community making this decision" not, as L.R. Wormwood keeps saying, "the allegations made in the RfC are restated as fact"):
In February 2017, the English Wikipedia community decided that the Daily Mail was "generally unreliable" to use as a reference in Wikipedia.[5][6]
The arguments[7] that led to the Wikipedia community making this decision include:
  • The Daily Mail regularly fabricates entire stories. When they know that something is going to happen (a verdict in a trial, an election result, a sporting event being won of lost) they write two stories, one for each possible result, and hit the publish button within seconds of the event happening. These prewritten stories contain detailed descriptions of how people reacted, direct quotes from the participants, and eyewitness accounts, none of which actually happened.
  • The Daily Mail regularly plagiarizes articles from other publications. They do a quick rewrite so that they aren't using the exact same wording, add fake details that make the story more salacious. then publish them as original works under a fake byline.
  • The Daily Mail regularly fabricates entire interviews. Instead of talking with the person, they just pretend that they did and publish the fake interview.
WP:SYNTHESIS says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." The conclusion that "the following arguments led to the Wikipedia community making this decision" is explicitly stated by the (single) source. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
In composing those three bullet points, you have "combine[d] different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source". You have arbitrarily isolated particular arguments from the RfC, restated them in your own words, and have declared these to be the "arguments that led to the Wikipedia community making this decision". This is WP:ORIGINALSYNTHESIS. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
L.R. Wormwood, it seems to me that what happened here was summary. You can argue that the summary is incorrect, maybe, but this isn't synthesis, certainly not in all caps. For starters, the "conclusion" of both is "don't use the Daily Mail". Drmies (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
User:Drmies I'm not sure. The summary-list is synthesis of (arbitrarily selected) arguments from the RfC. This summary is introduced as "the arguments[154] that led to the Wikipedia community making [the] decision". This description of the discussion resulting in the blacklisting is not explicitly given in the source—it's someone's interpretation/synthesis of the discussion. I think this counts as WP:ORIGINALSYN, but it's quite possible that I'm mistaken. On reflection I'm not sure that this captures exactly what is wrong with this set of paragraphs from an editorial point of view, though. I believe User:The Four Deuces agreed with me on this. Edit: So to clarify, the "conclusion not explicitly stated by the source" is this user's account of the reasons why the blacklisting decision was made. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Those points were brought up in the RfC. Again, that's not original research or synthesis since the conclusion is not in question; the description of the arguments, as you say, is not the conclusion (and cannot count as a conclusion). You can say they cherrypicked, of course, but that's an entirely different animal, and it doesn't easily translate into blue all-caps and a charge of a policy violation. And that's really my concern: a discussion is fine, but it seems a bit loaded if it comes with such an accusation. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
User:Drmies: But surely the conclusion that "this set of arguments resulted in the blacklisting" is original synthesis? Surely that is a conclusion being drawn from the source? I re-clarified in my previous edit above: "the "conclusion not explicitly stated by the source" is this user's account of the reasons why the blacklisting decision was made". L.R. Wormwood (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I suppose analysis would be the correct term. "All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." The phrasing "The general themes of the support !votes centred on" indicates that the editor is providing their personal anaylsis or interpretation, whether it is correct or not or even patently obvious. The solution is to rely on the analysis in secondary sources. Furthermore, all these sources also mentioned opposing views. The Independent for example provided lengthy quotations from myself and N-HH.[8] In fact more space was given to the opposing views than the supporting ones, while ignoring much of the information in the lengthier version of text. TFD (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 18:10, 26 January 2018 version 12:30, 26 February 2018 version The other version provides too much space, presents only one side of the argument, implies that the claims made by Wikipedia are facts and relies too heavily on a primary source, viz., Wikipedia, and uses synthesis. TFD (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: I think given this description, you meant 12:30, 26 February 2018, rather than 18:10, 26 January 2018? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 09:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. TFD (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 12:30, 26 February 2018 version as shorter. That Wikipedia mostly banned it does not seem WP:DUE extensive material, and the WP:CIRCULAR guidance to avoid giving undue emphasis to Wikipedia's role or views. The material being presented is just the cites saying what WP said, without other views or analysis from the cited news report. Markbassett (talk) 06:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Neither Two problems:
  • There's an expanded (which I'd generally support) description of what's wrong with the DM. A section that's all about sourcing. And there's not a single source in it.
  • Neither of these (or the policy page itself) makes it clear what this "ban" on the DM actually means. Firstly it isn't policy: see WP:DAILYMAIL. Then it's just a vague complaint of "generally unreliable". There is no clear policy which says "DM sources are forbidden" or "DM sources are permitted in the following specific cases". It's just a hand wave. The application of this handwave has been problematic. Some editors (and I obviously mean John here, most of all) use this as a reason to blanket remove all newspaper sources they disagree with, even when not from the DM. This is a highly subjective push. Then when DM sources are removed, they're often restored. We just aren't consistent here.
As always, I'm still against any rigid ban on the DM. We're supposed to be editors - we should make editorial decisions, not just follow dogma. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 12:30, 26 February 2018 version: I do not think we need to (or should) go into too much detail, the Daily Myths tantrum asside it's not that important.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 12:30, 26 February 2018 version and I would consider taking the second sentence of that version out as well; even though it isn't directly sourced to the RFC (which should be an obvious no-no) it's still a cherry-picked quote. A simple sentence saying that Wikipedia doesn't consider the Mail to be a reliable source is all that's needed. In terms of the history of the paper, it's an insignificant event. Yunshui 雲水 13:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 12:30, Special:Diff/828070111/822494593 shows the difference, which is the addition of three uncited list items alleging behaviour. It would be somewhat confusing to call the Daily Mail for exactly this behaviour (uncited speculation), and do exactly the same here… Better to say less, and keep it to just-the-(provable)-facts. —Sladen (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC) Diff shows list-items are incorrectly formatted, containing extraneous newlines in-between.
  • 12:30 version – The shorter rationale is plenty clear enough. — JFG talk 14:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 12:30, 26 February 2018 version – The longer version is completely unsourced and I'm doubtful that it could be reliably sourced in its current form. I'm sure reliable sources for specific instances of the behaviour described could be found, but it seems unlikely that there are reliable sources stating that the DM "regularly fabricates entire stories" or "regularly fabricates entire interviews." As it is describing the work of living people, I'd consider it a BLP violation unless supported by impeccable sourcing. GoldenRing (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • First off, the names of those two alternatives are waaaaaaaaaaaay too long. Just sayin'. I say we use the shorter version, since this is an article. We can put the longer version in WP:DAILYMAIL if we're loathe to get rid of it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Either Summoned by Guy Macon on my TP, but my opinion is my own. I agree with Guy that the material isn't undue, and it would make sense for Wikipedia to explain in its own article more fully, and as for cites, if was stated in our decision, then it doesn't need a cite. Our decision was based off those listed items, and if we made the decision based off unsourced rationale thats our problem and doesn't bleed over to the Daily Mail page. Should Wikipedia defend it's decision on the DM page? I'm ok with that. I disagree with GoldenRing that BLP applies. I think that the 12:30 version is ok as well. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
But WP can't be a source for itself: we should frown upon citing a talk page directly in article text. If an external secondary RS discusses a Wikipedia issue by quoting a talk page discussion, then we can cite them, otherwise it's too self-referential. — JFG talk 15:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
WP can't be a source for itself…unless it is about WP proceedings and decisions, why we thought the way we thought. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
No, at most WP should be use as a supporting source to enable readers to more easily check out the discussion themselves. WP shouldn't be used to provide an explanation not covered in other secondary sources any more than Hansard records should be used to explain parliament reason for something, or a published legal decision should be used to explain a court case, or a Reddit moderators thread should be used to explain why some moderation decision was made (not that these are normally discussed like that). If we want to explain why wikipedia did something from a wikipedia POV, this should be a wikipedia page not an encyclopaedic article. While it's likely some limited coverage of this is justified in the DM article, as an issue that got widespread coverage, if there is belief it's extremely significant to wikipedia meriting widespread coverage this should be covered in the article on wikipedia or similar. There's no evidence that it's significant enough to Daily Mail that it merit extensive coverage in this encyclopaedic article on Daily Mail. Nil Einne (talk) 03:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 12:30, 26 February 2018 version: - if I had to chose, the January version makes wiki too much the centre of the issue and article, that is never a good thing. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support shortest version The article is about a newspaper, not about Wikipedia, and, in fact, I would suggest that even the shorter version is far too long. I still believe the original decision was inapt, as I find all news media tend to be poor on celebrity gossip, and totally reliant on press releases, and this precedent may be misused in future to only allow "correct sites." Collect (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support shortest version for same reasons stated earlier. Incidentally, "block–listed" is preferable to "blacklisted” as more accurate and less loaded. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 12:30, 26 February 2018 version - The reader doesn't really need to know the ins and outs of what was discussed however in that version it does state "The general themes of the support for the ban centred on claims of "the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication" which IMHO is absolutely fine, I'd support adding that text to some sort of WP page for the benefit of editors however for readers atleast there's not really much benefit at all, –Davey2010Talk 16:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 12:30, 26 February 2018 version - the earlier one is much too long for what is quite a minor aspect of the whole story of the Daily Mail, and the bullet points and a violation of WP:USEPROSE. I think the one short paragraph is fine and not undue, but anything more than that looks a lot like WP:NAVEL gazing to me. — Amakuru (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 12:30, 26 February 2018 version except for the colloquialism "flat-out". This version conforms better with WP:DUEWEIGHT and avoids over-emphasizing content from a primary source.- MrX 🖋 17:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 12:30, 26 February 2018 version summarizes the main point more succinctly and dooesn't have to cite a Wikipedia thread. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • (Summoned by Guy Macon.) I prefer the 12:30, 26 February 2018 version, but if possible with the last sentence removed, basically per Amakuru. TigraanClick here to contact me 17:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 12:30, 26 February 2018 version The Jan version goes into too much detail, is unsourced, and some of these examples that happen 'regularly' probably don't have more than one example (too specific for that). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 18:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 12:30, 26 February 2018 version, or something even shorter, leaving out Wikipedia entirely. We should not be relying on Wikipedia's internal decisions as material to be used as content. I came to this RfC because I saw the multiple requests to other editors on my watchlist. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 12:30 version but. I agree with the consensus that the 12:30 version has better weight, which is the most important thing. However it has its own (lesser) problems. First off "the Wikipedia community decided" is better than "Wikipedia determined." Wikipedia is not monolithic and it doesn't determine the facts. Also, the quote in the second sentence isn't property attributed in-text; the source attributes the quote to (unspecified) editors, which is better than no attribution at all. (In fact, credit for the quote should have gone to Yunshui.) (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, the thing that the WP community determined was that "the Daily Mail was '..."generally unreliable" to use as a reference in Wikipedia.' We certainly do have the ability to determine that fact. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 12:30 version. The other version goes well beyond what secondary sources say. ~ Rob13Talk 19:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 12:30 over 18:10 But to be honest neither seems right to me. 12:30 is too short and lacks detail, 18:10 is too one-sided and reads like a complaint list. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I got a talkpage notice of this RFC, and I have no idea what the upshot of it is. My position is: The Daily Mail is perfectly fine and necessary for various citations on Wikipedia: Movie/theater reviews and announcements and critiques, red-carpet and other occasion announcements/reviews, etc., etc., etc., which are not in any other publication. What is it not good for is anything political or anything overly gossipy. So for me the bottom line is: The Daily Mail should not be blacklisted. Softlavender (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Softlavender - This RFC is about which version is preferred not whether DM is fine a as source or not..... –Davey2010Talk 01:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Then why is Guy Macon spamming users with notices of this RfC? I have never made a single edit on that article or its talk page: [9] [10]. And why is this RFC by L.R. Wormwood predicated upon and being used as a rationale by him to blacklist the Daily Mail as a citation on Wikipedia? [11] -- Softlavender (talk) 02:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't have the list of who got invited prior to the bot summons, but I have a notice on my TP inviting such "spam". L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:APPNOTE I notified everyone who !voted on the Daily Mail RfC. Softlavender posted his !vote on between 06:26 and 6:38 on 16 January 2017.[12] To not notify some who !voted oppose while notifying those who !voted support would have been a clear violation of WP:VOTESTACK. I categorically deny violating WP:CANVASS and invite anyone who disagrees to please report me at WP:ANI. --Guy Macon (talk)
@Softlavender: The Daily Mail was blacklisted here: WP:DAILYMAIL. We are discussing how this blacklisting will be described in the article. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Not sure we should be using ourselves as the only reference for text. On the larger issue would be happy to see a bot remove links to the DM and replace them with "cn" tags. This source is really that bad. Better no references than this one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
We're discussing a specific section of the Wikipedia Daily Mail article. We're not discussing the actual blacklisting, despite the confusion (User:Softlavender). L.R. Wormwood (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • February version. The January version contains poorly-sourced allegations. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Malformed RfC The choice of versions made by the proposer forces a false choice on the participants. As near as I can tell from the talk page there is not any discussion which cause this choice to be legitimate ie there is not a discussion where two editors/groups have decided that one of these two is the best and then created a RfC for more input. RfC should be terminated and there should be talk page discussion about all the options available. If, after discussion, specific versions of the text have been selected by the parties involved then an RfC would be appropriate. As it is this looks very much like abuse of process to me. Jbh Talk 21:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Jbhunley In that case, I'd like to suggest a better solution. Since there is a clear consensus against the January version, and since Guy Macon has explained here that he was initially "strongly inclined to support something close to [the February] version over the version I [he himself] had written", but changed his mind because I was rude to him, and since he is currently the only person who prefers the current version, could we terminate this RfC and re-write the section based on the contributions made in this survey? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
By the way, the question asks people which version they prefer, as a way of gauging consensus. The outcome wouldn't, therefore, be enforced rigidly. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I've withdrawn the suggestion above because I disagree that there is anything wrong with the question. Contributors are being asked which version they prefer, and ultimately the consensus doesn't have to favour either version. There were three of us discussing this several days ago, we reached an impasse, and therefore I sought comment from elsewhere. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Then the RfC is pointless and should be discontinued. It seems to me that you have selected these two versions and created this RfC to give you some kind of claim of consensus in the following discussions. That is the definition of abuse of process. Jbh Talk 22:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Jbhunley: These were the two versions over which there was a content dispute in the section above, and an edit-war.[13][14][15][16][17] I haven't selected these two versions. I'm confused as to why this might be considered abuse of process. This is an acceptable way to resolve a WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
You can say that the RfC could have been phrased better, such as by requesting general comments on the section. It's something altogether different to suggest that I'm abusing process by attempting to gauge community consensus on the better way to present this information. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) OK. I can see where you got the versions from. I'll strike the 'abuse of process'. However, from what you said above - that you are seeking a 'preference' from the RfC from which to base further discussion on - makes this pretty pointless. Why not just discuss it. Since there are policy based issues brought up ie SYNTH, a noticeboard would be, in my opinion, the place to start. You have put together an RfC in such a way as to settle the dispute not to get further input on the issue but you say your intention is not for the issue to be settled by the RfC. I would suggest that if you want to discuss the issues that you discontinue the RfC and open a topic of How should we represent Wikipedia's decision to ban the DM. Put these two versions up and then ask editors to comment on them. That is how you improve content - all this does is freeze the article, halt constructive discussion and waste the engagement of the editors who come to comment on the RfC. Jbh Talk 00:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jbhunley: Thank you. Noted for future efforts. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
There will be no report at WP:ANI. L.R. Wormwood prefers to falsely accuse me of violating WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:CANVAS on talk pages where he doesn't have to provide any evidence. If he actually reported these supposed policy violations at WP:ANI it would become clear that the actual policies do not say what L.R. Wormwood thinks they say. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • February version. Far superior. Neutralitytalk 00:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 12:30, 26 February 2018 version: The brief version is linked to reliable sources and doesn't overstate the case. The Daily Mail did publish an article in response to the Wikipedia policy decision, but while I can link it in the talk section it strictly would have to be excluded from the main body! Shtove (talk) 14:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

  • Should editors be threatened with blocks for stating an opinion here? See User_talk:Andy_Dingley#Talk:Daily_Mail and @John:. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Andy Dingley: I'm not sure what the first bullet point means. As for the second bullet point, in this article we are simply restating what the sources say. It ought to go without saying that whether or not you agree with the ban is irrelevant here. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, is this a threaded discussion, a survey, or "I get to have the last word regardless"? - thankyou for moving this reply to the discussion.
The expanded version casts serious aspersions upon the DM. And is completely unsourced. In a topic that's about the need for reliable sourcing. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree. You can read the preceding discussion if you like, where this is addressed. This would also imply that you prefer the February version. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't like either. I'd prefer the expanded version, as it's expanded and clearer. But it can only stand if it's sourced. In its absence, we have to go with the shorter. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Technically it is sourced, just to a WP:PRIMARY source rather than a second one. We prefer the latter, but when we're publishing something that's just a direct reporting of the decision, rather than interpreting or applying any further original research on top of what is in the primary source, then I think that's OK. Personally I think the Jan version is too long and detailed, so would reject it for that reason, but I think either version is OK on sourcing grounds.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
No, it's unsourced. The common piece between the two (WP did something about not using the DM as a source) is sourced to WP. The three claims for "the sins of the DM" is unsourced. Nor could it validly be sourceable to WP. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Why are we being forced to choose between two particular versions? Who says that these are our choices? I do not think this is a valid RfC. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
A. you aren't. B. Only choices? No one. C. Yes it is. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Actually, the author of this RfC said that those were the only two choices. If I had had my way, we would have had a calm, reasoned discussion about what the article should say and tried to reach a compromise that everyone was happy with, but L.R. Wormwood made that impossible with his insults and threats. I can think of at least half a dozen improvements that could be made to either version, but this RfC isn't about making the article as good as possible. It's about L.R. Wormwood getting his way, and he carefully chose the two versions that would allow him to get his way. That isn't the end of the story, though. Several of the editors I notified are better at creating content than I am and will no doubt make improvements to the article after L.R. Wormwood "wins". I will take a better article over me "winning" any day. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
The major issue with the January version is how much it focuses on Wikipedia, does no one else question the Daily Mail as a reliable source? If so, quote them and not Wiki, that is my suggestion. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:APPNOTE I notified everyone who !voted on the Daily Mail RfC. Softlavender posted his !vote on between 06:26 and 6:38 on 16 January 2017.[18] To not notify some who !voted oppose while notifying those who !voted support would have been a clear violation of WP:VOTESTACK.
I would also add that L.R. Wormwood's continual accusations of user misbehavior posted on an article talk page is a violation of WP:DISRUPT. If anyone has actual evidence that I have violated any Wikipedia policy of guideline, please preport it at WP:ANI. As it says at the top of this talk page. "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Daily Mail article." This is not the right place for discussions of alleged user behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
The only accusation of your misbehaviour I have made in relation to this discussion has been on your talk page. You also might like to follow your own advice. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps controversially, I've put in a request for closure at WP:AN/RFC. Although this was opened only a few days ago, the consensus is fairly overwhelming, and it's clear that the 12:30 version is favoured as a starting point for future changes, rather than the 18:10. It is therefore best that we go ahead and make those changes based on what has been contributed here. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Note: I've closed this RfC per WP:SNOW. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
@Roxy the dog: Did you even read the AN/I comment? This time-wasting is becoming tiresome. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Apparently, I can't do this. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Please discuss the article and it's topics, thanks everyone - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Daily_Mail/Archive_6"