Talk:Daily Mail

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Daily Mail article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
WikiProject Journalism
Journalism Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Journalism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to journalism. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] NPOV or not?

This sentence strikes me as lacking neutrality - "Generally its journalists argue emphatically in favour of managed migration whilst critiquing what it calls Labour's "open door" immigration policy which, as is often quoted, has reportedly seen the UK's population increase by around 1.2 million."

I don't think this adequately reflects the arguments appearing within the paper. It presents the situation as though the Daily Mail makes a positive case for managed migration rather than a negative critique of current immigration policies. Given that the vast majority of its stories on immigration are negative, this strikes me as breaching neutrality. It's almost a pre-emptive defence of the Daily Mail rather than an accurate reflection of its content. Blankfrackis (talk) 03:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

As a second point, the "reader feedback" section strikes me as a little strange. It seems to be implying that those with "right-wing" views are inherently racist and that there's something surprising about the Lowri Turner article being criticised for alleged racism. Racism has nothing to do with right wing political attitudes and I think this should be changed. Blankfrackis (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commercial broadcasting interests

The article states that the Mail has no links to a commercial broadcaster, such as the Sun and Sky TV.

Daily Mail and General Trust own a stake in ITN, which produces news programming for the two largest commercial television channels in the UK - ITV and Channel4.

Copyright violation ? : Much of this is from http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/BUrothermere.htm which does not appear to be public domain...

That would be one of the main sources, but it's not cut & paste, so it's not a copyvio. As far as I know Wikipedia is allowed to use non public domain sources ;) --Steinsky 18:45, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Them : Rothermere moved further to the right and gave support to Oswald Mosley and the National Union of Fascists. He wrote an article, Hurrah for the Blackshirts, in January, 1934, in which he praised Mosley for his "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine". ... he argued that the Nazi leader desired peace. In one article written in March, 1934 he called for Hitler to be given back land in Africa that had been taken as a result of the Versailles Treaty.
Us : Rothermere and the Mail were supporters of Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. He wrote an article, Hurrah for the Blackshirts, in January 1934, in which he praised Mosley for his "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine" ... he argued that the Nazi leader wanted peace, and in 1934 campaigned for the African land confiscated in the Versailles Treaty to be returned to Germany.

Entire sentences are used with only cosmetic alteration. Thats a copyvio.

[edit] Some criticisms

  1. The section on Stereotypes and Satire is highly POV - it is implicit in the tone that view of the Daily Mail as 'racist' etc. is necessarily correct. It is undeniable that the DM vilifies the asylum *system* but it is POV to state as fact that it vilifies the *people*. I do not argue that any of this should be removed, merely re-phrased to show that it is opinion rather that straight fact (perhaps balanced by the views of those who would defend it - eg the DM's long campaign for Justice in the Stephen Lawrence case and their welcoming of the widening of the EU)
  2. Compounding that problem, the section on Facism is not put in its correct historical context. At the time (1930s), people were not aware of how murderous the Nazi regime was. [They should have been aware by 1933 - so this criticism is invalid. See below.] To outsiders, it looked as though Hitler was simply a strong but peaceful leader who had got Germany back on the rails and restored its national pride in a very short space of time. Many bought Hitler's line that he was only restoring their military to what would normally be expected of a country of that size, and thought that he should be allowed as the Treaty Of Versailles had been unfairly harsh. It was only in the last few months before war broke out that outsiders widely began to realise their mistake and see the Nazis for who they really were. So the Daily Mail's volte face - which the tone of text suggests was purely cynical - was in fact typical of many at the time who quickly came to change their opinion of Hitler as more detail emerged.

Apolgies for not just editing it myself - I am still quite new to Wikipedia and not totally sure of the etiquette or confident in my writing yet! Would be interested to know peoples' opinions of the above points.

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia. Feel free to make the changes yourself, be bold in updating pages, if you make any mistakes others will correct them. One last thing, you might like to know that you can sign your posts on the talk pages using ~~~~. Edward 09:17, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Who added the "this criticism is invalid" bit? I think it is very bad etiquette to stick that in the middle of someone else's paragraph, without any justification. In fact, Wikipedia's own articles on Hitler and the Nazis show that anti-Jewish laws were not introduced until 1935, and the first sign of political violence obvious to the outside world (Night Of The Long Knives) was at the end of June 1934 - it was at this time that Rothermere withdrew support for any fascist organisations. It is important to remember that in the 21st century we know what Fascism means - in 1933 they did not have the benefit of hindsight. This issue is always brought up as a cheap way of making the Mail of today look bad by misinterpreting its actions long ago.
    • Nonsense. After the Reichstag fire in 1933, laws were passed that basically allowed them to arrest any political opposition. And that's exactly what they did. The Jews weren't the first ones in the concentration camps. It was the socialists, and indeed all others who could be a threat to the Nazis. Moreover, the fact that the Mail supported the Nazis for a while after this surely shows that the Mail was indeed aware of "how murderous the Nazi regime was", and chose to continue support despite that fact.
      • Also see recent reports in the Guardian: In June 1939, according to papers recently released by the Foreign Office, Rotermere (the proprietor of the Daily Mail), wrote: "My Dear Führer, I have watched with understanding and interest the progress of your great and superhuman work in regenerating your country." Like it or not, Rothermere was in bed with the fascists prior to the invasion of Poland. -- Markbrough 17:50, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Again, are you not judging actions in the 1930s from the standpoint of a 24-hour news culture which has the benefit of hindsight? How can you say for sure that Rothermere was supportive rather than naive? When Rothermere talked of 'regeneration', was he not referring to economic regeneration (even though this turned out to be a facade)? The fact is, we are better informed today, we understand far earlier the implications of what regimes like this are doing - partly due to our experience in WW2. And even if you are positive of Rothermere's evil nature - there is still a strong, unfair implication that this somehow reflects on the Mail of today.
        • Utter nonsense. To suggest everyone was just stupid, or ignorant of the reality is incredibly naive, and totally false as shown by the evidence we have. The reality is that people were well aware of what was going on. It was simply that they didn't care at that time that socialists and commies were being jailed and tortured for simply holding political views. As far as fascists are concerned, it is perfectly acceptable to supreess the working class. And moreover, Nazi Germany wasn't the first fascist state, so no one could claim they "hadn't seen that kind of thing happen before".
          • Socialists and commies didn't care. Stalin signed a pact with Hitler to partition Poland and the British Communist party opposed the war to start with. Oliver Chettle 00:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Please! Don't suggest to me that Stalin was a "socialist". Or, if you insist he was, can you explain why he supported the capitalist government before the revolution? Or can you explain why Russia bore no comparison to anything Marx ever envisaged? Or can you explain how there was no communism in Russia after the NEP, and that communism was off the agenda long before Stalin rose to power (and long before it became an oppressive hellhole)?
            • That was what communism was like in the real world, and not once but several times. It is pitiable that there are still people who fantasise that it could have worked. Oliver Chettle 22:17, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • By what standard was it "communism in the real world"? Are we to believe that communism doesn't work simply because you say so? Or because the media wrongly calls nations such as China and the USSR communist? I mean, they still insist on calling China communist, and yet by any standard it is capitalist and has been so for a long time. Yes, we can ask why revolutions such as those in Russia failed - and there are answers. But it is wildly unproductive for someone like yourself to just blindly peddle the same myths without any real understanding of the situation, or any real understanding of the concepts that you criticise.
Why is everything in bold, it doesn't make your opinion more correct! Also please sign comments.137.138.46.155 14:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
              • The 'communist' tag is thrown about to places like China/USSR because the term is used under varied meanings and with varied degrees of 'intensity' of said communism. To get back to the Daily Mail, surely there is either evidence to support the notion that The Daily Mail supported Nazi Germany AFTER the attrocities we now know about were first uncovered, or there is insufficient evidence to make such a claim. I have no idea which is the truth, but what is written in the main-article seems reasonable to me. ny156uk 17:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First World War circulation plummet

From here:

On May 21, 1915, Northcliffe wrote a blistering attack on Lord Kitchener, the Secretary of State for War. Kitchener was considered a national hero, and overnight the paper's circulation dropped from 1,386,000 to 238,000. 1,500 members of the Stock Exchange ceremonially burned the unsold copies and launched a boycott against the Harmsworth Press.

From Alfred Harmsworth, 1st Viscount Northcliffe:

His next venture was the creation of a series of halfpenny dailies, which culminated in the establishment of the Daily Mail in 1896. Harmsworth focused on keeping the reading public interested in the paper by keeping feature articles short, reporting on political and social gossip, and including material for women and serial stories. The first issue immediately set a new world circulation record when it debuted on May 4, 1896, and it never lost the top spot during Hamsworth's lifetime.

Either the Mail was light years ahead of all other papers in the circulation so that a loss of over 75% and the corresponding increase in other papers picking up ex Mail readers didn't affect its position in the sales table or else one of these articles is wrong. Timrollpickering 00:29, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] I've corrected the POV sections but there is still pov disproportionality

I have substantially altered the sections on the 1930s (previously called something else) and stereotypes, which were previously little more than hatchet jobs. However this has made them longer rather than shorter, and there is still implicit pov in the excessive prominence given to negative issues. Much more content is needed to balance this out, so I will mark it pov for disproportionality. There should be sections on famous writers for the Daily Mail, and on campaigning journalism by the paper. This is a very popular, influential, indisputably democratic newspaper , and the article should not consists of 50% slurs and rebuttals of slurs. I'll go and have a look at the Guardian article now for contrast Philip 06:14, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I did some more POV work. Still needs more, and some things I took out/combined may need to go back in. I tried to make it less of a concerted attack on the Mail. Feel free to shred it. Was going to add famous Mail writers, but could only think of Lynda Lee Potter and John Junor, both dead. Will add them and more later if I get the chance. Ren 03:14, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The assertion that the paper is "indisputably democratic" is actually disputable - I don't know of a single paper that could be truly called "democratic", least of all the Mail
    • it is democratic by real world standards (but you are apparently the sort of person who would call Cuba democratic!). And he didn't say that in the article. Oliver Chettle 22:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • What are these "real world standards"? Democratic to most people means society is controlled by the people themselves in their own interests. The Mail, and indeed our whole society, cannot be further away from such a setup. Moreover, what did he "say in his article"? I quote "This is a very popular, influential, indisputably democratic newspaper" - I don't know which page you had read, or what you had drunk, when you wrote this feeble rebuttal.

[edit] When did it go tabloid?

We have these statements:

  • "For most of its history it was a broadsheet but is currently published in a tabloid format."
  • "The Mail was the first tabloid newspaper in Britain"
  • "The Sun was launched in 1964 as a tabloid replacement for the Daily Herald"

which together indicate that the Daily Mail made the transition sometime between 1950 and 1964. However, someone claimed it was in 1971, which can't be right unless at least one of the last two statements is wrong.

Does anyone know when it happened? Maybe someone here remembers it happening first-hand, or maybe someone knows a reliable source.

Moreover, was there a dual-format period like The Independent and The Times went through more recently? And was it always the middle-market paper it is now, or is this something that has changed with time? -- Smjg 15:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Definitely 1971. There was an article in the Independent on Sunday about this a while ago. The only incorrect statement was the one about the Mail being the first tabloid, it was the first middle-market paper (it was never a true quality paper). I think (but am not sure) that the Mirror was the first. But I'm confident that the Mail switched to tabloid in 1971 and if there are no objections I shall soon change the article accordingly.

So the statements

We have these statements:

  • "For most of its history it was a broadsheet but is currently published in a tabloid format." Correct.
  • "The Mail was the first tabloid newspaper in Britain" Incorrect
  • "The Sun was launched in 1964 as a tabloid replacement for the Daily Herald" Correct.

Regards, --Mrclarke 12:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I remember the early Sun - it was broadsheet. Charles Matthews 12:57, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think The Sun launched in Berliner size - between broadsheet and tabloid. --Mrclarke 17:36, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The first British tabloid was the Daily Mirror, launched by Alfred Harmsworth (later Lord Northcliffe) in 1903 as a sister paper to the Mail. The next daily was the Daily Sketch, the date of launch of which I'd need to look up. The Sun went tabloid after Rupert Murdoch bought it in 1969 and the Mail followed in 1971. The history section of this entry is appallingly slack!Paulanderson 18:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Confirmation: I just checked the Times Digital Archive. It was May 3rd 1971 - date chosen as the 75th anniversary of its founding (I assume a weekend stopped them using the exact date). Raygirvan 30 Apr 2005

[edit] Pro War

This article claims that the Daily Mail is Pro War. This should be removed as the daily mail was against the war in Iraq. The mail like the Sun supports the troops on the ground in Iraq however unlike the sun it was not in favour the 2003 invasion of iraq.

Putting the phrase 'pro war' toegther with 'pro family' and 'anti abortion' is a clear attempt by a left wing user of wikipedia to equate a pro family stance with a automatic pro war perspective and it will not stand.

It reads fine as it is now, but you might have noted the use of the qualifier 'generally'. The patriotic Mail strongly supported every war the British fought (although, of course, it was at first against any attack on Germany in the 1930s) with the exception of the second Iraq war. Pro-armed forces or Pro-defence would have perhaps been a better choice (as they have spoken out against the proposed merging of regiments, the dilapidated state of British troops' equipment and banning nuclear weapons etc), but it didn't have as good a ring to it.
In fact, putting the phrase 'pro war' together with 'pro family and 'anti abortion' was a clear attempt by a wikipedia user to adequarely sum up the Mail's editorial stance. It probably needs something about it's opinions of crime (awful, rising) and punishment (need more of it, prison works etc) slotting in too. Ren 23:22, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Certainly. The toughness-on-crime aspect is important to mention, as it puts a slightly different slant on its championing the case of Stephen Lawrence. The motive almost certainly wasn't any alignment with left-wing causes, but its usual outrage at alleged criminals going unpunished.
Yep and it reads much better now (the whole article). Ren 00:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Need to define "pro-family" if you are going to use it as I don't know anyone who admits to being "anti-family"! --Choco2 02:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality - or lack of it

This article is riddled with left wing bile and needs a total overhaul. CalJW 22:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • It seems to me that the problem is the masses of rightwing dross that exists within this article.
    • How brave and persuasive it is to shout but not to sign your comment. Oliver Chettle 00:49, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Shout? I'm merely putting my comments in bold so that people can more clearly distinguish between who is saying what. And I thought SHOUTING was when you typed in capitals? — As for the signing, I didn't realise it made any difference. But if it pleases you: Steve 00:37, 25 Apr 2005 (GMT)
I think if one person finds it very left wing and one very right wing its probably fairly NPOV. After all I assume that these are both fairly extreme views assuming any difference with theier views to be obvious bias. So I think one for one against sounds reasonable. I have to say to me the article reads fairly negatively concentrating on criticism but so does the Guardian article. I personally like the Mail, it has a good football section137.138.46.155 15:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

When talking about what is one of the most right wing mainstream papers in the UK, it's impossible not to appear leftwing in comparisson as to discuss it's views you have to move more to the centre and the centre is a long way from the daily mail172.203.23.15 02:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I love how people pretend up their bigoted shitty (and wrong) opnions by saying "Oh it's a right-wing belief". Balanced, my bottom. I know that anyone editing this page will have trouble trying to avoid saying what a shit-rag the Mail is. 81.105.23.0 (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1930s

The whole of the section on the 1930s has now been removed. I'm not arguing that it should have neccessarily been kept in it's current form, but some mention of it should be in the article. Afterall, it was an important era for the Daily Mail, and it should definatly be in the article. -- Joolz 18:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, not to mention the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s etc, but lets wait for someone to come along who is actually interested in writing the history of the Daily Mail as a newspaper and knows something about it, as opposed to cutting and pasting propaganda from a hard left website for broader political purposes. It was a copy-vio after all and should have been removed straight away on that basis. Oliver Chettle 22:11, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Which site was this copyvio from? A Google search turned up nothing. Rls 22:18, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
I assume you were talking about the reference on this page to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/BUrothermere.htm . I can't see that the stuff you've removed is a copyvio of anything on that page so I've replaced it. Rls 22:38, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

[edit] the people have a right to know

Nostradamus warned us all of great evil to appear in the 4th cyle of the avignon moon, in the gregorian calander, this casts a shadow in the year of 1896. As the celestial ballet opened its most sinister act and the plannets aligned in this year of our lord, a hopeless Pandoras box was unleashed unto the plains of this fair world. Not even the most venimous of serpents have such poison as to do justice to Nostradamus' most haunting of visions. The scribes of this Daily Mail content in there own malign egos, began a periodical doomsday report that recorded the fallicies of the world as truths, equivocated, exagerated and brought a form of apathy to the people that has soured the milk of human goodness to lump of French Cheese. 5 score and 9 years later we see a modernity that looks in on itself with disgust, this existence the result of the self satisfied smug hypocritocracy lead by the daily mail.

Insert non-formatted text here

  • From the article: Regular features are also run on Alien abduction, the Bible code, and other such paranormal subjects.

I feel the term "paranormal" term is unsuitable in reference to Alien Abduction.

Ho, ho, ho! Original research? Philip Cross 14:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Galloway?!?

Can't help but notice George Galloway under the Mail on Sunday columnist list...despite the lengthy articles they expended on him, can't help but feel he might be just a *tad* out of place...someone having a giggle? --Black Butterfly 00:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is George Galloway (who is a socialist) writing in a newspaper that is right winged and allegedly racist? Surely that cant do his image of being pro immigration and pro multiculturalism any good. (Mind you neither could going on celebrity big brother)

It is not unusual for newspapers to employ writers of differing shades of opinion including some which might be percieved as contrary to the overall editorial line of the newspaper. For example Gene Kerrigan (Left wing) in Irelands Sunday Independent (right wing) 172.143.25.110 21:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I've definitely seen Galloway's articles in the Mail on Sunday. The above contributor is correct: see also Dominic Lawson and Bruce Anderson in The Independent.86.0.203.120 13:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Daily Hate"

Is the nickname Daily Hate also an (intentional) Nineteen Eighty-Four reference? --El Zilcho 16:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe so. I'll stick something in to suggest it. Liam Plested 09:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Isn't that hugely speculative and as such inappropriate for Wikipedia? Apart from the use of the (common) word 'hate', there's nothing to support the derivation from Orwell over any other origin. (Also, as written the sentence makes it sound like it was Northcliffe referring to Orwell, which of course is impossible.) I've reverted it while we debate. Barnabypage 13:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
For some time, I've believed that the "Daily Hate" nickname at least evokes a comparison to the "Two Minutes' Hate". While it may not have been the original intention of the nickname, I know the two have been compared in the past, as both give the public something to hate, something to be outraged at, if only for two minutes a day. I can't quite fit it in without using weasel words, but I'd still like to draw a line between the two ideas. Liam Plested 11:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
How about "Some believe that..." or "Some have compared..."? Barnabypage 12:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Are they not weasel words? I can't find any direct quotes of people using the nickname in this manner, but I believe it's implied, in the manner that the two are used. It'd be highly unencylopædia-like to say "I believe that....", too. If anyone wants to take a stab at it, they should post it here, to make sure it's alright first. I don't want an edit war. Liam Plested 13:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
"Some believe that some believe that..."? ;) Barnabypage 15:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two things

Firstly: "Another common criticism of the Mail is its treatment of asylum seekers. Several opponents (including London Mayor Ken Livingstone in a well-publicised argument) have claimed that the newspaper panders to racism in this respect. However, this must equally be compared to recent comments made by George Galloway, when he told an Arab Newspaper that the publication of the Danish Muslim cartoons was a worse offence than the 9/11 and 7/7 bombings." Why "must" allegations of racism "be equally compared" to comments that have absolutely nothing to do with them? This paragraph makes no sense.

agreed. Ren 08:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, I think that allegations of supporting the Nazis and Fascists should have their own section in "Criticism". It's wrong to just lump them in with "immigration". The Penguin

[edit] Emergency fix

I am no supporter of the Daily Mail - more of a Guardian man - but "The editorial slant of the papers is of a social and political right-winged bigoted fascism." had to be deleted as a matter of urgency. I have done so.--Zhengfu 22:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daily Fail

The criticism section could do with more citations and trimming down a bit. As it stands its over half the article, and is badly sourced. I'll add some {{fact}} tags and if its not cited in a while I'll move to talk page pending citation. - FrancisTyers · 23:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I am engaged in rolling it into editorial stance, which will I think improve balance. Viewed in isolation it is hard to avoid criticism sections turning into an Aunt Sally; by placing the criticisms into the context of individual editorial policies a much more balanced view should be possible. In my view criticism sections can often be a cop out to avoid working together to makle a genuinbely neutral article, I see no good reason why this article can't do without a separately identified criticism section. It's not as if we make a secret of this being a conservative reactionary newspaper, after all. Just zis Guy you know? 11:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] criticism

surely there has to be a neutral criticism section.

How could you possibly criticse a paper that reports hot cross buns have been banned in case they offend! 172.142.15.232 17:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I cannot be the only one to suspect that a large media organisation is actively engaged in massaging out of existence unfavourable comment on this page. I hope any "refactoring" you may do on the criticism section avoids removing fair, cited criticisms.

--Choco2 22:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Right or Far Right?

I'm not quite sure why the description of this paper is 'far right'. The wiki article on the Guardian is described as center-left and has a discussion thread on the matter advocating the difference between left and center-left.

It seems to me that something of that ilk is required here, the Daily Mail is clearly right wing, but is it actually far-right?

As much as the Daily Mail is far too right-wing (and often loopily so, IMHO) for me to be happy reading it, I'd hesitate to call it "far right" (which I'd call a pejorative term, in breach of NPOV, here). The article includes the statement "The modern paper strongly repudiates far right groups". I suggest changing "far right" to "right-wing conservative". Comments? -- Picapica 22:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, "right-wing" I think conveys it adequately - "conservative" doesn't really act as an intensifier in quite the way needed.

"loopily so..." - the wider issue is really that, like most newspapers, the Mail is a tool of political power and influence, wielded by its proprietor and editor, and the editorial stance a campaigning one. It's not merely that the paper is "right wing", but that it works so hard to influence its readers rather than just reflecting their opinions. It's this that critical contributors want to get across, and sympathetic ones may wish to obscure.

--Choco2 22:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say right wing is fine for now. It gets the meaning across, and can't be seen to be biased in any way. Mutehero 19:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that in purely descriptive sense, the Mail would qualify as far-right. However, the term has strong connotations with racist and neo-Nazi organisations such as the National Front and the BNP and while the Mail's line sometimes borders on racism it would be unfair to unwittingly associate it with those groups. Incidently, the statment "The modern paper strongly repudiates [# To reject the validity or authority of:] far right groups" doesn't mean that the Mail is far right but that it opposes groups like the BNP, and while that's true when the Mail directly comments on them, much of their work is little different in outlook and offers such groups ammunition86.0.203.120 13:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps "Hard right" would be a better description ? 80.229.222.48 18:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe strongly right wing might be the appropriate term? Far right tends to usually indicate a fringe group with very radical beliefs, which I don't think is entirely true of the DM (well on most subjects anyway). But there are some right wing newspapers that are fairly subtle about it, there is no way you can accuse the Mail of that - happened to read some of it a couple of months ago visiting my Aunt/Uncle - talk about hammering away at it, every paragraph of every article of news is just fodder to be used to push the papers agenda. --86.148.73.228 20:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why no criticism/controversies?

Come on people, anyone who has read the daily fascist knows it's right wing to the point of absolute bigotry. I read the comments on this page and it's all the usual 'citations please', 'no original research' blah blah blah. Seems that wikipedia's epic quest for NPOV is clouding the inconvenient truth that the daily mail is a recruiting paper for the BNP.

Krissanthe 18:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Krissanthe, my feeling is that pro-Mail contributors are using every avenue available to them to prevent an unfavourable light being shed on it. For example, there's no mention of the paper's attitude to women - a glaring omission and one they are sensitive about, because there's money in it. I added a hastily written one a while back but it was uncited so was cut out. I should have spent some more time researching some good sources but time's one thing I don't have just now.

My personal feeling is that we should trim down the "support for Fascism" stuff a bit (not lose anything, just make concise and don't repeat lots that's in other articles) and generate goodwill for citing of fair comment on the Mail as it is today. Choco2 21:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You really cant see what you are doing can you. All this is your POV, that doesnt mean its right, please try to understand that. Everyone is allowed an opinion, but you think you are the only ones who should have one, ironic isnt it, thats really right wing!! The mail isnt far right, but even if it was that is a large number of peoples view. Far left isnt better just because you think it is.Daveegan06 21:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with krissanthe and choco, this paper is as fascist as they come. And by the way daveegan i've seen your comments all over wikipedia and when it comes to differing opiniouns it seems you don't want to hear them. You're rather self-righteous, you're probably dacre/littlejohn/hitchens anyway, lol (only joking).

And as for accusing them of being far left, LMAO. You do know far left means communist dont you? What evidence have you got that they're communists?

N0bber69 15:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Like it or not, Wikipedia has to remain objective and unbiased. There are plenty of discussion forums and other outlets for anti-Mail discussion, but the Wikipedia page is not the place to decry the paper. Personally, I am loath to the paper, but I would also prefer to read a balanced, incisive entry rather than a slanging match. Citations and sources are the basis for everything here. You can't criticise the Mail for badly-researched, over-opinionated journalism and then practice the same thing yourself. --Mlpfoster 19:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Almost all wikipedia article of this kind contain a criticism/controversies section that contains common criticism of the subject. I don't see why this shouldn't have one, especially as it has received huge amounts of critique from many different places. --The monkeyhate 13:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Online archive?

Is there a searchable online archive of the Mail? 71.106.51.132 05:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect link

The note explaining the "daily Heil" name has an incorrect link. There's a reference here:[1] Totnesmartin 20:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links to parody sites or What is Wikipedia vandalism ? (according to H*****T******)

  • Adding some links to an article which satarise the subject of that article in orger to make article more NPOV= VANDALISM
  • Removing perfectly valid contributions to an article on the strength of ones own rather spurious (and POV motivated) interpretaton of what is or is not "Encyclopedic" without even having the courtesy to discuss this with other users in the talk page of the article in question = NOT VANDALISM
  • Reverting the edit above (and pointing some of the above out in the process)= VANDALISM
  • Reverting the Revert (again without even bothering to raise it on the talk page) NOT VANDALISM
  • Posting an (apparently intentionally) blank edit on a users page so that they get bombarded with "You have new messages" = NOT VANDALISM

Wikipedia used to be a great resourcse to share and recieve knowledge until a small group of rather arrogant individuals came along and set themselves up as the self appointed guardians of Wikipedia with their nitipicky (but selective), arbitrary and spurious interpretations of what is or is not "notable" "encyclocpedic" "Original research" or "Uncited".

Such individuals try to justify their actions by quoting policies and guidelines like a biblebasher quotes scripture.

But like the biblebashers their quotes are invariably selective. Among the guidelines they DONT like are those on Dispute resolution. They dont see the point in talk pages or tags tags (lest other users might disagree with them) but prefer to jump straight in and unilaterally reverting an article and/or removing edits using the edit history (rather than the talk page) to justify their actions with their spurious judgments and even allegations of vandalism (Vandalisim being anything the individual doesnt happen to agree with). But if taken to task on the talk page they will either ignore it completly or take the "Im right everyone else is wrong" attitude while throwing in a couple of choice quotations from the Wikipedia guidelines to back up their position. Ignoring the fact that Wikipedia guidelines are just that or that their actions are even more in breach of said guidelines than the edit/article in question.

By repeatedly removing perfectly valid material from wikipedia and alienating well intentioned users they are doing more damage to the site than a hundred real vandals ever could ! 80.229.222.48 21:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, let me clear this up. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. People come here to find out about things, to gain knowledge. External links are there to help people find out more about a subject. A link to a parody will not help people to find out more about the subject as it is a joke, untrue/humerous information to ridicule the Daily Mail. I'm sure there are sites that you can post your links at, and I'm sure that your links are very funny, but an encyclopedia is not such a place. Sorry.

Wikipedia is not an anarchy: the project would be entirely undermined if there were no rules and everyone could post what they likes. In fact, it would probably be like uncyclopedia, which is occasionally a good laugh but not really a good source of information. Policies are agreements that have been reached by the community to ensure the smooth running of Wikipedia. If you have a problem with a policy, then rather than disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, why don't you propose that the policy is changed? That would be far more effective that trying to apply your own ideas of what makes a good encyclopedia to one or two articles and having it reverted. TomPhil 21:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

A link to a parody will not help people to find out more about the subject as it is a joke, untrue/humerous (sic) information to ridicule the Daily Mail
The parody sites were listed under "criticism" because parody/satire can be a very powerful form of criticism. Reading a parody site is a good way to get an insight into how critics of the target of the parody are thinking therfore they do help people find out more about a subject Just because something is a joke doesnt mean it doesnt have an important point behind it. Ever heard of "political comedy" ?
As for having a problem with a Wikipedia policy I dont have a problem with Wikipedia's policies what I do have a problem with is certain peoples ridiclously extreme but very selective interpretation of them and the allegations of "disrupting wikipedia" are way out of order. Posting a couple of links at the end of an article which someone happens to take issue with hardly constitutes "disruption" in any reasonable persons book but the wholesale removal of fairly innocous passages from an article without prior discussion in the appropriate forum might be viewed somewhat differently 80.229.222.48 22:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable Source?

Is the Daily Mail a reliable source? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say yes, per the guidelines at reliable source, though it may not always be a comprehensive source. Barnabypage 09:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help!!

I'm adding a section on the Weekend Tv guide which looks a bit too bland. Any chance that anyone can find a picture of the guide please as i've had some trouble finding an image on the net or making one myself. Thanks Pafcool2 20:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mail on Sunday

There is not a full list of writers for the Daily Mail or the mail on sunday, now i can fill this in but i'm not sure if this was done for a reason so if anyone can tell me by Saturday that will be great or else! Pafcool2 16:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need a full list (and it would be a nightmare trying to keep it up-to-date), but if there are more well-known names who ought to go in, do add them. For what it's worth I think most if not all of the currently redlinked writers could be dropped from the lists as insufficiently notable. Barnabypage 17:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

I've just been reading through this article and noticed that the vast majority of this article is completely unreferenced. I was going through adding {{fact}} to the bits that I thought needed references, and I ended up doing it with practically every sentence so I decided not to bother. The introduction, for example, makes a number of claims, for example about circulation, that could have just been plucked out of thin air. The entire history could have been completely made up as there are no references for any of it. I'm sure that most of the material in this article is very valid, but at the moment it could all be complete fiction. Some references would really improve the integrity of this article. (I might do a few but I'm going to be busy over the next few weeks). Thanks. TomPhil 23:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Format

Tabloid is a newspaper format, Middle-Market isnt. Dmanning 14:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] House prices

the Editorial Stance section should include a bit on their obsession with housing prices. Every other headline seems to be about it. --86.135.180.9 00:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement needing support?

Despite its anti-immigration stance the paper has however campaigned for failed asylum seekers from Zimbabwe to be allowed to stay in Britain. Of course, there is the argument that this campaign was mostly to protect white Zimbabweans against deportation.

The second part I assume would be easy to confirm, thus probably doesn't need anything to support it (for me anyway). But the second statement seems speculative/OR, and really needs to be assigned as a quote to someone notable, or otherwise sources/fixed. --86.148.73.228 20:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "The Mail on Sunday" copyright violation

The four-paragraph section titled "The Mail on Sunday", added in November 2007 by Pafcool2, seems to be mostly copied from http://www.dmgt.co.uk/aboutdmgt/dmgthistory/themailonsundaystory/. It's not an exact copy -- the first paragraph contains several original sentences, although it still closely follows the narrative of that page. The other three paragraphs, however, have essentially no original text; they're just copied from that page with some parts removed, and with occasional words changed. Even the typo "intitial" was preserved.

To be safe, I've removed the whole section, but please feel free to add back the original parts of the first paragraph if you think the article would be better that way.  --mconst (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Mail on Sunday new page

The Mail on Sunday now has its own page. Where possible can you change links from Daily Mail#The Mail on Sunday to The Mail on Sunday. I added on the article that it is Liberal and Central-right. This is because it supported the Social Democratic Party/Liberal Democrats in the 1982 General Election. Pafcool2 (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Pafcool, since "The" has not yet been added to the title of the Sunday publication, the link would go through a redirect. Perhaps best to wait until approval of the full name in the article title has been gained. As Suzanne Moore is its only liberal columnist (I think) and the 1983 election is now a quarter of a century ago, Centre-right alone is perhaps the best description of the title. Philip Cross (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EMO protests

There is some sort of demonstration outside the HQ today, should this get a mention as well as the article that led to it?Liquidlake (talk) 12:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)