Talk:Daily Mail

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Journalism (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Conservatism (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Daily Mail Controversies?[edit]

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2014[edit]

That the political alignment be changed from 'conservative' to 'populist' because just conservative is too vague 218.186.15.10 (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 19:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
This has been discussed before and refused on the correct grounds that Conservative is a well-accepted and sourced allegiance. The Daily Mail is conservative both in its editorial style and its strong support for the Conservative Party. It is not "populist", that is a vague label, it is not true and not sourced. I support the refusal of this edit change. Thank you. Christian1985 (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

"sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine"[edit]

[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)

Thailand blocked access[edit]

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)

Orme v. Associated Newspapers[edit]

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)