Talk:Daily Mail

No article reference to being identified as an unreliable WP source

IMHO, it seems noteworthy that this article should have an entry somewhere that it is no longer accepted as a reliable source for other WP articles as determined by a consensus of the WP editorial community. RS Noticeboard. § Music Sorter § (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Here's a business insider article about it https://www.businessinsider.com/wikipedia-has-banned-the-daily-mail-as-an-unreliable-source-2017-2?IR=T Bacondrum (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Quote. "Some of those who opposed the ban also pointed to inaccurate stories in other respected publications, and suggested the proposed ban was driven by a dislike of the publication." There is a rabid hatred of the right wing Daily Mail by left wingers which is behind this campaign to see it branded as dishonest. Mention it online, as I do on QUORA and the hatred and bile just pours out. Such people are what is behind the wikipedia ban.(185.8.243.175 (talk) 05:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC))

Look, regardless of whether this criticism is justified, if it's mentioned in the lede there should be a section discussing it in the body. HLHJ (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I find it hilarious that some editors are questioning the reliability of lower-quality sources that criticize Thae Daily Mail despite them being far more reliable than The Daily Mail Itself. Per WP:PARITY "Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources". In essence, mainstream sources don't talk about The Daily Mail for the same reason that they don't talk about Infowars claiming that the US government kidnaps children and makes them slaves at our martian colony. Do a web search. Virtually every source that bothers to comment on the reliability of The Daily Mail talks about how unreliable it is. Pretty much nobody defends it. To get a good idea of how widely criticised for its unreliability The Daily <ail is, just do a web search about Wikipedia deprecating it as a source -- something that was covered in multiple high quality sources. Count how many that say the Wikipedia was wrong and that The Daily Mail is reliable. Now count how many say "about time! What took you so long?". --Guy Macon (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Infowars was covered by John Oliver in 2017. For The Daily Mail you could use The Mash Report. Here are some quotes:

2018-01-18: Well, Nish, as ever, the Daily Mail provides a very good barometer of the British public, with this headline, which actually happened... Sociologist Carolann Peterson says in the article... Nish, it's an absolute minefield! What could possibly be wrong with spanking a colleague?! Or the prospect of a sudden arm grabbing you from the shadows?! Hang on, are these real headlines? They're real, Nish! They're genuine headlines! Welcome to the world![1]

2018-02-01: Where did you pick that outfit, General White Man Emporium? Yeah, whatever. What about you? You got anything? You're like the Daily Mail's wet dream. Not bad.

2018-02-15: I feels like for most of my adult life the only things we talk about are "immigration" and "how we never talk about immigration". Also Bake Off. And then there was the time where we combined them both, when Nadiya Hussain was in it and the Daily Mail lost their mind and suggested that now to win you needed to make a "chocolate mosque".

Also: The writer Liz Gerard found that between 1st January and the date of the referendum, the Daily Mail and the Daily Express each published 34 front-page articles about immigration. In case you were wondering, none of them were positive.

2019-02-26: It appears to have been mentioned, but you'll have to look up the episode. Should be about three quarters or so in.

2020-04-03: Johnson next addressed the public on March the 12th and was uncharacteristically serious. The Daily Mail called on its leaders to trust the judgment of the government, but according to the Guardian, on the same day, an internal e-mail at the Mail's parent company advised non-editorial staff to work from home because government advice was no longer adequate. The Prime Minister had lost the confidence of the paper whose previous criticisms of him amounted to: "perhaps his dick is too big and nice."

Hope that helps. - Alexis Jazz 20:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

Please add this under " The Daily Mail in literature":

In the Harry Potter book series, Vernon Dursley is a Daily Mail Reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chox2019 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per WP:IPC –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Quoting Jimmy Wales

Masem on June 16 inserted with edit summary = "Jimmy Wales' support of WP decision to deprecate DM". I object. First, saying "decision by the community" and "the community's choice" is not backed by an RS. Second, it's piling on, because we already have quoted Wikipedians' criticisms and the long (44-word) quote from Jimmy Wales is not adding fact it is just adding another Wikipedian's criticism. Third, if CNBC is regarded as RS for the quote, then CNBC's word "banned" is what's being supported, not the paragraph's incorrect word "deprecated". Fourth, although I accept that for Wikipedia-policy reasons we cannot cite the objections that the Daily Mail made at the time, I see no reason that Masem took only Mr Wales's criticism, and left out the response from the very same article, such as:

"Only today Anthony Weiner has pleaded guilty to sexting with a minor as a direct result of an investigation last year by DailyMail.com. We will be interested to see who Wikipedia cites as the story’s source", the media group added.

Indeed they will be, if they become aware of this (part of the David Gerard edit series, eliminating a credit of the Daily Mail for the Anthony Weiner story). Is there consensus for Masem's edit? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

This appears to be a proxy for attempting to relitigate WP:DAILYMAIL. We already know the Daily Mail cannot be trusted for claims about itself. Is there third-party notability of the DM breaking the story? If there is, then use that - David Gerard (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and to answer the question: Masem's edit looks fine to me. It's a relevant person's opinion on the topic to hand (the deprecation of the DM), cited to an RS - David Gerard (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

And as best I know, Jimmy took no part in the discussions at all (I don't believe any WMF staffer did in their capacity as a WMF staffer) so this would make it a confirmation from someone of WMF-type authority that the community did a reasonable thing if the purpose of WP is to use high-quality reliable sources to build a quality encyclopedia. --Masem (t) 17:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Why did you not choose the CEO then? She was widely quoted. And why do you think this confirmation is relevant at all? It wouldn't matter if they disagreed, but it certainly would be worth noting if they had. It certainly seems to be entirely unsurprising that Mr Wales hates the Mail, and the Mail specifically. He was after all, a member of the board of The Guardian at the time. BorkNein (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

This statement surprised me, but it's true if it means "at the time of the RfC". Mr Wales joined The Guardian board in January 2016, WP:DAILYMAIL was closed in February 2017, Mr Wales left the board in April 2017. The interview was published in May 2017. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it should be included. It's a passing comment by Jimbo in one source. We wouldn't even be discussing it if this weren't a Wikipedia article. Even the source only mentions it because it is relevant to a website that Jimbo was setting up. TFD (talk) 23:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

So at this point Masem's edit lacks consensus. But I'm not reverting unless I see more objections. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree Jimbo's quote should not be included. It's a passing reference and then there is also the conflict of interest as mentioned above, because of being on the board of the Daily Mail's competitor the Guardian. I also think the whole paragraph about Wikipedia's deprecation of the Daily Mail should be removed. The event is trivial and meta wiki cruft. It also looks immature that Wikipedia is mentioning itself in the Daily Mail article, as if Wikipedia's opinion should matter in the world of journalism. Wikipedia should be self-effacing and just keep out of the articles. If the quote remains, obviously, Jimbo should be given a courtesy notice on his talk page of it and this conversation. I'll use an analogy to show the problem with including the quote.

The New York Times interviews me and writes an article. I'm the chief editor of Britannica. I'm also on the board of Pepsi. In the article, the New York Times writes about Britannica's new office policy of banning Coke from the office. The employees decided that Coke tastes bad. The New York Times asks my opinion about this decision. I agree with the decision and say "What the heck took the office so long, Coke tastes like sh-t. I know Coke doesn't like hearing about it but it is true." A week later Britannica updates its Coke encyclopedia article and adds in the criticism section about the taste of the soda that the office of Britannica has banned Coke because it tastes bad. They also add my quote that I completely agree and use the New York Times article as the reference.

Simply put meta wiki cruft. --Guest2625 (talk) 06:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Why does the passage imply a causal connection between Jimmy Wales's view, and the Mail's response? I tried to correct this misleading statement by simply removing "Though the Daily Mail strongly contested this decision by the community," but I was obstructed by David Gerard, for reasons I am not clear on. BorkNein (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

A majority of the editors in this thread are against Masem's edit, and we have given reasons. I have removed it. I agree that it is courteous to tell Jimmy Wales, but believe that a ping will suffice. I do not mean that I agree with his rule about quoting him because I respect his opinions and have quoted him myself on talk pages. I agree that the rest of the paragraph, not just the quote, is of dubious worth; however, this thread's title is "Quoting Jimmy Wales" so removing more than the quote could be regarded as going beyond what's proposed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Update: The removal lasted two hours before being reverted by Calton, who did not participate in this talk page discussion. There is still no consensus for Masem's edit. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

You're trying to go too far, which makes your edit ripe for reversion. Propose a more specific modification. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Support Massem's edit. The claim "A majority of the editors in this thread are against Masem's edit" appears to be incorrect. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The claim was correct at the time that I made it. Subsequently people have supported Masem's edit. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Best-selling UK newspaper

Just a note that The Daily Mail is now UK's best-selling newspaper, overtaking the Sun - [2]. I'm not sure whether the lead needs to be changed now since it may be temporary, but just thought it may need mentioning. I don't think it is worth mentioning Metro in the lead since it is a free newspaper and its circulation figure is pretty meaningless. Hzh (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Just added that to the lead, also current newspaper of the year Piecesofuk (talk) 05:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Daily Mail eclipses the Sun to become UK's top-selling paper https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jun/19/daily-mail-eclipses-the-sun-to-become-uks-top-selling-paper?utm_term=RWRpdG9yaWFsX0d1YXJkaWFuVG9kYXlVS19XZWVrZW5kLTIwMDYyMA%3D%3D&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=GTUK_email&utm_campaign=GuardianTodayUK

  The Daily Mail sold 980,000 copies a day on average last month, and the Mail on Sunday sold 878,000 a week, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations figures published on Friday.

Peter K Burian (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing concerns

Like five other editors I have concerns regarding the sourcing of the clause:

"The Daily Mail has been widely criticized for its unreliability,"

My previous comment regarding this issue was, unfortunately, deleted from the talk page and archive because of a technical problem. The concern regarding the sourcing of the clause mirrors that of the other editors. The word "widely" in the clause is a controversial statement and should not depend on the analysis of wikipedia editors. The reliable source which analyses the data (i.e. criticism because of unreliability) needs to make that conclusion. The sources provided do not state anywhere "widely". The editors who want to include the word "widely" have not provided a quote which could be interpreted as saying this. Most of the inline citations provided are of poor quality:

The first cite Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source does not have the Guardian say in its own voice that the Daily Mail is unreliable. It merely states the position of wikipedia. This citation should not be used. There is conflict of interest and wikipedia should not be referencing itself as a reliable source.

The second cite Daily Mail: Most Unreliable Paper For 3rd Year In A Row is a low caliber source which is ultimately based on a blog source. The usage of IPSO for analyzing reliability is a decent approach, however, no consideration was given for the number of stories published by each newspaper. Obviously, a newspaper which publishes few stories will need few corrections.

The third cite Mail Supremacy does not state that the Daily Mail is unreliable, rather it discusses that it uses all kinds of bells and whistles and flashing lights to increase viewership.

The fourth cite The Daily Mail cancer story that torpedoes itself in paragraph 19 is an opinion piece; however, if this is overlooked, it is a decent source for stating that the Guardian has criticized the Daily Mail for unreliability.

The fifth cite Will Drinking Diet Soda Increase Your Risk For A Heart Attack? is problematic since it is a Forbes article by a non-staff writer which uses a blog award to make its case. The source should not be included. It is not clear if the blog award is being serious and what qualification the blogger has in media analysis.

The sixth cite I am unable to access and no page number has been provided for where it supports the relevant claim. Also it should be noted that the book is by Ben Goldacre who wrote the Guardian opinion piece in the fourth cite.

In conclusion, the word "widely" is not supported by the sources and should be removed. I look forward to a cordial discussion on the topic. If individuals wish to repost their comments or make new comments that will all help to move this discussion along. --Guest2625 (talk) 07:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

After this discussion began, David Gerard has removed the fifth cite (forbes.com). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

yes, it was a Forbes contributor blog and so not an RS - David Gerard (talk) 05:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the unreliable source. --Guest2625 (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Guest2625 has said it all well so I don't need to repeat all my earlier comments, except to remind that the wording is due to a now-blocked user. I'd favour removing not just "widely" but the whole poorly sourced sentence, although perhaps it would be acceptable to attribute properly e.g. "People associated with The Guardian (named here) have criticised ..." and move outside the lead. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I agree attribution is important for controversial statements. --Guest2625 (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Please note that the exact phrase "The Daily Mail has been widely criticized for its unreliability" is no longer in the article. The first mention of "widely" is in the fourth paragraph:

"The Daily Mail has been noted for its unreliability and widely criticised for its printing of sensationalist and inaccurate scare stories of science and medical research, and for copyright violations. The Daily Mail has won a number of awards, including receiving the National Newspaper of the Year award from the British Press Awards eight times since 1995, winning again in 2019."

--Guy Macon (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Great. It looks like things are moving along. The location of "widely", however, still remains a problem. As other editors have mentioned, the location of this sentence is problematic. Questions of due weight come up. The lead is meant to summarize the body of the article. The word "widely", now proceeding the second clause, is not supported anywhere in the body of the article. If someone disagrees, please provide a quote from the body of the article which supports this claim. A productive way to proceed to sort out the sourcing problem, would be to step-by-step go through the concerns raised regarding the sources. The exact order doesn't really matter, because some of the concerns are more difficult to resolve.

In conclusion, the word "widely" is not supported by the body of the article or its sources, and should be removed.--Guest2625 (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Guest2625, you mean there are people who don't consider the Daily Mail unreliable? I'ts OK, there is an educational video to help them. Guy (help!) 08:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. I like that video that danny guy is very funny. However, like you obviously know, some random youtuber is not a reliable source. Humor is good but logic and discourse are the best way to answer questions of concern. --Guest2625 (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Guest2625, satire is a powerful tool. The issues it highlights are real and substantive, from the xenophobic rhetoric to the unhealthy obsession with very young women (see also "all grown up" and "sidebar of shame"). Guy (help!) 11:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree the issue of misogyny is important. However, on Wikipedia there is no room for beliefs based on comedians, pub mates, or online chats. The only thing that matters is the facts in the reliable sources. --Guest2625 (talk) 10:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Evaluating the concerns

Alright. Let's begin to evaluate the concerns as a group:

Is The Media Fund a reliable source?

• No. The Media Fund is not a reliable source. It has no editorial board. It does not have a section for corrections. There appears to be only one individual (i.e. Steven Durrant) operating the site. There is no indication that Steven Durrant is an expert in media analysis. The website is a self-published source and should be removed from the article. I encourage anyone who agrees to be bold and remove the source, so that we waste no more time deconstructing the reliability of this source. You can contribute below with yes/no/comment if you wish to join the conversation. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
• No. This was added on July 8 by Czello who said "Let's discuss this on the talk page" but didn't, so far. Guy Macon has posted a notice on WP:RSN about sourcing disputes here but so far as I can see has not tried to defend using themediafund.org, so far. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • That's because I understand the difference between asking whether a source is reliable and deciding that it is or isn't reliable before asking the question. I am not a big fan of asking a question when you have already decided that there is only one answer you will accept. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
    • +1. -sche (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
    • -1. Perhaps the indenting is wrong? I asked no question, I answered Guest2625's question, which is done in a conventional style that I've seen many times. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
      • The indenting is fine. You said something about my behavior: "Guy Macon has posted a notice on WP:RSN about sourcing disputes here but so far as I can see has not tried to defend using themediafund.org, so far." I explained my behavior: "That's because I understand the difference between asking whether a source is reliable and deciding that it is or isn't reliable before asking the question." Could it be that you are so used to seeing aggressive people make assertions and post arguments in the form of a question that you no longer understand when some of us ask actual questions because we want answers? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Since the indenting is deliberate, then this comment was addressed to me: "I am not a big fan of asking a question when you have already decided that there is only one answer you will accept." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
          • That is correct. I addressed it to you. You made a comment about me ("Guy Macon has posted a notice on WP:RSN about sourcing disputes here but so far as I can see has not tried to defend using themediafund.org, so far.") I answered by telling you why I have not tried to defend using themediafund.org: ("That's because I understand the difference between asking whether a source is reliable and deciding that it is or isn't reliable before asking the question. I am not a big fan of asking a question when you have already decided that there is only one answer you will accept.") This is the second time I have explained this to you. Again, I strongly suspect that you are so used to seeing aggressive people make assertions and post arguments in the form of a question that you no longer understand when someone ask an actual question because he wants answers. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I added this initially as (the now banned) BorkNein wanted additional sources. That said, if it's been determined to not be reliable I have no qualms in it being removed. — Czello 15:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I have asked for further input on the reliable noticeboard concerning the above question in a more narrow fashion than Guy Macon here. --Guest2625 (talk) 04:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Not seeing any indication of this, though the facts are trivially verified from the primary source. Guy (help!) 08:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment The problem is that the article concerned relies on an analysis in a self-published site Tabloid Corrections, which would be definitely considered unreliable. Note also that the analysis there is based on complaints upheld by IPSO, but a number of newspapers such as The Guardian and The Independent are not subject to investigation by IPSO, so sanctions by IPSO cannot be used to make any comparative/superlative statement about the press in general (e.g. "most unreliable paper") without qualification. This the headline and content of The Media Fund patently failed to make clear, and that would suggest that it is an unreliable source. Hzh (talk) 11:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I should make this a No since it makes no attempt to give an accurate report. Hzh (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Guest2625 + Peter Gulutzan + HzH say "No", Czello seems neutral, Guy Macon doesn't answer, JzG|Guy is ambiguous, there was no answer to Guest2625's question on WP:RSN, and the only editor who answered Guy Macon's question on WP:RSN i.e. GRuban probably means ... well, I won't interpret. Let's give it another two days in case many silent-until-now editors overturn the consensus for "No" here. If they don't, and if nobody else has finally removed the cite to themediafund.org, I will. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks, Peter. I didn't specify there, because I didn't look carefully, but will now. We don't have an article about The Media Fund (Media Fund seems to be something completely different). I can't find many reliable source articles about it on the web, only one, in fact, https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/oct/02/fund-launched-to-create-independent-media, which implies pretty clearly that it's founded with an intentional left-wing bias. It is more than just Stephen Durrant, https://themediafund.org/about-us/the-team/ so it's not necessarily a WP:SPS, but the half dozen people there are a variety, only one journalist, Durrant himself is listed as an activist. All that tends to argue against reliability. Then there is what I did write on RSP, that the article we're using as the source here similarly says that The Times is almost as bad. The Times is the United Kingdom's paper of record, over 200 years old, used as the model for and lending its name to countless newspapers around the Globe, so calling it unreliable says a whole lot more about The Media Fund than it does about The Times, honestly, and what it says is not good. I'm not British myself, but our article Daily Mail says "the United Kingdom's highest-circulation daily newspaper", so I'm guessing it's not some obscure topic that this marginal source would be the best we could get to write about it. So, yeah, I don't think we need this. --GRuban (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Now four of the four editors with clear opinions have said no, and two days have passed. I have removed the cite. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Shortly after I wrote that, Guy Macon took the issue to WP:RSN again, archived here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Is there a conflict of interest when Wikipedia partially uses its own opinion to label a newspaper unreliable in the lead?

• Comment I will wait to formulate my opinion in order not to sway other people's opinions. --Guest2625 (talk) 04:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• No, that's ridiculous - David Gerard (talk) 05:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Ha ha ha ha! No. Guy (help!) 08:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. I agree with the now unnamed individual that there is a conflict of interest. (For the lay reader, to see the full discussion see talk page history and archive 7). On Wikipedia there are two spaces. There is the mainspace (the articles) and the backspace (the talk pages, noticeboards, policy pages, village pump, etc.). Morally, we have an obligation to keep them separate. We, the writers of Wikipedia, have a conflict of interest as concerns the Daily Mail article. In our backspace, we have collectively determined that the newspaper is unreliable. However, when writing the Daily Mail article, we need to remain neutral and objective and not interject our backspace determinations. On the article page, it is our duty and policy to stick to what the sources on the article page state. We cannot sneak our opinion through a Guardian article that mentions what our opinion was in Wikipedia's metaspace. It should be noted that editors specialized with category tagging have already come to this conclusion. See the discussion here. --Guest2625 (talk) 04:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Notice: I have asked for advise on this topic on the conflict of interest noticeboard here. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

By "now unnamed individual" you mean ban-evading sockpuppet. Be careful: proxying for ban evasion is sanctionable. Guy (help!) 11:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Guest2625 is in fact advocating against preserving the edit of a ban evader. As I've mentioned before, the controversial wording is due to this revision by Zionziho who is now blocked. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan, that's a very creative interpretation of I agree with the now unnamed individual that there is a conflict of interest. As I said, the "now unnamed individual" is not, in fact, unnamed, it's a checkuser-blocked sockpuppet and Google readily identifies their off-wiki agenda and probable status as a WP:LTA. Proxying for banned users is indeed sanctionable, and any appearance of doing so is best avoided. Guy (help!) 08:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

That's correct. Obviously, content from a banned user should be deleted. I'm scratching my head as to why this other stuff from Zionziho another banned user still remains. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• No It is fine to mention Wikipedia's opinion provided it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Whether or not we can use it or any other source to conclude that the DM is seen as generally unreliable is a separate issue. TFD (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• How would this be a "conflict of interest"? (Do you perhaps mean to invoke WP:CIRCULAR?) -sche (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a conflict of interest in a classic definition of the phrase. A conflict of interest means two or more interests are in conflict. Wikipedia believes and has policy in place that states the Daily Mail is unreliable. However, when writing the Daily Mail article Wikipedia is required to be neutral and only rely on the article's sources. The two competing interests are (1) its belief/policy that the Daily Mail is unreliable and (2) its requirement to be neutral when writing about the Daily Mail's reliability.

A bias is a conflict of interest. The bias can be financial, ideological, religious, or anything else. Some examples might help. I am a member of democratic party. I am editing the Ronald Reagan article. I have in this case a political conflict of interest. I am a member of the democratic party. I am editing Kamala Harrison's article. Once again, I have a political conflict of interest. I am Jewish. I am editing on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. I have a religious conflict of interest.

When Wikipedia utilizes a reliable source that references itself to help note that the Daily Mail is unreliable, the conflict of interest becomes realized. Wikipedia by utilizing a correctly sourced statement which references its opinion/policy pushes down the scale of neutrality. Wikipedia's internal decision might be correct; however, it is still a biased opinion that should not be used to buttress the claim that the Daily Mail is unreliable. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

We don't have a bias in respect of the Mail. Our "bias" is in respect of sources: we are biased towards reliable ones, and always have been. Full marks for your creativity here, but we did not conjure up the idea that the Mail is unreliable, that is taken entirely from independent sources. You might just as weell say that we have a COI in respect of creationism because we say it's bollocks and we reject creationist sources in science articles. Guy (help!) 08:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

So, place those independent sources into the article so they can be evaluated. Why are you clinging on to this reference which sources to the opinion of Wikipedia's noticeboard? --Guest2625 (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you are the one who is fixated on this source. Guy (help!) 22:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I care because having that source being used like that in the lead reflects poorly on Wikipedia. And other's agree see the reliable source noticeboard here. --Guest2625 (talk) 06:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Guest2625, in your opinion. Shared by, to date, one ban-evading sockpuppeteer. Guy (help!) 22:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Guy, you're a specialist in reliable sources. Read the concerns I originally mentioned. They are completely fair concerns. My worry is individual dislike of the article's topic might be causing a lack of objectivity by editors. My interest is not in newspaper articles, but I can start working on this article if necessary. --Guest2625 (talk) 04:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• No. The Guardian is the source of the linked article, and Wikipedia is the subject. — Newslinger talk 23:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. Let me try two analogies. (1) The New York Times interviews me and writes an article. In the article, I state the Guardian is unreliable. Now, I head on over to the Guardian wikipedia article. I add to the lead the sentence: "the Guardian has been noted as unreliable" and use the New York Times reference. Do I have a conflict of interest when editing the article? Is there a problem with the added sentence or source? (2) The New York Times interviews President Trump and writes an article. In the article, Trump says the Guardian is an unreliable source and his staff do not use it. Now, I add to the lead the sentence of the Guardian wikipedia article "the Guardian has been noted as unreliable" and use the New York Times as my reference. Is there a problem with this addition? --Guest2625 (talk) 08:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

You're just posting the same stuff over and over now - David Gerard (talk) 11:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Told you dude. Sea Lions.   --Guy Macon (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Pretty clear we can't use Wikipedia's opinion to label a newspaper unreliable. The Guardian is reliably reporting on what Wikipedia said, but that doesn't make Wikipedia an expert on the reliability of newspapers. The Guardian might as well be reporting the opinion of some high school students, and we couldn't use that either. --GRuban (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• No. We cannot, obviously, cite ourselves directly; but when Wikipedia is covered by a secondary source we can report on that the same way we would when anyone else is reported on in a reliable source. The very nature of an WP:RS is that they will do research and reporting using primary sources that we would not site directly, including Wikipedia itself. --Aquillion (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a reliable source for stating the Daily Mail is an unreliable source?

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.

---

• Comment Contribute below with yes/no/comment. --Guest2625
• This doesn't appear to be a coherent or relevant question for this issue. You're also raising this as a second section concerning the same source discussed specifically in the above section - but you're presenting it as separate. You might consider not spamming this talk page with not-even-wrong questions for a bit, until the existing questions are resolved. There is a properly-formed RFC in progress below - David Gerard (talk) 12:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• The Guardian is the source of the article published on theguardian.com. Wikipedia is the subject. — Newslinger talk 10:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• No Wikipedia is not a reliable source. But that is not the same thing as using a secondary source that mentions a finding made by Wikipedia. TFD (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• As TFD says, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but this question is pointless because Wikipedia is also not the source being cited. (More generally, these repeated non-neutrally [mis]constructed questions are part of why I started a proper RFC using previously-discussed wording below.) -sche (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

-sche, That's correct it's a notable opinion so citing it via a secondary source is fine. The problem is what one does with the opinion in the article. The opinion is not a fact. So, the opinion should not be used as a fact to buttress the claim that the Daily Mail is unreliable. I personally do not think such Wikipedia meta-content should be added anywhere to the article. However, it definitely should not be added to the lead where it is being used to help summarize that the Daily Mail is unreliable. For me, this glaringly obvious.

An example might help. Let's say we were editing republican-pedia. In the backrooms of the noticeboards, we determine that the Guardian is unreliable and ban it. The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal breathlessly report that republican-pedia has banned the Guardian because it is unreliable. Now of course, we also have a secondary hobby over at Wikipedia. We joyously skippy-doo over to the Wikipedia Guardian article and add to the lead that "the Guardian has been noted as unreliable" using the New York Times as our reference. Do you see the problem now with what is happening with Daily Mail article? If not, I'm willing to try to explain further. The fault lies in me for not being able to explain more clearly. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE - David Gerard (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2020 (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.

Please wait for the RFC to be over

Should the sixth citation for the book Bad Science be removed because there is no page number given? Yes. The citation should be removed since without a page number the information cannot be verified. I have obtained a copy of the book and cannot verify that it supports the sentence's claim. The book is 338 pages long. Please see the wiki article Bad Science for a book summary. As the lead of the wiki article states: "Bad Science is a book by Ben Goldacre, criticising mainstream media reporting on health and science issues". The book criticizes mainstream media in general about its reporting and does not single out the Daily Mail. The vague usage of this source with no page number is problematic. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Should the fourth citation to Ben Goldacre opinion piece in the Guardian be removed from the lead sentence? Yes. The source should be removed from the lead. The source is being deceptively used to give undue weight to the claim that the Daily Mail is more unreliable than other mainstream UK newspapers. I have gone ahead and researched Ben Goldacre's Guardian science column (see here). Goldacre's column is in fact very similar to his book in that it criticizes all of UK mainstream media. To get an idea of how deceptive, the usage of this one reference is see his website under the category media here. In those listed articles, he criticizes at a minimum the Guardian, Observer, Daily Mail, BBC, Independent, and Sun. I like Ben Goldacre. He is a smart guy and has some great articles. See The dangers of cherry-picking evidence: "In the 1980s, researchers such as Celia Mulrow produced damning research showing that review articles in academic journals and textbooks, which everyone had trusted, actually presented a distorted and unrepresentative view, when compared with a systematic search of the academic literature. After struggling to exclude bias from every individual study, doctors and academics would then synthesise that evidence together with frightening arbitrariness." Just to make it clear once again that he is criticizing all of UK media see the article How far should we trust health reporting?: "It seems that the majority of health claims made, in a large representative sample of UK national newspapers, are supported only by the weakest possible forms of evidence." Proper sourcing and due weight is the key to Wikipedia's success. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Sounds like you're cooking up some tasty WP:OR. I also offer the following as a product of my own intuition: are you headed towards trying to get the DM undeprecated? Good luck with that... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC) I am attempting to verify the sources of a sentence in this article as I stated on July 18. I am here at this article as an outside observer because of an earlier request for comment. It's not clear to me why people are so perturbed about the verification of the sources. Only a few days ago was I able to obtain the Goldacre book. I'm scratching my head trying to figure out what is problematic about my above analysis of the Ben Goldacre sources. I have never experienced this form of strange behaviour on a talk page. As far as Wikipedia policy and WP:DAILYMAIL I am indifferent. I have faith in the collective wisdom of my co-editors. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Blythwood: Guest2625 has asked "Should the sixth citation for the book Bad Science be removed because there is no page number given?" (click "Show" above to see the whole question). Apparently you were the editor who added a cite, although the sentence has been changed and moved since. So I guess you might remember reading Bad Science. Do you think there is a page which supports the sentence? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan, Guest2625, thanks for the question. Some quotes from the book that describe The Daily Mail as inaccurate: "The Daily Mail in particular has become engaged in a bizarre ongoing ontological project, diligently sifting through all of the inanimate objects of the universe in order to categorise them as a cause of-or cure for-cancer" (chapter 6, p 86), "the natural home of miracle cures (and sinister hidden scares)" (p 136), "the Daily Mail, international journal of health scares" (p 299). My feeling is that they have actually cleaned up their act a bit recently (they've invited Goldacre to write for them a few times, in fact) but we could use sources for that. Blythwood (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Blythwood: Great to see an editor who's willing to discuss and give reasons. Although I agree with much that Guest2625 has said, I'll take it that there's no consensus now for removing this particular cite. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the page numbers. Ben Gold Acre does criticize the Daily Mail on those pages. The bigger problem for this article as whole is that the reference is being used to indicate that the Daily Mail is the sole purveyor of poor science. The Ben Goldacre book as you know criticizes all of mainstream media. I could go to all UK newspaper articles and add in the lead of the article that: Ben Goldacre has criticized newspaper Y "for its printing of sensationalist and inaccurate scare stories of science and medical research". Using Goldacre's book, I would be able to provide multiple page numbers and quotes. I'll give some examples below of criticism of other newspapers.

"Aqua Detox is a detox footbath, one of many similar products. It has been promoted uncritically in some very embarrassing articles in the Telegraph, the Mirror, the Sunday Times, GQ magazine and various TV shows." (Chapter 1 pp 11)

"Sometimes it’s clear that the journalists themselves simply don’t understand the unsubtle difference between the evidence and the hypothesis. The Times, for example, covered an experiment …" (Chapter 11 pp 194)

"The Times in March 2006 headed: ‘Cocaine Floods the Playground’. ‘Use of the addictive drug by children doubles in a year,’ said the subheading. Was this true? … The Telegraph also ran the ‘cocaine use doubles’ story, and so did the Mirror... So the newspapers were right: it doubled? No." (Chapter 13 pp 213)

"‘US Scientists Back Autism Link to MMR’, squealed the Telegraph. ‘Scientists Fear MMR Link to Autism’, roared the Mail. ‘US Study Supports Claims of MMR Link to Autism’, croaked The Times a day later. ... These scare stories were based on a poster presentation, at a conference yet to occur, on research not yet completed, by a man with a track record of announcing research that never subsequently appears in an academic journal." (Chapter 15 pp 262)

The above quotes and pages are only a small sampling of examples of Ben Goldacre criticizing different mainstream media. Obviously, if editors want to use Ben Goldacre and the page numbers provided above by Blythwood in the body of the article that is fine. However, it is deceptive to use Ben Goldacre in the lead, since the summary of his Guardian column and his book is that all of UK mainstream media science coverage is poor. (as an aside, I have an epub version of the Goldacre book, so page numbers will be shifted in regards to the paperback version) --Guest2625 (talk) 23:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

You're conceding the claims are well sourced, but you don't want them in the lead because ... he talks about other media too? I think you're stretching in an attempt to impeach this source, and it's an entirely suitable source for the job it's doing - David Gerard (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

If you look at my initial concerns, I have never disagreed that Ben Goldacre criticized the Daily Mail. My concern regarding Ben Goldacre's criticism was about due weight and whether it should be included in the lead. If you look at my position in the RFC, I am fine with including Ben Goldacre's criticism of mainstream media and by extension the Daily Mail in the body of the article. I don't disagree with his article How far should we trust health reporting? where he says: "It seems that the majority of health claims made, in a large representative sample of UK national newspapers, are supported only by the weakest possible forms of evidence." --Guest2625 (talk) 09:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Guest2625: I agree it's undue but there doesn't seem to be enough support for removal. Do you agree that discussion re the cites you've mentioned so far seems to be over, for now? Do you intend to start discussion on the remaining one, the New Yorker article? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The New Yorker article does not state that the Daily Mail is unreliable. However, I'll wait until after the request for comments closes to discuss my concerns regarding that article. It was suggested above that then would be a better time for me to discuss my sourcing concerns. As it stands, the sentence in question is inaccurate and should not be in the lead. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for your work so far. I'll respond to the RfC. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC on the inclusion of certain statements about unreliability and inaccuracy

1) Should the lead say the Dail Mail "has been noted for its unreliability", and if so, 2) should it say it has been "widely" noted for that? 3) Should it say the Daily Mail has been "criticised for its printing of sensationalist and inaccurate scare stories of science and medical research", and if so, 4) should it say it has been "widely" criticised for that? -sche (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

---

• In the interest of having (what I hope is) a neutrally-constructed RfC, after two prior RfCs by a now-blocked user (one of which was early-closed and archived and the other of which was simply erased) and a number of other discussions and comments (including by socks of that user) which have been described as not being neutrally constructed or structured, I have started the RfC above closely following wording discussed previously. -sche (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

---

Responses

• 1, 3 and 4: yes, based on the sources cited in the article at present and those provided by ReconditeRodent and Guy Macon (Ctrl+F "22:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)" to find the relevant comment). 2: probably, based on those sources (though it's less clear-cut). -sche (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support 1, 3, 4, neutral on 2 unless more sources appear, I'm not sure those we have support "widely". (t · c) buidhe 22:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
• 1, 3 and 4 are unambiguously true, 2 is also true but subjective. Guy (help!) 23:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

How can 4 possibly be true when the body of the article only states: The Mail's medical and science journalism has been criticised by some doctors and scientists, accusing it of using minor studies to generate scare stories. Logic states that: "widely" > "some". And even the word "some" is incorrect since it is only Ben Goldacre who is referenced in the sources. Correct sourcing is vital for Wikipedia. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

References

I could do without sea lions. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I would like to have a civil conversation about your statement. Would you mind showing me evidence of any negative thing any sea lion has ever done to you? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• 1, 3 and 4 are unambiguously true. 2 is also true but may (or may not) need attribution. I note with amusement the fact that some editors are questioning the reliability of sources that say The Daily Mail is widely viewed as being unreliable (which is a good thing; we should always question the reliability of all sources) while ignoring the elephant in the room: you can search all day and find source after source that talks about how unreliable The Daily Mail is while finding exactly zero sources that say that it is reliable. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

  Guy Macon, true dat. Guy (help!) 00:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The Daily News? You mean Daily Mail? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Update: I asked that because Guy Macon repeatedly mentioned The Daily News. Instead of replying, Guy Macon removed my question, and I reverted because WP:TALKO. Then Guy Macon changed what he had written despite WP:TALK#REPLIED. But I forgive, just as I forgive Daily Mail if it makes corrections silently. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment, per "Unsupported attributions", we need a source that makes that conclusion before including it. It takes original research to determine how authoritative and representative the claims of inaccuracy are. Alternatively we could say the paper's reporting is inaccurate if we could find a reliable source (i.e., not an opinion piece) that says that. While this may seem onerous, if we don't find a statement in reliable sources it lacks significance for inclusion. TFD (talk) 02:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• I'm good with all four. Count me out of the pedantic nonsense that says we need a source that uses the word "widely" before we can write "widely" in our own text. If there are a good many sources of sufficient quality criticising this newspaper's stories for being unreliable and inaccurate, then it has been "widely" criticised along those lines. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Nomoskedasticity, policy does not say that sources must have the same wording, just that they convey the same meaning, in this case that the Daily Mail is considered unreliable by informed observers. We are opening ourselves up to right-wing editors finding a bunch of columns by conservatives and making making claims that fascism is left-wing or whatever the latest theory in the echo chamber is. Besides, it would be ironic to ignore Wikipedia policy of reliable sources in order to say that another publication is unreliable. TFD (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• See #Sourcing_concerns above. Guest2625 started a thread for discussing each source cited for the sentence. So far, one source (forbes.com) has been removed, one source (themediafund.org) is the current focus, others merit discussion. I hope that this RfC will not cause derailment of the attempt to look at the sources individually. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• • This is a proper RFC that's getting proper answers already, so it's fine - David Gerard (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
    • It was started prematurely. However, so far it has not caused derailment. Another source, themediafund.org, has been removed. Discussions continue about others, when they finish I will be able to give a proper answer here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Objection withdrawn. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• All four are fine with me. Multiple RSes = "widely" for purposes of 2, IMO - David Gerard (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. It is bad form to open a request for comment when there is an ongoing discussion about the same topic on the talk page. However, I might be wrong. There are two editors with administrative privileges participating in the conversation, so I'll defer to them on procedural etiquette. Nonetheless, I am very excited to see all the new voices which have joined the conversation. --Guest2625 (talk) 06:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose "1", "2", "3", and "4" in the lead; support option "3" in the body with attribution to Ben Goldacre. Option "2" and "4" cannot stand based on the sources. If people believe the word "widely" can stand, please provide the quote or relevant sources which would support the words usage. As the discussion above has made clear, the current sources do not support "widely" in either location. Option "1" and "3" are more complex. Editors should realize that in fact option "1" is merely the generalization of option "3". Since option "3" is all that remains after the winnowing of the sources, one should ask oneself if it is appropriate to include this one statement in the lead. The answer is no. The sentence should not remain in the lead until the body of the criticism section and its sources support the claim in a due weight fashion. Lastly, attribution is necessary for controversial statements. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support 1, 3, 4, maybe 2 as well, all per the discussion above. I suggest a notice at WP:RSNB if there isn’t one already. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

  There is. See WP:RSPDM 📌 and WP:DAILYMAIL. 📌 --Guy Macon (talk) 11:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support #1, #3, and #4 based on currently cited sources. Neutral on #2 unless more reliable sources emerge. — Newslinger talk 10:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support 1, 3, & 4, per Guy Macon - Idealigic (talk) 11:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support 1 and 3, but oppose 2 and 4. The use of "widely" is WP:SYNTH and OR from sources randomly cobbled together, particularly from sources that have axes to grind (e.g. The Guardian). You can find other sources that are ideologically opposed to Daily Mail, but it serves no useful purpose to use them to represent the wider view because they are not the wider view. It would be equally wrong if someone finds a number of right-wing sources to say that say that a liberal-left politician/organisation is "widely" criticised. Avoid using Wikipedia's voice for what is a POV. Hzh (talk) 10:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support 1 & 3 as well as 2 & 4 if well sourced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support 1, 2, 3 and 4. I note the Daily Mail continues to lead the chart for IPSO-regulated publications with the most complaints that have required remedial action for the fourth year running. It's good to have these RFCs, you never know when one day a dead horse may rise. Mighty Antar (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] publication of adjudication publication of adjudication — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• This RFC concerns this article and the sources in it. IPSO corrections and using them to determine the reliability of the Daily Mail needs to be shown in a secondary reliable source. There was no proof provided that the Daily Mail leads with the requirement of remedial actions. Reading the News Corp UK IPSO Annual Statement 2019 (Sun Newspapers), Associated Newspapers Annual Statement 2019 (Daily Mail newspapers), and Reach PLC Annual Statement to IPSO 2019 (Daily Mirror newspapers), it is clear that some hand-wavey analysis by us to determine reliability by IPSO adjucations is ill conceived. For 2019, there were upheld IPSO adjudications of 12 against Daily Mirror newspapers, 8 against Sun newspapers, and 7 against the Daily Mail newspapers. But, please look at the IPSO website. All IPSO monitored newspapers should be commended for allowing themselves to be monitored by a third party. Most of the other English speaking newspapers in the world aren't monitored by any third party. --Guest2625 (talk) 06:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The "needs to be shown in a secondary reliable source" rule only applies to article content, not talk page discussions. I also note that Guest2625, like everyone else on every article talk page, often makes arguments that are not found in any reliable secondary source. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• 1) No. Saying "noted" violates WP:CLAIM. 2) No. The word "widely" is material that no cited source "directly supports" so adding it would violate WP:V. 3) No. The words "been ... criticised" are opinion without in-text attribution so violate WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. 4) No. "widely criticised" etc. is part of a revision by a banned editor so WP:BANREVERT applies: "the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert". Now, as to sources: because this RfC was started prematurely some of the opinions above were added before the cites were discussed in the "Sourcing concerns" thread started earlier; one was removed just before the RfC was posted, another was removed last week, and others have been questioned re WP:DUE considering this is the lead. What's left is: Guardian re the Wikipedia ban, Goldacre article in Guardian, New Yorker, Goldacre book which "draws heavily on [Goldacre's Guardian] columns". Since Wikipedia opinion is not accepted as global opinion and Goldacre criticizes lots of media, only The New Yorker cite would have any validity -- if it supported the statement. But, though it vaguely mentions "detractors", it also has good things to say, so pushing only this is a violation of WP:NPOV. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  Peter Gulutzan, as a matter of policy, BANREVERT does not apply because the editor was not subject to any ban at the time the edit was made. We do not do damnatio memoriae. Excluding Goldacre because he also criticises other media is... novel. The fact is, he is particularly critical of the Daily Mail - as most health commentators are. There is a reason that we have satirical sites like the Daily Mail oncological ontology project: their health reporting is routinely hyperbolic, inaccurate, and notoriously often based on press releases from quacks and charlatans. Marsh has an entire website devoted to churnalism, and much of it is in the Mail, the leading outlet for bad PR. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually the sentence that I was quoting from said edits "made by a banned editor", but I'll concede that Zionziho is blocked as a sock puppet rather than banned. My mention of Goldacre is based on the quote from Goldacre in the Sourcing concerns thread. The problem of the sentence's poor sourcing will not be solved by referring to poorer sources. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Goldacre's book is a good source for the claim, not a poor one - David Gerard (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support all as an accurate summary of the sources. The purpose of the lead is to summarize the body; using "widely" to summarize a lengthy, diverse list of sources is not synthesis - it falls under WP:BLUE / WP:CALC and does not require an independent source specifically stating it when the breadth of cited coverage is sufficiently clear. (Note that this is different than stating that it is always referred to that way or is 'generally' referred to that way, which requires research beyond just summarizing the sources and therefore would be synthesis - this may be what is tripping some people up above, since comparable but not quite the same phrasings often lead to WP:SYNTH issues. But "widely" is a reasonable summary provided our sourcing is unequivocally broad, which in this case it is.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support all per the mountain of evidence presented in the discussions listed at WP:DAILYMAIL. Those discussions were about the use of the Daily Mail as Wikipedia references, but the information presented there about the widely recognized unreliability of claims made by the Daily Mail is plenty to answer the question being asked by this RfC. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 04:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a wikipedia article, therefore, the reliable sources backing the claim need to be in the article. A relevant opinion will need be based on the sources currently in the article. --Guest2625 (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Infobox - political alignment - British Union of Fascists

Advocate that we should remove this from the infobox. This section is for how the newspaper is politically aligned now, not historically. The British Union of Fascists hasn't even existed for over 80 years. All the ownership and people that work for the newspaper now are completely different from those who worked there during the 1930s and early 1940s. Even disregarding that, the claim is uncited. It is cited in the main text that the newspaper was sympathetic to the British Union of Fascists, but being sympathetic to is not the same as being politically aligned with (see WP:SYNTHESIS). Helper201 (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

This was added by BulgeUwU on 25 April 2020 without an edit summary. The British Union of Fascists (BUF) was founded in October 1932. and the cited article says "... the Mail dropped its support for the BUF after violence at a 1934 meeting ..." which corresponds with pressgazette.co.uk's statement that Rothermere's "support for Mosley evaporated when he saw the violence and antisemitism associated with his group." which according to Daily Mail happened in July 1934. So at the most, if we suggest Rothermere opinion = Daily Mail opinion (which may be fair), there was support for BUF for about 21 months long before World War II, in a paper which has existed for 124 years. So putting Political Alignment = ... British Union of Fascists (before World War II)" is giving undue prominence to a relatively short leaning. I support removal. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Let's inform our readers. It's sufficient that we provide clear indication that this is historical, not current. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, this can be done by describing the matter in the main text (where it is already included and no one is suggesting its removal from there). If you want to expand upon this in the main text I see no reason against it providing it is supported by reliable sources and does not break WP:SYNTHESIS. However, putting it in the infobox is far overreaching its prominence and even whether it’s true or not is debatable. Helper201 (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree having this in the infobox is undue weight. This is an alignment from 85 years ago for a period of 21 months out of 124 years (i.e. 1.4%) of the newspaper's history. Also, if you look at this field in all other List of newspapers in the United Kingdom you'll see that the section is used for contemporary political alignment, not past historical alignment. --Guest2625 (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I undid BulgeUwU's insertion.Peter Gulutzan (talk)

I don't see how a 21 month period 85 years ago justifies an infobox entry. Does anybody reading this agree with Nomoskedasticity? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a good point. A period of only 21 months a full 85 years ago smacks of WP:UNDUE to me. Let's remove it. — Czello 20:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, agreed. In fact I would avoid mentioning parties and just call it right-wing, which is accurate: it has attacked Tory "wets" with as much glee as it has the Labour Party. I strongly support mentioning its support for the Fascists in the article, as we do, but this is not infobox material. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree with JzG. I think having its allegiance to the Conservatives is a tad misleading. — Czello 21:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I’ve had the Daily Mail article on my watchlist for a while now. I can understand why the term “British Union of Fascists” was deleted form the infobox. I agree with JzG and Czello though. Calling its political alignment simply conservatism does not seem to hit the nail on the head either, to me it sounds like a trivialisation and far too broad. Right-wing populism or at least right-wing should be mentioned.--Catflap08 (talk) 08:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I support removal of the field. Some newspapers historically were tied to political parties such as the Morning Star, which was owned by the Communist Party of Great Britain. I disagree with the description, right-wing because it is too broad, ranging from One Nation conservatism to fascism. They are closest to the Cornerstone Group of the conservative Party. If they support the Conservatives, it's because the party it is the major party closest to their own ideology, not because they have an allegiance to the party. TFD (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Positively antediluvian criticism section lead

While doing stuff for other articles I came across what appears to be a 1925 allegation (page 388 of The New Negro) by American historian W. E. B. Du Bois that Cadbury paid the Daily Mail to cover up labor conditions in British African colonies where cocoa was produced and promote a boycott of Portuguese African cocoa as being produced under worse conditions. Or something like that. Anyways, a quick search didn't produce any corroborating hits but I thought I'd mention it here in case any Daily Mail enthusiasts want to do some deep digging. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 04:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The criterion for inclusion isn't deep digging, it's weight. If expert sources typically report this, then it belongs. TFD (talk) 05:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the deep digging part would be coming up to speed on the expert sources on the intersection of the early twentieth century trans-national cocoa markets and pay-for-play British journalism. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 11:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Du Bois most probably meant the Daily News founded by Charles Dickens in 1846 see the Britannica entry from 1911. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying! --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 11:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)