|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Threads older than 31 days may be archived by.|
Improving this Article
- Your current edit history shows a total of 12 edits. I daresay that this is not something which a new editor might reasonably undertake. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Also your desire to link to "soft core pornography" multiple times in this article does not pass the smell test. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
(note: The editor Account1000000 redacted/removed essentially everything he wrote here and in the article, making my response to a missing post a tad interesting) Collect (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
A few days ago I made a small change in this paragraph:
April 2012: The Christian Science Monitor reported that MailOnline had misused an opinion piece published in Egypt's Al-Ahram newspaper and translated into English by Al Arabiya. The original article claimed "Egypt's parliament was considering a piece of legislation sponsored by Islamists to allow men to have sex with their wives after their death." The Daily Mail, according to Monitor staff writer Dan Murphy, "distorted the original claim from a proposal to a done deal: 'Egyptian husbands will soon be legally allowed to have sex with their dead wives', the tabloid claimed, apparently having misunderstood the original Al Arabiya translation."
This reads as if the only thing incorrect here is the change from "proposal" to "done deal". However, although the original article does indeed talk about a piece of legislation that allows men to have sex with their dead wifes, such legislation was never introduced nor discussed in the Egyptian parliament. As it is now, the text suggests that that claim is true and that the Egyptian parliament indeed discussed whether screwing dead wifes is ok. I therefore suggested to write "The original article erroneously claimed...", which was promply reverted. Why? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Because you need to provide a source that shows that parliament never considered such legislation. Lard Almighty (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- You can find it in the third paragraph of the given source (Christian Science Monitor ):
- "The problem is that there was never any such proposal, at any stage of consideration, in the Egyptian parliament. Ms. Tallawy issued a statement today that says she's concerned about legislation that may harm the position of women in Egypt, but that there was never any "sex :: after death law" under consideration, let alone one she complained about. Arabiya followed up as well, quoting Parliament Secretary Sami Mahran as saying no such piece of legislation ever existed."
- It strikes me as odd that somebody would even consider this to be the truth and not read any further in the article.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mail Online. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150905103217/http://tktk.gawker.com/my-year-ripping-off-the-web-with-the-daily-mail-online-1689453286 to http://tktk.gawker.com/my-year-ripping-off-the-web-with-the-daily-mail-online-1689453286
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.