Jump to content

Talk:Daily Mail/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

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)

Infobox - political alignment -- other

There is a clear consensus against putting British Union of Fascists in the infobox. I would like to focus on what, if anything, to but there instead. For reference, right now it says " political = [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative]] ". --Guy Macon (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Survey

  • Nothing (See below.) while there are various sources that assign a political position to The Daily Mail I don't believe that TDM actually has a political position. I believe that they take whatever political position that makes them the most money. In the section above The Four Deuces says "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." I think that is close but not exactly accurate. I say that If they support the Conservatives, it's because doing so results in more subscribers and higher advertising revenue. If tomorrow they decide that supporting the Green Party of England and Wales will bring in a few more pounds, we will see TDM shift ideology like a chameleon. So my conclusion is that we should continue to cover their politics in the body of the article and put nothing in that part of the infobox; it is not a defining characteristic and is too complex with too many differing opinions in the sources for a one-line infobox entry. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Right-wing per Aquillion's persuasive argument below. I still think everything I wrote above is completely accurate, but the important thing is that as of right now they are making money by being right-wing (and occasionally far-right). If they ever decide that there is more money being something else and switch we will see that in the sources and make a correction. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Right-wing. Looking at the Template:Infobox newspaper guidelines, the example for the alignment entry is political – political leanings of the newspaper, e.g. Centre-right. The implication I'm getting from this is that instead of listing a specific party, we should mention a broad ideology. However, regardless of whether this is included or not, I agree that it certainly shouldn't link to the Conservative Party. I can't see any conclusive evidence of them being supporters of the Conservatives perennially; instead they're supporters of right wing politics more broadly. — Czello 18:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Conservative and Right-Wing. Replacing Conservatives with Conservative (does not link the party directly).--Catflap08 (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Right-wing seems most accurate to me: it has supported the right wing of the Conservative Party against moderate Tories; it has supported UKIP, Brexit, individuals associated with the BNP and the like. It is not conservative or Conservative, it is merely right-wing. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Nothing Info-boxes are there to provide key facts concisely, but are not useful for complex information. Political spectrum terms, such as right-wing, only make sense in context. It could refer to the BNP or to David Cameron. Left-wing could apply to Tony Blair or Pol Pot. When authors use these terms, we know what they are referring to, but on their own they lack clarity. TFD (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
    The Four Deuces, it's not complex. The Daily Mail is very right-wing, consistently across a century or more. It literally supported Hitler. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
    It doesn't support Hitler now. If you want to add right-wing because you believe it will leave readers with the view that it supports modern fascism in the form of the BNP, EDL and Britain First, then that is misleading. We should be able to find enough bad things to say about the DM without making things up. TFD (talk) 19:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
    I think calling it "right wing" based on its former fascism is pretty absurd (they really mean far-right), but I think "right wing" in general is pretty uncontroversial and undeniable. — Czello 19:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Nothing. Template:Infobox newspaper: "political – political leanings of the newspaper, e.g. Centre-right, cited to a reliable source. For use only when a newspaper has formally aligned its news coverage with a political party or movement. Do not use the infobox for allegations of bias or descriptions of the opinion page." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Nothing: There is a basic fact about The Daily Mail that is systemic and affects everything they do without exception. They always choose whatever behavior maximizes profit. They hold whatever political position keep the pounds and pence rolling in.
If publishing articles that appeal to Conservative and Unionist Party members maximizes profit, they will do that. If they ever decide that suddenly switching to supporting the Liberal Democrats will maximize profit, they will start doing that instead. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Right-wing. See the section I started below; I tossed in three sources but, the sourcing is is incredibly overwhelming to the point where it supports the idea that that descriptor is perhaps the most significant part of the topic from an academic standpoint. Other descriptors are sometimes used, but to be clear, I was able to find a massive pile of sources for it (more than I ended up using), most of them simply by searching for "Daily Mail" on Google Scholar and glancing over the first few pages, without having to specify right-wing (though Google Scholar helpfully recommended that as a related search.) Some examples include [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. No other descriptor is nearly so prominent; most of the academic coverage it has received has focused on this aspect. The arguments, above, that "well, yes, but it doesn't really have a deeply-held position, they're just some roguish scamps with no ideals beyond making money" may reflect the feelings of some editors here, but they don't seem to reflect how it's covered in reliable sources. I also strenuously disagree with the argument above that it will leave readers with the view that it supports modern fascism - there is a huge difference between "right-wing" and "far-right." And the fact that it is a right-wing tabloid is not complex (the sources I cited all note it quite bluntly and straightforwardly with no caveats); it's straightforward and widely-accepted. Nor is it an insinuation of bias or a mere description of the talk page; reliable sources overwhelmingly describe the Daily Mail in terms that make it clear that it has intentionally positioned itself as a standard-bearer for the British right. --Aquillion (talk) 09:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Deprecation

Is The Mail on Sunday also considered as a deprecated/unreliable source on enwiki? If not, how do you cite it? Cause it uses the same website/URL structure. Gotitbro (talk) 06:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

This is the talk page of Daily Mail, which was not deprecated by WP:DAILYMAIL1. Mail on Sunday is a different newspaper and this is the wrong place for such a question, you could have looked at WP:RSN archives. A recent discussion was here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
@Peter Gulutzan: I thought I'd ask here since they are related publications. Thanks for the discussion link though, looks like Mail on Sunday is considered unreliable as well though not completely deprecated. PS: I think you meant "which was deprecated" not "which was not deprecated" in your reply above. Gotitbro (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I said what I meant, but since this thread has zilch to do with improving the article, I see no reason to get into that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
The Mail On Sunday is also deprecated. See WP:MAILONSUNDAY - David Gerard (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Small Typo in lawsuits list.

The lawsuit involving James Dyson is listed as 2021, December. That is a future date, from the source, it should be 2020, December. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail#cite_note-Tobitt_2020-178

Part of a series on Conservatism

Isi96 added a sidebar on December 5 so there is a prominent image with a heading "This is part of a series on Conservatism in the United Kingdom". I reverted. Valjean reverted my reversion. I oppose this addition as not meeting all the criteria of WP:SIDEBAR. Are there other opinions? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Which criteria (or lack of criteria) do you feel disqualify the use of this sidebar at this article, which is intended to be used on the articles of the subjects mentioned in the sidebar? The Daily Mail is a pretty important bastion of conservative media in England. -- Valjean (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I'll wait to see whether I'm alone objecting. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I wonder whether the sidebar meets the requirements in Navigation templates. There is no coherent topic. Although there is an article, Conservatism in the United Kingdom, it is basically a history of the Conservative Party from its founding in the early 19th century. TFD (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Good question. That should be taken up wherever such things are decided. There are such templates for other political ideologies: Category:Political ideology templates.
I didn't realize this, but it's a brand new template. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but just an FYI. -- Valjean (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
I see that Conservatism in the United Kingdom has split off, per Summary style, several sub-topics to sub-articles, which makes those subjects seem smaller than they actually are. Thus those portions actually have more due weight than would appear from just looking at the main article. If a sub-topic is significant enough for its own article, that gives it great due weight. -- Valjean (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Nobody else has clearly said the sidebar should be removed, so I won't push hard about this, but ... () We might not have a "single, coherent subject". I'm wondering especially: is this supposed to be "conservatism" or "Conservative party"? The article mentions the party several times, but the only thing that seems to me is close to mentioning conservatism is a quote attributed to Lord Rothermere = "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine". By the way I think that's a false quote and am considering removal. () The fact that articles in the category "refer to each other" is a coincidence because an article on a newspaper naturally mentions other newspapers, for example this article mentions The Guardian and the Mirror Group. () Items should be "fairly tightly" related, which I don't perceive to be the case here, and "The large chunk of highly visible screen space might be better used for images or essential information." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "refer to each other". Those British media have conservative POV and editorial policies. That's what they have in common, and that's likely why they were added to the sidebar, akin to sidebars for other political ideologies. Why should the conservative British media not have their own place in the "Media" section sidebar about "Conservatism in the United Kingdom"? Alternatively, do you feel the sidebar should not be used on the articles of the subjects in the sidebar, per our usual practice with such sidebars? -- Valjean (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Missing word in section 2.2.2

[Apologies: I meant to post this on 'Talk:Daily Mail'. I can't see a way to correct my error or remove the post. I am very sorry!]

I think there's a minor error in section 2.2.2, 'Support of fascism: 1930–1934'.

The word 'which' appears to be missing from the following sentence: 'In April 1934, the Daily Mail ran a competition entitled "Why I Like The Blackshirts" under [which] it awarded one pound every week for the best letter from its readers explaining why they liked the BUF.'

Thanks.

Copied from WT:Protection Policy, edits by IP 89.242.71.171. I have no opinion on the merits of the request. Lectonar (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

There is a sentence in the lead: In February 2017, the Daily Mail became the first source to be deprecated as an "unreliable source" for use as a reference on the English Wikipedia. Flameperson on March 9 edited the quoted words "unreliable source" adding a link to Wikipedia:Deprecated sources, also known as WP:DEPS. I later that day reverted, pointing to MOS:LWQ also known as MOS:LINKQUOTE. Mvbaron on March 11 reverted the reversion, saying "no that link is absolutely fine and useful, virtually everywhere on wkipedia, DM is a deprecated source and named as the first one to be so deprecated". I assume there is no dispute that MOS:LWQ is relevant because, although the words don't appear in the cited sources, they are inside quotation marks and we know that there is an ultimate source for them: that is the phrase in Daily Mail RfC closer remarks. The disputable thing, then, is MOS:LWQ's words "Be conservative when linking within quotations: link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author." And that is what definitely does not fit: the quote's authors i.e. the closers never mentioned deprecation, the WP:DEPS essay was created many months later, Wikipedia editors distinguish the terms or are confused by them e.g. see the WP:RSN discussion Clarifying the difference between “Deprecated” and “Generally unreliable”. An additional difficulty is how unusual it is that a lead in an article in WP:MAINSPACE refers to a non-mainspace Wikipedia page, I can't think of a precedent offhand. The link should be removed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

As the original editior, I agree on revertion. Flameperson (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm interpreting that as agreement with my reversion of the original edit, and so I thank you. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I reverted the re-insertion after waiting nearly 3 days for comment on this talk page defending the link. We are now at the status quo ante and there is no consensus for the link. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Addition to Successful Lawsuits against the Mail

Keivan.f has made an addition in the lawsuits section about a court banning publication of excerpts from Prince Charles's diary, by Mail on Sunday. I reverted with edit summary = "... This doesn't appear to be about Daily Mail". Keivan.f re-inserted with edit summary = "... The action was taken against ANL. Also, the Mail on Sunday and Daily Mail share the same online website. The legal case by his daughter-in-law was also against the Mail on Sunday." (ANL = Associated Newspapers Limited.) I am contending that (1) It was about Mail on Sunday "printing" something in November 2005, the cited sources mention nothing about what went on a website at that time and nothing about it being in Daily Mail. (2) We have an appropriate page about ANL, which several years ago was renamed DMG Media, which owns Daily Mail + Mail on Sunday + New Scientist etc. (3) We have an appropriate page about Mail on Sunday. Any other opinions? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: That's a valid point. However, I would like to point out that his son received an apology from "ANL" in February 2021 and his daughter-in-law took the Mail on Sunday and MailOnline to court. Now in her case you can argue that since the letter was published on MailOnline it involved Daily Mail as well (in fact I think she mentioned Daily Mail in her statement but I have to double check). Also, I think I need to point out that back in 2005 the Internet existed. In any case, if the consensus is to remove Charles' case, then I guess we should remove Harry's as well since that didn't directly involve Daily Mail either. Keivan.fTalk 17:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Keivan.f Your addition that I reverted, that you re-inserted, that I brought up on this thread, is about Prince Charles's lawsuit. Do you actually believe that there must be "a consensus to remove Charles' case", that is, you don't think you need a consensus to keep it? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
@Peter Gulutzan: You have been the only person who has objected its inclusion thus far. Not to mention that what I added is backed by reliable sources, so besides the technicality issue of whether we should be distinguishing between Daily Mail, the Mail on Sunday and ANL, there’s no solid ground for removing it. And as I said the reason that it cannot possibly be a completely valid reason for removal is that some other cases do not directly involve Daily Mail but are listed here. So my question would be, what's your opinion regarding the case of his son for example? Do you think that needs to be removed as well since it's about ANL? Keivan.fTalk 16:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Keivan.f: I'll ignore what I regard as irrelevant. Will you accept a WP:3O result? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
@Peter Gulutzan: Ignore it as much as you like. Doesn’t alter the fact that we need to be consistent with whatever it is that we are including in this or any other article in general, especially when there’s overlap between different pieces of information. And, since it is a dead end at this point it has to go though WP:3O or WP:RfC. I’ll respect a meaningful general consensus. Keivan.fTalk 21:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I've already started an RfC. Keivan.fTalk 21:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Keivan.f: Now that your RfC has resulted in WP:NOCONSENSUS, I repeat my February 13 question: Will you accept a WP:3O result? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan: No, because there is no need for that. You wanted Charles's case against the Mail on Sunday removed and it has been removed. And so were the cases by his son and daughter-in-law which didn't involve Daily Mail either. Keivan.fTalk 18:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I see the removal. Good, glad this is over. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC on inclusion of cases involving ANL or the Mail on Sunday

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
(Responding to the request for closure at WP:CR.) The result of this discussion was that there appears to be no consensus in support of or against any of the given options, mainly due to a lack of participation.
The only respondents to the survey were previously involved in this dispute. (No uninvolved editors !voted in the survey.)
Other dispute resolution methods were suggested in the discussion, and the potential for another RfC with a neutrally worded statement and appropriate notices was brought up.
(non-admin closure) Bsoyka (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Should we (A) Should we keep cases filed by Prince Charles and his family against either the Mail on Sunday, Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL) or MailOnline here, or (B) should we try to be as accurate as possible and simply move them and other cases that do not necessarily involve Daily Mail to a new subsection on the Mail on Sunday, ANL or MailOnline articles? Keivan.fTalk 21:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC) And/Or C) Should the addition of Prince Charles's lawsuit against ANL and Mail on Sunday be removed? (Choice added later by different editor) Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Background

There has been an ongoing dispute between me and another user regarding a number of cases listed on this article under the subsection "Successful lawsuits against the Mail", specifically the 2006 case involving Prince Charles (refer to Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers Ltd for more information). The other user's argument was that since the action was taken against Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL) and the Mail on Sunday (Daily Mail's sister paper with which they share the same website known as MailOnline), then it should not be listed in this article. I pointed out that the action taken by his daughter-in-law the Duchess of Sussex was also against the Mail on Sunday, and similarly the case by his son Prince Harry was against the Mail on Sunday and MailOnline, all of which are listed here and as a result it doesn't make sense to remove Charles' case while keeping the other two. Keivan.fTalk 21:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Survey

  • Comment (Summoned by bot) – no opinion yet, pending improvement of the Rfc question. See Discussion. Mathglot (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • C. I added this choice because, as people who look at the earlier thread will realize, my concern was solely Prince Charles's lawsuit about Mail on Sunday "printing" something in 2005. The cited sources CBC and Guardian don't say the lawsuit had something to do with Daily Mail or MailOnline. Mail on Sunday is a different publication with a different history and a different editor. DMG Media, which at the time of the lawsuit was named Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), owns Daily Mail + Mail on Sunday + New Scientist etc., and was a party. So an addition in the lawsuits section should not have been inserted, should not have been re-inserted after being reverted, and should be removed now. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • B (though I’m fine with A as well). Whatever the other user’s argument is, it doesn’t alter the fact that there are other cases there that were not against Daily Mail, but either against AP or the Mail on Sunday, which I took into consideration while adding the paragraph on Charles (which was disputed by no one except him). So his argument is essentially void in my opinion, because we cannot cherry-pick by saying that Charles’ case should be removed cause it didn’t directly involve Daily Mail and ignore the other similar stuff listed by labeling them as irrelevant, which is not true at all. There should be a consistency when it comes to adding or removing information, and there is a precedent in this instance. Keivan.fTalk 16:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

User:Keivan.f could you construct a simple, neutral, Rfc question and place it at the top of your Rfc before too many people try to interpret that mini-WP:WALLOFTEXT, maybe differently from the way you intended? It's not even clear to me whether there are two questions rolled up into one, one about inclusion of content, and another about where to place certain types of content. A single, "yes-no" question is ideal, but if there are more than two choices, you could state your question and label choices as "Option A – do this; Option B – do that; Option C – something else". And the question should go at the top, before your argumentation or further background. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Done. Keivan.fTalk 00:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Mathglot: On February 13 you wrote that you had no opinion yet. Do you have an opinion now? It will soon be time to ask for a formal close. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Peter Gulutzan, thanks for the reminder. A few points in response: there's almost no way this Rfc can achieve any kind of consensus closure with so little participation. Currently, the only two votes are from the two editors in the previous discussion which led to the impasse, and the creation of this Rfc; if I (or some other 3rd party) votes one way or the other, that's doesn't make it a "deciding vote", so it looks to me like this Rfc isn't heading to a resolution. Otoh, thirty days is merely a recommendation, not a requirement, so one approach might be to simply let it run longer, hoping for more participation. But will that work? Were appropriate notices added to relevant WP:WikiProjects about this to solicit feedback from more users? Another approach would be for OP Keivan.f to withdraw the Rfc for now, and for someone to try another method of dispute resolution such as Third opinion, WP:Mediation, or moderated discussion; you or Keivan.f can ask User:Robert McClenon more about that option if you wish. Or, just wait a while, and try the Rfc again later (a few months perhaps), this time with appropriate notification at the outset to attract more feedback, and a clear, neutral Rfc statement, which unfortunately we don't have now, even after the adjustments to improve it, and which may be discouraging feedback. If this one is withdrawn and a new Rfc is created later, it would be good to get advice from other editors about writing a neutral Rfc statement *before* creating it. At this point, my advice would be withdrawal accompanied by one of the other dispute resolution methods, but whatever route is chosen, if you wish my participation, feel free to ping me from future discussions. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
User:Mathglot, User:Peter Gulutzan - If you want to request moderated discussion, make the request at DRN using the automated form. I will try to answer any questions, but I think that is what you want to know. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
I already suggested WP:3O, Keivan.f started this instead, I can't be the one who withdraws it, and if the formal close is WP:NOCONSENSUS that's okay be me. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2022 (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.

Description in the first sentence

I recently glanced at the Daily Mail's coverage in academic sources to see if I could find sourcing for right-wing in the infobox (the alternative was to go back to conservative), and it was overwhelming to the point where I think we ought to consider something like that in the first sentence - a British daily middle-market[5][6] newspaper published in London in a tabloid format is not the way it is generally described in high-quality sources (and comes across as awkwardly worded); most sources say British right-wing tabloid or words to that effect, usually highlighting each of those aspects prominently in the sentence where it's introduced. A Google Scholar search turns it up repeatedly in the first page of results, to the point where at least among academic sources it's plainly the key defining aspect of the topic. --Aquillion (talk) 08:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree with this statement, article should clearly articulate the Mails status as a tabloid with a right-wing leaning ideology. Aquillions suggested edit is more succinct. Sadke4 (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I fixed that issue. Hemanth Nalluri 11 (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Phrasing

"In February 2017, the Daily Mail became the first source to be deprecated as an "unreliable source" for use as a reference on the English Wikipedia"

I really don't like that phrasing, and not just because of the doubled "source". The Reliable Sources noticeboard was created in 2007. Barring a formal definition of "deprecated", which I feel is beyond the scope of this article, the immediate interpretation is that the DM was the first ever source to be not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Which is not the case — for instance, we don't use primary sources.

Suggestions? DS (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, the phrasing is wrong. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deprecated and unreliable sources#History. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
How about "In February 2017, the DM was formally declared an "unreliable source" by editors on the English Wikipedia"? DS (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Deprecation is more than declaring a source unreliable. I prefer the term "banned," which is how reliable sources described the action. TFD (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
"In February 2017, editors on the English Wikipedia banned the use of the DM as a source"? DS (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
I like both suggestions. I see the word "deprecated" as the main problem, so any suggestion that doesn't say it is an improvement. I assume this applies not just to the lead but to the repetition in the Reliability section. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

DragonflySixtyseven on 22 April 2022 said "banned" with edit summary = "per discussion on talk page". Anastrophe on 20 September 2022 changed to "deprecated". John on 20 September 2022 reverted so it was "banned" again. Anastrophe on 20 September 2022 reverted the revert so it was "deprecated" again. Perhaps Anastrophe was unaware of this prior discussion? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the ping. I wasn't aware of this discussion, and let's assume good faith that Anastrophe wasn't either. I am against using the term "deprecated"; "banned" is a simplification, but I think an acceptable one and it's what the sources use. John (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks also for the ping. I was unaware of the discussion, and appreciate the assumption of good faith. I was going by two (and now three) things: 1. The sources, while necessarily using the simplified language for a headline on articles, say 'banned', but the body of the articles characterized it accurately as 'deprecated'. 2. Just on basic grammar/linguistics, 'banned' is not a synonym for 'deprecated'. And, after getting the ping and looking around a bit, WP:Deprecated sources, which states "Deprecating a source is a weaker measure than blocking or banning it, and the terms are not comparable to each other", which seems self-evident to me based on (2). Ultimately, since the sources, which we base content on, correctly characterize the action as 'deprecated', that seemed the most appropriate to me. With all that said however, I will finish with 4. I don't have a dog in the fight, nor do I ultimately care that much about the matter. I'm sometimes amused reading articles that are written for a general audience (such as this one, which I strongly support), then I'll happen to look up something like HMAC where it's written almost exclusively for an audience of math wonks, graduate degree level. But that's the nature of an encyclopedia. I'll return the text to 'banned'. (This kind of digression is what strong coffee does to me)....cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Error warning

Hello - under 'successful libel' - 2019, 2021 the initials AP occur. That's the Associated Press not the Mail's publisher, Associated Newspapers Ltd. I'll correct in a while unless there's some good reason.Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Daily Hate

As The Times is known by the nickname The Thunderer, and The Guardian as The Grauniad, I'm surprised no mention is made of the Mail's popular sobriquet of The Daily Hate; especially as so much criticism of its more objectionable content is listed in voluminous detail. Nuttyskin (talk) 09:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

It's a fairly obscure nickname. I was unable to find it mentioned in any reliable sources. The Daily Fail is much more common, but not as much as The Grauniad. TFD (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daily_Mail/Archive_9&oldid=1242233039"