Talk:Paul Dacre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vandalism[edit]

This article has been semi-protected due to repeated WP:BLP violations which border upon libel. Please create an account, log in, and WP:CITE sources when editing this page. Thanks, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err, mate - this article's been completely vandalised. Again.

Stop - Add references![edit]

WP:VERIFY allows the removal of any information that cannot be verified. As such, I have to support the shortening of this article. Before adding the removed material back in, please make sure it is properly referenced. WP:CITE may be of use with this. Also remember that when we are dealing with articles relating to living people we have to make sure that the article is entirely sourced and correct, and especially that no slander or libel is present. LinaMishima 16:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the stuff about Mail attitudes being "often attributed" to Dacre's personal views, as well the Today programme vote for "person to be expelled from Britain" (which I can't find any references to, from a few minutes in Google) and the Private Eye "cunt" thing. WP:BLP requires that any contentious commentary be sourced or deleted - as soon as anyone can dig up any sources for these, they can be added back in. --McGeddon 17:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I well remember the Today programme thing, as do millions of others, so there must be a reference somewhere. Ben Finn 10:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've found this from 2003, but he only made third place, behind Cherie Blair and Abu Hamza. Have they run the same poll before or since? --McGeddon 15:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The c-word[edit]

I read today in Private Eye about Dacre's vain attempts to control this entry. I thought it very necessary to mention his over-use of the c-word. I'll get out my old Eye copies later and get some references. Hwyl, --AdamSommerton 13:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably important to mention that the Private Eye article also suggests that Dacre has "tasked a team from the Mail's much respected library with drafting something more impressive to put in its place" - thus there might be some conflict of interest edits soon. Dan Beale 16:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise I just read the same in the NZ Herald. [1] Mathmo Talk 17:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Over a decade later, the link in the above entry is now broken, but the NZ Herald article is a reprint of this article by Tim Adams for the London Observer. Philip Cross (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dacre's alleged rape experience[edit]

Can we have some referenences for Dacre's rape experience? Supposedly he was raped when he was younger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.26.17 (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence for this claim online. Conceivably, through Chinese whispers, it is a confusion with the New Zealand lawyer of this name who was involved in the Pitcairn sexual assault trial of 2004. Philip Cross (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey Dust[edit]

UK satirical cartoon show Monkey Dust ran a sketch involving a man in a waiting room, surrounded by framed Daily Mail headlines. He is called by the secretary, who tells him that 'the editor of the Daily Mail will see you now'. He is lead to a room occupied by a large desk behind which, on a chair, sits a huge, orange-brown turd. Deserves a mention I feel ;) --81.156.177.239 (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such nonsense has no place in an encyclopedic article. Also it is not from a reliable source. Christian1985 (talk) 07:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm somewhat saddened to agree with Christian1985 about the content of the encyclopedia article. However, it goes without saying that Dacre is indeed a 'huge, orange-brown turd'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.92.213.180 (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section[edit]

Do we really need a 'criticism' section in this article. I often find (as with this one) these sections to be very partisan and biased. I find it rather unfair to have a leftie like Polly Toynbee spouting her left-wing bile at Paul Dacre who happens to be a right-wing editor. I don't feel this is fair or NPOV. I note Toynbee (no surprises) doesn't have a criticism section. I feel this section should be removed in line with left-wing articles which never include a criticisms section. Christian1985 (talk) 07:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christian, if you want to start a 'criticism' section in the Toynbee article go right ahead. As with other articles about "leftie" types. Obviously, someone has agreed with you in questioning NPOV by adding the banner, but the quotes are properly sourced. The situation is not as clear cut as you think. For example, the articles on Paul Johnson and Peter Hitchens don't include criticism sections while the articles on George Galloway ('Controversy') and the left-wing pressure group Media Lens do.
This article on Dacre contains a praise section, you are free to expand it. Dacre is a controversial figure, as the recent kerfuffle over a blogger's comments demonstrate, and the response he gains cannot be skatted over. Philip Cross (talk) 10:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angry Mob blog[edit]

Reverted edits by Christian1985 which removed details of the legal threats affecting a blogger for the reasons stated in the edit summary. His edits also removed a citation to The Guardian which is obviously a mainstream media source. Philip Cross (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angry Mob is not RS, it is like Mailwatch, it is a junk site not a reputable journal. Also just because something is from the Guardian doesn't mean it is factual either. Christian1985 (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"A junk site"? It may not be RS and it may not necessarily reflect your personal political views but I hardly think it's fair to refer to it as a "junk site". Also, I don't think anyone was implying that the Guardian is always factually correct. Just that Mr Greenslade's blog is considered RS. Dominic (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point about the Guardian and yes I agree Greenslade is RS. But I stand by my views on Angry Mob, I think it is the biggest load of crap I have ever seen and I am entitled to that view. I think it is a junk site, definitely not RS yet left-wing editors persistently try and use it. Christian1985 (talk) 07:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view? Tribulations (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My comments about Angry Mob are no worse than comments made about the Mail on these pages. Christian1985 (talk) 09:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC
Civility and No personal attacks are very important, particularly on talk pages. If you feel that another contributor is biased and it is affecting their ability to maintain a neutral point of view then review NPOV Dispute resolution --Mrmatiko (talk) 08:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your intervention but I have removed that disgusting comment. That editor just has a vendetta against me because they don't like my political views/stance. All editors are biased, my comments about 'Angry Mob' are nothing compared to comments I have read about the DM on other talk pages. Yet I get collared for NPOV. Christian1985 (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blog source: Political Scrapbook[edit]

User:Sayerslle keeps adding a summary of an entry from this blog which I contend is inadmissible on the grounds that it is synthesis/original research and does not meet the criteria for being a reliable source. Philip Cross (talk) 05:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above comment. The blog even describes itself as being "known for our tabloid, muckraking style" which hardly fills one with confidence. Atshal (talk) 09:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Paul Dacre. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 15:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Toynbee from private life section[edit]

I removed a barb from Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee bashing Dacre for running a middle-class newspaper while enjoying hunting and other aristocratic pursuits. Columnist criticism of lifestyle should not be within a million miles of anyone's personal life section, and this criticism is no different to the junk that his own paper does with this, commenting on the wealth, addresses and possessions of Labour supporters. Gutter journalism. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 10:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peerage[edit]

Please update the german article. 79.238.83.116 (talk) 05:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_Dacre&oldid=1194915235"