Open main menu

'Widely criticised'Edit

Wiki page says at the moment: 'The Daily Mail has been widely criticized for its unreliability, as well as printing of sensationalist and inaccurate scare stories of science and medical research[11][12][13][14][15]

Do these references really support the 'widely criticised' claim for accuracy - three out of five come from one author, Ben Goldacre, and another is supported by a reference to a story saying Wikipedia considers it unreliable (is this encyclopaedic?), and an Oxford University professor who is a blogger giving a self-created 'Orwellian Award for Journalistic Misrepresentation' to the Mail. Incidentally, Goldacre criticises many other newspapers and magazines for their science journalism, including the newspaper he used to work for, the Guardian, as well as the Telegraph, and even the New Scientist. The 'journalism award' is was based on one nomination - by an anonymous blogger called Neurobonkers - over a 2011 article.

Perhaps for the sake of encyclopaedic neutrality it should just say 'criticized' or provide more references that are wider ranging than two individuals. Or alternatively "has been ruled to be unreliable by Wikipedia" following a vote. Booklung (talk) 10:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

  • I can't see any credible challenge to 'widely criticized'. Going as far as 'ridiculed' would be accurate, but would need better sourcing. The meme of 'Things that cure cancer / give you cancer (according to the Daily Mail)' is a persistent one in stand-up comedy for the last couple of decades, in particular. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Andy here. We could get away with saying it's been "widely ridiculed" by citing some of the RS compilations of DM mockery that exist out there. Some of the sources used right now are more than a little bit sarcastic, even. Hell, there's even a song about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah I agree with the above comments, the Daily Mail is a laughing stock, lifting articles without attribution, falsifying news, quackery etc...it's purgatory for rubbish journo's. A quick google search finds endless articles pointing out it's appalling reputation.Bacondrum (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • In Britain there is a Press Complaints Commitee for when newspapers fail in honesty or accuracy. If the Daily Mail was anywhere near as bad as the far left Guardian and its hateful readers complain it is, then steps would have been taken by the PCC to do something about it. The Guardian has an industry based on hiding its complaints as a simple Google search will show. Parts of the main article are just a left wing character assassination of a right wing newspaper they loathe. It lacks impartiality.(185.8.243.175 (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC))

No article reference to being identified as an unreliable WP sourceEdit

IMHO, it seems noteworthy that this article should have an entry somewhere that it is no longer accepted as a reliable source for other WP articles as determined by a consensus of the WP editorial community. RS Noticeboard. § Music Sorter § (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Here's a business insider article about it https://www.businessinsider.com/wikipedia-has-banned-the-daily-mail-as-an-unreliable-source-2017-2?IR=T Bacondrum (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Quote. "Some of those who opposed the ban also pointed to inaccurate stories in other respected publications, and suggested the proposed ban was driven by a dislike of the publication." There is a rabid hatred of the right wing Daily Mail by left wingers which is behind this campaign to see it branded as dishonest. Mention it online, as I do on QUORA and the hatred and bile just pours out. Such people are what is behind the wikipedia ban.(185.8.243.175 (talk) 05:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2019Edit

change {{Portal|United Kingdom|Journalism|Conservatism}}

to

  • {{Portal-inline|Journalism}}
  • {{Portal-inline|London}}
  • {{Portal-inline|Conservatism}}

ReasonsEdit

In order that the font and its size matches the other items in the list 82.14.227.91 (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done Alduin2000 (talk) 15:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2019Edit

Founded in 1896, it is the United Kingdom's second-biggest-selling daily newspaper after The Sun.[4]

change to:

Founded in 1896, it is the United Kingdom's third-biggest-selling daily newspaper after Metro and The Sun.

and change the citation to:

https://www.economist.com/britain/2018/03/22/the-sun-is-toppled-as-britains-biggest-newspaper

Reasons

The original citation is from 2012, and apparently the Mail and The Sun have been overtaken since then. Note that I'm making a bit of an assumption here, as the full article is behind a paywall. I took the citation from the page from The Sun, and I'm just guessing that the Mail got pushed into third, instead of further down.

  Partly done: source changed. Melmann 17:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2019Edit

165.225.38.203 (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The article states that "The Daily Mail is a British daily middle-market[2][3] newspaper", although it should state "The Daily Mail is a racist, British daily middle-market[2][3] newspaper " as the entire public has observed its biased attacks on Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. The article should be updated for accuracy. Thank you.

  Not done: Words such as "racist" should be avoided. aboideautalk 13:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit requestEdit

Return to "Daily Mail" page.