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.

Libel Lawsuits: Proposed Addition[edit]

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

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 While the original article in question seems to have been retracted, a similar one published three days earlier can still be found here:

My source is: Dowell, B. (2007, May 24). Mail pays our over anorexia story. The Guardian. Retrieved 2015, February 17 from:

Thank you for your consideration!

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

Famous stories: proposed addition[edit]

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

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

Boxer rebellion?[edit]

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

If true, perhaps this should be included? (talk) 13:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Overhaul introduction[edit]

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

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

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

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

Should we black list this as a source?[edit]

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

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