Jump to content

Talk:Daily Mail

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xowets (talk | contribs) at 11:33, 17 February 2017 (→‎You do not speak for the world, certainly not the ones who have brains.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconJournalism B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconConservatism B‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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)[reply]

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[1]"

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[2]"

because cited Guardian reference is incorrect - 2012 winner is the The Time [3]. Daily Mail is the winner of Newspaper of the Year 2011 as referenced [4] SammyHuman (talk) 12:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Press Awards 2012: full list of winners". The Guardian. London. 21 March 2012.
  2. ^ "Winners List". The Press Awards. 2012.
  3. ^ "Winners List for The Press Awards for 2012". The Press Awards. 2013.
  4. ^ "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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The discussion can be found here. Coretheapple (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Yes as well to all 3. I will attempt to improve the lead. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You do not speak for the world, certainly not the ones who have brains.

Your opinion on climate change is only an opinion, you can shove your "scientific" evidence into your butt. College kid libtard losers run wikipedia, you little dumb minions and your pedophile new-world-order bosses are almost defeated, Trump is already destroying climate change hoax.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daily_Mail&oldid=765958634"