Talk:Daily Mail/Archive 2

Active discussions

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)

Agreed on the first point. The Daily Mail in my opinion is totally anti-immigration, and makes an effort to paint immigrants as criminals, dole-seekers, and generally a drain on society. Often by printing completely false stories.

As in "immigrants eating swans". Completely made up. The PCC fined them for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

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 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.

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. 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)

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)

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.

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

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)

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. (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone claiming that The Dailly Mail is remotely neutral either needs their head checked, or is probably a Daily Mail employee moderating things.

It's almost comically right wing, and rarerly posts anything but criticism of the Left - be it the Labour Party, "Guardian readers", or The BBC —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

And what exactly do thre Daily Mirror and Guardian do? They are by no means 'neutral'. Keep your left-wing opinions to yourself they have no place on this article. I will report any further vandalism. Christian1985 (talk) 11:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

They have every place on this article because Wiki is an unbiased source that deals in the truth. Keep your wing-nut ravings to yourself. - Handsome Public IP Location —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


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 . 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)

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)


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) 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. 13:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"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)
'The Mail's founder, Lord Northcliffe said his winning formula was to give his readers "a daily hate" ', according to Polly Toynbee in the Grauniad. [1]. Meanwhile it is OR that a google search for the daily hate brings the Daily Mail site up as number 1. I think it would be legitimate to add a criticism section to this article, and unless distracted, I'll start such a thing.

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

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)

  • Blasphemy. That was the truth - Handsome Public IP

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)


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! 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)

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 ? 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. -- 20:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Editorial - sorry "conservatism with a small c, and speaking up for the everyday man". This is spuel taken from their web site.

This pages job is to not portray the paper based on how the owners want it to appear - but how it actually is.

It's quite acceptable to state that it is right wing, and pro tory. They haven't backed a labour government since the 1950s.

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)

Agreed. Working in the media I can assure you that employees of the publishing companies involved patrol these pages dailly. It wouldn't surprise me if they are censoring it accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

MIP Foster - it's quite valid to criticise certain Mail stories, as they have been fined by the PCC for these stories, and have admitted that they were inflamatory and innacurate - therefore they are documented fact.

I plan to compile a criticism section myself in due time —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:36, 30 June 2009 (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."

Agree fully - lots of unfavourable items have been removed. Working in publishing, I wouldn't be surprised if the "pro mail" contributors are actually Dailly Mail employees.

" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Online archive?

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

Incorrect link

The note explaining the "daily Heil" name has an incorrect link. There's a reference here:[2] Totnesmartin 20:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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 ! 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 22:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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)
Absolutely not. (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
A tabloid as a reliable source? Damn that's a good one. You made my day. (talk) 00:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


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)

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)


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)


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

House prices

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

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. -- 20:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"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 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)

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)

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)

Reliable source?

Is the Daily Mail considered a mainstream newspaper for purposes of WP:SOURCES? Papers printed in a tabloid format tend to be associated with Red tops. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That association of the tabloid format with unreliability is rapidly becoming outmoded as undoubtedly respectable sources such as The Scotsman, The Times, and The Independent have switched to tabloid (and heck, the Christian Science Monitor has been tabloid for decades). Still, in the case of the Daily Mail - whose tabloid status long predates the shift of the British quality papers toward that format - I would say that it is reliable on the basic facts of major news events e.g. who won an election or where a plane crashed, but perhaps not far beyond that. It has a particularly poor reputation in its reporting of science and medicine. Barnabypage (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The Mail does NOT support the BNP so please stop trying to claim it does. The 'Cheers as BNP Leader walks free' article is not the Mail praising Nick Griffins acquittal, it is referring to the 'cheers' of BNP supporters it does not reflect the views of the Mail. The article was simply a news report not 'contradictory', that is simply opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no way The Daily Mail could be seen as a reliable source. Imagine trying to write an article on immigration using info sourced from The Mail. You'd be better off using The Daily Quail, it's probably more balanced. Jay Al Prufrock (talk) 23:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC) It is just as reliable as any other newspaper. The Guardian and Independent are far from 'balanced' on many issues. (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're doing an article on "Why The Holocaust Was Justified" then yes, it's reliable enough. f3llah1n (talk) 08:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That comment has no basis in fact, and is disruptive to the Talk page. Thanks! Collect (talk) 10:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfair criticism

There seems to be a lot of empty allegations of racism on this wiki entry. It comes from left wingers who have been slated for being anti-British as among other things, they have fought for tiny immigrant sections of the community and believe that they should tell the rest of Britain what to do. Racism is illegal in Britain and the idea that the second biggest selling newspaper in the UK can openly be racist is as mad as the lies of these left wingers. ( (talk) 08:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC))

The difference is they are not overly racist, however many of the readers comments can be construed as such, and many stories tacitly imply, if not actually state "WE HATE DARKIES", their racist tendencies. Stories about why it's bad that there are fewer white babies these days, etc. Bluebellnutter (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
The Mail is NOT 'racist' stop making such ridiculous, false and potentially libellous claims (talk) 00:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
This is not a chat forum. Further comments that are not directly about how to improve the content of the article will be removed. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear, looks like some proof the Mail IS racist, or at least that the bulk of their readership are. Check out this story ( and note the number of positive ratings for posts supporting the BNP, a racist organisation. Ridiculous? You wish. Bluebellnutter (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Eh? Looks like no such thing. The "leaking" of the BNP list is a civil rights issue, and opposing violations of civil rights, I trust, is not "racism." Collect (talk) 11:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


There is a lot of vandalism being entered on the article. People keep unjustly putting 'fascist' on the political allegiance and someone has put 'typical DM frontpage' which is pure POV. Can we please stop people changing these. (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of vandalism on a lot of pages- the vandalism here is only midling to low level. In these instances, the vandalism cannot be prevented, but it can be quickly reverted. If you create an account, you can put this page on your watchlist so that you can be part of the vandalism prevention. If you have more questions, please ask here or on my talk page.-- The Red Pen of Doom 00:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

political bent

Mainly this article has described the political bent of the Daily Mail as "Conservative." ("Fascist" was put in a few times, but I think that such a description is likely to be POV). One has now suggested "populist" (which appears to have a far different meaning in the UK than in the US). I found the Guardian has said the Daily Mail is becoming more populist, but its usage is for "emotional populism." Is "populism" an accurate description of the Daily Mail political bent? And how does that relate to Labour v Liberal v Conservative? Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a fair description of the Mail but not one that describes its politics - a newspaper can be populist on the left as well as the right.Barnabypage (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
So as far as partisanship goes -- stick with "Conservative" then? Collect (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The Mail is Conservative strongly. It does not supprt 'fascism' and the BNP as some lefties keep vandalising the site with. It is certainly NOT populist. It has always stood firmly by the Conservatives. The Sun is a perfect example of populism. Christian1985 (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If my friends had stood by me like the Mail has 'always stood firmly by' the Conservatives (we do mean with a big C, don't we??), I'd cut my throat. I think their computers have a short-cut for adding "And don't imagine the Tories would be any better", or perhaps "Don't imagine Call Me Dave would be any better." The Guardianistas tell their readers that the Mail supports the Conservatives, "Private Eye" imagines it to be Brownite on the direct orders of Brown's admirer Paul Dacre!! The truth is that the paper's name has become a short cut for permissibly expressing contempt of the lower middle class or of non-intellectuals generally.

Rogersansom (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Populist is most definitely a fair description of the Daily Mail's editorial stance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EFromm (talkcontribs) 15:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

A way of assertaining the political leanings is to look for polls done and peoples comments regarding the Mail (see The_Guardian#Stance_and_editorial_opinion as a good start point) Chendy (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The Guardian is obviously not a reliable source as it is a competitor and has its own axe to grind. Pinning precise labels of this sort upon a newspaper seems to be improper OR. Each edition of the newspaper contains a variety of content and the mix will tend to change over time, as do the political parties and their platforms. Summarising this with a single word is not verifiable and so should not be done. I shall edit accordingly. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
The Guardian isn't competing with the Mail in any meaningful sense, so I wouldn't consider that to disqualify it. I do agree with you that a single word may well not be sufficient to characterise a political position. Barnabypage (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
The infobox usage is for party leanings -- and that was "conservative" and remains so. As this has been rehashed, no change ought be made without a clear consensus. Collect (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • No, we have assorted suggestions such as fascist and populist and so is there is no consensus. I myself think of the Daily Mail as a woman's newspaper. Since the matter is controversial, our core policy requires good sourcing, "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organizations in articles". Colonel Warden (talk) 09:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The point about being a women's paper is an interesting one. I can't find a reliable published source offhand (having disposed of most of my journalism books!) but it would be good if the article could bring up the issue of the paper's deliberate appeal to women (under David English IIRC) as well as its reputation (now perhaps a bit fading) for subbing and design. Barnabypage (talk) 12:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

There is, in fact, a poll cited in the article stating it has a fairly strong plurality of Conservative votes. The "fascist" and other claims were made without any real basis, and were disallowed. It des have a "Conservative political allegiance" as shown by its editorial support of Conservative candidates. Collect (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

  • The poll is an analysis of the readership of the newspaper at a particular point in time. It is reporting upon the readers not the newpaper and so is irrelevant. Also its result was mixed and so it is improper to transform this into a single result using a subjective method of analysis. As for the source provided, this too is inadequate. It is a paper presented by a couple of academics and does not seem especially authoritative or comprehensive. It only addresses a couple of general elections and so tells us nothing of other times, including the present day. Its analysis of the Daily Mail's coverage indicates that the paper was primarily anti-Labour or anti-government while its support for the Conservative position was more muted. The newspaper's declaration of support for the Conservatives in the 2005 election is a meagre finding as all newspapers make a statement of this sort. By this reasoning, one might say that the Economist was a Labour newspaper - an absurd and improper conclusion. So, I shall be reverting again, as summarising the newspaper's position in this way still seems to be improper OR or synthesis using sources and methods which are not applied to other newspapers such as the Economist. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Now cited with an RS on the political leanings of UK newspapers making the Conservative leanings and endorsements of the DM clear. Thanks! Collect (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I see no new citation. Did you save your edit? I sometimes forget to save after previewing an edit. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest an article by "academics" is considered to be RS by WP standards. As such, reversion is improper by WP policy. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The opinion of random academics isn't much help because they don't agree and they have their own political axes to grind. For example, Rudy Koshar is a Professor and his work is cited below to claim that the Daily Mail is Fascist rather than Conservative. How can we tell which is right? We can't - the idea that a single word can summarise a century of political positioning is a nonsense. This is the trouble with infoboxes - they generate unnecessary wrangling over precise categories which are inappropriate for the complexities of the real world. Some editors of articles such as Buckingham Palace refuse to accept the addition of infoboxes to the article and I see their point. I still plan to revert as you do not seem to have an acceptable source. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The infobox "political allegiance" is certainly meant to mean "current allegiance" - is that the problem? An ACADEMIC paper is RS, thank you very much. Collect (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The infobox does not say current allegiance. And your source is not about the current position but is about the last general election which was years ago. And the editor who wants to call the Mail fascist has an academic source too. Give it up, please. There's plenty to be done in the rest of the article. Insisting upon a detail in the infobox gives the impression of have an axe to grind. Better to get the rest of the article into good shape and then return to the lead and infobax when that's done and we have well-sourced content to summarise. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ax? The ax-grinding appears to be those who wish to use a pejorative epither ("fascist") or the like for a newspaper which has a long tradtion and CURRENT allegiance to the Tories. And the "editorial position" favoring Tories is quite current and not "years old" <g>. At this point, we have a RS for the use of "Conservative" and none which meet WP standards to the contrary. Thanks! Note that the Daily Mirror is listed as "Labour" etc. Collect (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Consider Saturday's edition. The front page story is an attack upon Prince Charles by the Labour MP Ian Davidson and takes the MP's side with the headline The Prince of Hypocrites. Inside we find no coverage of the Conservative party and its position. There is essentially no trace of your assertion. The source you have provided is inadequate, as discussed above. I have posted a query on the reliable sources noticeboard as to what might be a satisfactory source. I shall now remove this POV. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
"Political allegiance" to the Conservative Party has no relation whatever with an inability to criticize Prince Charles! I provided an RS cite per WP standards, and you have not. Collect (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • A source is not required in order to remove improper content. But, as it happens, I've been keeping an eye on the Mail's recent content. On Saturday, it supported a Labour MP's attack on Prince Charles. On Sunday, it was attacking the Association of Chief Police Officers. On Monday, it actually had a two page spread about Wikipedia and did not hesitate to explain the recent incident in which it seemed that Conservative party HQ attempted to amend our article upon Titian. And now today, we have the clincher, a vitriolic attack upon David Cameron, the Conservative party leader, which fills most of the editorial page, pouring scorn upon his background, his dress, his actions, his policies. The idea that this newspaper has some formal allegiance to this party is laughable. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The other editors that have commented here and at the reliable sources noticeboard, have supported my position that a statement of political allegiance cannot be made in a simple way and so does not belong in the infobox. Accordingly, it will be removed since there is no consensus for its presence nor any adequate source to support such a blanket statement. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Plural "editors"? You need a consensus for REMOVAL. And so since you are being too precious here, you are still wrong. Collect (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, user:Barnabypage and user:Squidfryerchef support my contention that we should not declare a political allegiance in the editbox. Then we have other editors who favour other allegiances such as populist and fascist. You seem quite isolated and so your edit warring to insert your personal POV/OR into the article is improper. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The only one on RS/N was Squid -- as for those who want to plaster "dfascist" or "pro-Hitler" on a page -- they did not have any RS for those claims, so they pretty much failed to get any consensus. As I noted before, go to the talk page for the newspaper infobox template and see if you can get consensus there. Thanks! Collect (talk) 02:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Please, the idea that the claims that the editors who want to call the paper "fascist" are in any way a counter argument to the sourced "conservative" label are pushing the borders that anyone would need to continue to assume good faith in your editing positions. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Your meaning is unclear. The point is that there is no clear and unambiguous political label which might be pinned upon this newspaper. It seems that the Mail commonly adopts a position which I see one source describing as ultraconservative. And this seems to be the stance of its recent coverage: it attacks royalty for its hypocrisy in its adoption of a fashionable cause; it attacks the chiefs of police for their venality; it attacks the Conservative party for subverting Wikipedia; it attacks the leader of the Conservatives for his dressing down rather than following the good example of President Obama. These are not political party positions - they are moral positions. One might describe the paper as moralising or censorious. It seems apparent that the editor and proprietor feel free to reprove as they please and are not subject to any party loyalty, discipline or allegiance. It is therefore quite improper of us to suggest that they are beholden to a particular party when they do not self-identify in this way and we do not have any reliable source which suggests that they are secretly committed to a particular party in any firm way. I shall edit accordingly. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
This page is for discussing the ARTICLE. You appear to be el exigente on political grounds, which are not grounds for editing on WP. By the way, it is not helpful to call use of a RS "OR" in an edit summary. Using "academics" is how most issues are settled here. And the infobox does not say the Mail is owned in any way by the Conservative Party, so that argument fails. And you argument that criticizing Prince Charles has anything to do with anything likewise fails. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Revisiting this matter, I see that the article has gone from bad to worse. Since there is neither good consensus nor reliable source for these controversial allegiances, I shall remove them as contrary to our core policies of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
BNP was absurd sourcing -- so back to simple sourced "Conservative" as being status quo ante and consensus. Collect (talk) 12:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Quality of the Article

I have to say that the quality of this article is very low. It is riddled with historical inaccuracies. Twice I have tried to edit the page and provide accurate information, particularly regarding the place of the Daily Mail in popular discourse, and twice it has been edited. On both occasions I cited S. J. Taylor's The Great Outsiders: Northcliffe, Rothermere and the Daily Mail, which contains information on the paper's relationship with fascism.

1. The Daily Mail did not change its editorial stance voluntarily. In fact it was advised to do so by the British government, and threats were actually made on the eve of war. 2. The Daily Mail is known as the 'Daily Heil' in popular parlance and continues to be associated with fascism. I simply delineated a description of the standard 'stereotype' of the Mail reader: ignorant, stupid and intolerant. That this stereotype is endemic and extant is beyond my control. I was simply trying to provide relevant info.

I can only conclude that the person in charge of this page is a) from outside of the UK or b) very pro-Mail.

The Mail is a populist paper with fascist tendencies, as suggested in Rudy Koshar's Splintered Classes. If you disagree with this then take it up with current academic scholarship. Fascism isn't necessarily racism. The Mail opposes finance capitalism, trade unions, social liberalism and the integration of the UK into the EU. It is also deeply patriotic and anti-immigration. These are, I'm afraid, fascist tendencies. The Mail is read by people who are afraid of being squeezed by the left and the right. Classic fascism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EFromm (talkcontribs) 15:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a nasty, right-wing rag; but it is not fascist and no reliable sources will call it fascist. Your additions may have been removed because the source is not reliable; the source cannot be checked; you are drawing conclusions from a source or your edits did not seem neutral in tone or appeared to be original research. These are generally the reason that the type of edit you have outlined above would be removed. ➨ ЯEDVERS in a one horse open sleigh 15:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

As a political scientist and professional academic I feel obliged to, once again, emphasise that fascism isn't actually a strictly racist movement. If you examine the psychology behind fascism and the Daily Mail you will see, as Koshar did, that there are significant links. So an academic work by one of the world's leading scholars on fascism is not 'reliable' enough for you? No wonder wikipedia has such a bad reputation. Next you'll be saying Hitler was an atheist and Stalin a communist. Ridiculous.

As other sources do not impute the editorial changes to government pressure, and as the Times also was a supporter of appeasement up to the same time, the issue as to why the DM changed its support of appeasement after Hitler made the issue moot is likewise moot. As for finding opposition to the EU to be "fascist" I fear you are likely errant. As for finding patriotism to be "fascist" I fear you are quite errant there as well. Collect (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Erm, I don't think it's a moot point. The Mail would have continued to support Hitler and Moseley had it not been coerced by the government. Which other sources? So a history of the paper written by an academic doesn't count? Which sources are you using? Furthermore, patriotism isn't intrinsically fascist...but without patriotism fascism would not be fascism. So I fear you misunderstood my point. Same goes for euroscepticism. Just consider Heider and his boys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EFromm (talkcontribs) 15:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Try any of the other sources -- including the fact that the Times changed position at the exact same time. You stated above that opposing the EU was a sign of fascism. Iy isn't. And that patriotism is a sign of fascism ("These are, I'm afraid, fascist tendencies" seems quite clear). See [3] where it is stated that the DM "feared (Nazi Germany) for the danger it posed to Britain." [4] ascribes the same position to the Times, Daily Express and Daily Telegraph. Thus support for appeasement was not restricted by any means to the DM. And I found no RS for coercion. Just like Dec 7, 1941 and the newspapers in the US changed tunes. Collect (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you seriously believe that fascism is not patriotic and that modern fascist movements are not opposed to the EU?--EFromm (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)--EFromm (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

This page is to discuss how to improve the content of the article not to discuss editors opinions about fascism or the EU. Please read WP:TPG and remember to discuss the content, not the contributor.-- The Red Pen of Doom 17:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. If a paper exhibits fascist and populist tendencies then what do you expect us to say? It would be nice if someone here had actually read the Daily Mail itself before they espoused erroneous opinions. --EFromm (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm a socialist and I have read the Mail. It's not fascist. You're debasing fascism (a real threat) by tying it to a right-wing scandal sheet (painful, but not actually a threat). And this is not the place to discuss this: that's what your blog is for. Wikipedia requires reliable sources for things you want to say; without them you cannot say it. If you can find sources, we can discuss it. Otherwise, such comments are unwanted here. But thanks for your contributions. ➨ ЯEDVERS in a one horse open sleigh 18:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I am also a socialist. But as well as that a scholar. Just because I cited a work that suggests the Daily Mail exhibits fascist tendencies (Splintered Classes) that does not mean that I am exaggerating or fabricating. Moreover, it's not even a pejorative assertion. Merely a reasonable and factual one. Fascism is characterized by: i) an appeal to the petty-bourgeoisie ii) an aversion to finance capital iii) an aversion to socialism, communism and trade unionism iv) rabid patriotism and xenophobia v) "traditionalism" vi) populism vii) an aversion to social liberalism viii) a hatred of international organisations. Are you going to say that these are congruent with the editorial line of the Daily Mail? If this academic text is not good enough as a source...well, I wonder what is. Links to other websites perhaps? --EFromm (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

A way of commenting on the political leanings is to look for polls done and sourcable comments regarding the Mail from articles, books and journals etc (see The_Guardian#Stance_and_editorial_opinion as a good start point) Chendy (talk) 10:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
A poll is cited in the article stating its overwhelming Conservative base readership. Seems fairly conclusive to me. Collect (talk) 11:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


I have removed the Reputation and Public Opinion section. I feel the information was defamatory, offensive and false. It was also 'sourced' from the Urban Dictionary which like Wikipedia is publicly edited, therefore is not a 'reputable' source. I am a university student and Mail reader and I take great offence at being referred to as stupid, intolerant and ignorant. I feel such material is vandalism. (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! The editor who added it added other stuff which I caught, but doing multiple edits sometimes hides thibgs. Collect (talk) 14:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Guardian reader

Guardian reader redirects here? Really? Why? -- (talk) 05:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

probably a joke - redirect has now been fixed Hadrian89 (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

my mail

dear sir. firstly excuse the grammar and typing not very good with keyboard . this has always been my favourite read.just afew of my likes and dislikes. likes. quentin letts,makes politics really enjoyable.sports coverage brilliant.stories and articles brilliant.pboro good,why not more perhaps awhole page.and perhaps monday and friday. dislikes why no greyhound results now. no lottery daily play results,[as in the express].ive had my moan,keep up the good work.alan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not a general discussion of the topic itself. Hadrian89 (talk) 12:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


Per WP guidelines, all claims must be fully cited from reliable sources, and those sources must precisely back the claims laid to them. Secondly, only major issues belong in here, as no article on newspapers can ever hope to deal with every article ever printed in them. Collect (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, there is an interesting interview with Paul Dacre here: which may be useful in sourcing the Mail's position on a number of issues. Barnabypage (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Interesting article -- and not one the opponents of the Mail here would like to read as the editor is clearly not an ideologue, racist, homophobe or the like. Collect (talk) 12:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I totally accept you point on the need for proper sourcing and as the stories I referenced are true and appear in several places I would hope that you can provide guidance on the best sources to use. The Mail is an incredibly controversial paper and yet this article doesn't seem to reflect that. Surely if this is to be balanced then developing a section on the accusations made against would be important.

I thought starting a section on Criticism and Controversy would be a good way of handling this side to the paper. By breaking down its critics into sections of things like Homophobia, Racism and class people can offer up sources and perhaps see what can be cut and whether it requires its own section.

For example Abortion hope after 'gay genes' findings was printed and did attract criticism. this illustrates the criticism of the Daily Mail that is homophobic. Can you suggest how this would be made a valid WP entry.

I'm concerned that this article could be accused of being controlled by minions if it fails to reflect the papers controversial nature. harrow red (talk) 10:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As I have absolutely zero connection with the Mail, I can hardly be a muinion of anything except a belief that all WP articles should be NPOV and should present a fair image of the topic of the article. Collect (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I never suggested you had any connection with the DM I was mearly stating my concern that if the article fails to reflect the DM controversial nature over a range of issues then it's be perceived as inaccurate. What was wrong with the source for 'Abortion hope after 'gay genes' finding"sharrow red (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

A single article does not mean an entire editorial stance is predicated on such an article, and so on. [5] [6] etc. are from the New York Times. Collect (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely true, and the removed Homosexuality section quite rightly does not venture to characterise the entirety of the Mail's editorial position on homosexuality, or comment on whether the criticism of the Mail was justified. However, a controversy clearly did exist, and was reckoned by the Independent - a reliable source - to warrant an article. So why should we hold back from mentioning it? I suggest we reinstate the section with one small change:
a perceived growth in homophobic media stories
a perceived growth in homophobic stories in a number of newspapers, including the Mail Barnabypage (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems you want every paper then to have a section on its use of what you call "homophobic" stories. I would suggest that you try to gain a consensus on that sort of position in the main articles on Newspapers, and not try to assert it in this particular newspaper article. I also suspect that what you call "homophobic" is not regarded as such by many others. Collect (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Couple of points there. First - I think pretty much the same sentence would probably be appropriate in the articles covering the other papers mentioned - the Sun and Sunday Telegraph, if I recall correctly. But it's Daily Mail we're editing here; and the absence of the point from the other articles isn't a reason to excise it from this one.
Second - this isn't about my, or your, definition of homophobia. It's about what some other people said about the Mail (et al), which was reported in the Independent. Including it in the article is not saying that the Mail is homophobic, any more than the Flat Earth article is arguing for a discredited belief. And if there are other reliable sources that say the Mail is not homophobic, then by all means we should include them too. Barnabypage (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I accept that that one source does not reflect an entire editorial stance. Initially I thought as Homophobia appears to be a common criticism of the Mail (as reflected by the reaction to the gays adopt story they ran this week) this subject should covered in the article. When I did the Critism section I thought I had reflected the paper had been critiqued for this. For Editorial stance would you prefer me to produce examples from the paper it's self then and cite them? [User:Harrow Red|harrow red]] (talk) 15:48, 01 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

If you want to include criticism in the article, then references must be to third parties (i.e. not you (original research) and not the Daily Mail), unless the Mail have responded to some criticism. It is good to include criticism of the newspaper in the article, but maybe focus on what other people (such as other newspapers - for this the Guardian, Express, Times, etc. should have at least a few, prominent writers, politicians, etc.) have said. If the Mail is as controversial as you think it is (which, let's face it, it is), then there will be a plethora of info out there. El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 09:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of OR

I find the repeated insertion of OR "criticism" to by not good, especially with the claim that the DM is associated in any way with the BNP. The IP reverting the deletion of that material seems not to participate on this talk page, however. Collect (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag on exceedingly well-sourced claim of "Conservative" allegiance

Can someone elucidate in what way or manner the information that the Daily Mail has consistently from 1964 on at least been identified as "Conservative"? The source is a book on the Labour Party which I doubt is biassed on this. If POV can not be shown, the tag should go. So explain what is POV here if you want the tag to remain. Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I have removed this POV again. The sourcing you supplied is not adequate. One reason for this is that the sources only address particular periods of time but the edit box's statement is broad brush. For example, one source indicates that the Daily Mail produced an editorial supporting the Conservative party in a particular election. The fact that the newspaper made a declaration is good evidence that they do not necessarily support that party at other times - there would be no point in the declaration, if they were always obliged to support that party. It seems that their support is contigent upon approval of particular policies or leaders rather than being a matter of formal allegiance. Nowadays, the parties have new leaders and new policies and it is open to the newspaper to support them or not as it pleases. Its coverage is not uniformly supportive of any particular party, as I have demonstrated above. They are a free agent, like any voter, and we require a very strong source to say otherwise. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
The ""linited periods" are from the 60s to this decade. How "limited" is forty years? Try a different cavil please. Collect (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Our readership will be most interested in the current position which your sources do not support. The Conservative party has repositioned itself under David Cameron and so older sources relating to the past are not adequate to cover the present. We will only find out who the Mail supports in the coming election when it chooses to declare itself and, in these uncertain times, this will not be a matter of "allegiance" because there is no formal allegiance. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
HUH? The sources are not POV as you errantly claim in your edit summary -- they are from a book on the Labour Party and cover solid statistics for decades! Now you claim basically "They were conservative for 100 years (roughly) but since the Tories have a new leader, we can not say they are conservative now"? Sorry -- that is about as fatuous a claim as I have seen, and your use of "POV" is not even close to being supported by your own posts <g>. Does this mean that the Labour papers now also should be considered as possibly backing Cameron? I would like to see you try saying that the Guardian is Conservative, for sure. The sources given were RS, were not POV, and your excuse that the Tories have a new leader is absurd. Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • David Cameron writes for The Guardian where he says, "Tony Benn once spoke about wanting a fundamental shift of power and wealth to working people. I too want that fundamental shift...". Your POV belongs to the past and so your sources are inadequate to represent this new present. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
And the DM is supporting Cameron if its editorials are a guide. Paeans about him praising Thatcher. Love pieces about his family. Yep -- the Daily Mail is Conservative, and your what-if, ain't. Collect (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I have updated the article from a fresh source which reports the paper as "right wing". If we are to pigeonhole the paper, this seems a better general description than characterising it as owing allegiance to a particular party - something which the current owner has specifically ruled out in testimony to a select committee. I have cited the Times which, as a journal of record, seems a good source. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
You deleted full sourcing, and alter the page with absolutely no sign of your even attempting to change the consensus. In fact, you have done it repeatedly. Collect (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I have added details of the interesting matter of the United Empire Party which shook the Conservatives in the early 1930s. The Daily Mail supported this enthusiastically and so this demonstrates their independence and lack of allegiance to the Conservative party. Their position was clearly a more generally populist and right-wing one. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Hunting up claims is not how WP articles should work -- the current political allegiance is the Conservative Party. Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Researching and writing from reliable sources is exactly how we should work. And, as your crude reversion has undone numerous edits upon other matters relating to the Daily Mail, I shall undo it. You should also please cease your misleading and uncivil commentary in edit summaries. This talk page is the place to discuss this, as we do now. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
You have not shown a single reason why RS material covering five decades is wrong. Try gaining consensus sopmeday. Collect (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


I read the Mail, and it has consistently ridiculed as well as attacked the Conservative Party for many years - often in riders to attacking Labour. "Don't imagine the Tories are any less corrupt" is the tone. However, nothing will shake the consensus that it is a Conservative-supporting paper. The Wikipedia article states that it was so in the 2005 election, which is not what I remembered, and the article cited supports my memory - that is, it indicates a much more complex anti-Government stance.

Rogersansom (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Peter Hitchens intemperately attacked Cameron's Conservative Party in the MoS the other Sunday (written April '09). The daily paper is coming round to him a bit (perhaps - despite keeping up the 'Call Me Dave' sneer). Most of us are not in a position to think of modifying the article as we do not have access to a press archive!

Happy reading - Rogersansom (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your input with which I generally agree. Note that the article now summarises the paper's stance as "right-wing" which seems better than "Conservative" since, as you say, they are quite willing to attack the Conservative party when it displeases them. Note also that everyone has access to a newspaper archive via Google News (except in countries like China perhaps). Colonel Warden (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I guessed someone would remind me that one can catch up online - the problem is, to put it another way, most people surely don't have time to read more than a couple of papers per day. Anyway, another Peter Hitchens attack on Cameron in the MoS did make me skim back through his MoS articles in his blog. I actually couldn't find the particular attack on the Conservative Party I remembered - but found one that was stronger than any I have seen, calling on all true conservatives to work towards the downfall of the Tory Party. He REALLY hates Cameron. And the MoS publishes his page without any of the semi-disclaimers with which such papers sometimes preface intemperate columnists of the Paul Johnson school - "Outrageous! Controversial!" etc.

Rogersansom (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

On some issues they have been to the left of the Tories. After all is said and done, "right wing" is more inaccurate than any of the other suggestions (excluding calling it "fascist" of course). Collect (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The term "Middle England" doesn't appear justified. First, it's not a conventional political allegiance and so it really doesn't mean anything. Second, the source refers to the editor and not to the newspaper. While I know that the characterisation of the paper's political viewpoint has been contentious, I think this term is worse than useless. Better to leave it off entirely.  Will Beback  talk  16:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Note history where folks have tried "fascist" and :"extreme right wing" -- its clear allegiance is "Conservative" but that kept getting changed. "Middle England" is sourced as a phrase used by the newspaper itself, though "conservative" might also be used from the same source. {roblem is that one editor refused to accept "conservative" even with multiple RS cites attached. And the term "Middle England" is also applied to the paper, not just one editor. [7] [8] specifically refers to "middle England" as a political group, [9] also associates the Mail itself with "middle England", [10] also supports "middle England" for the Mail, [11] shows outside connection of Mail with the term "middle England", [12] yet another competing newspaper associateds the Mail with "middle England" " The Daily Mail is a newspaper of passion. It rails against asylum-seekers, political correctness, bureaucrats and Arsenal, while championing the interests of Middle England. It is feared by politicians, hated by the left but lauded by the right." and so on. How many sources would you like for an infobox? Collect (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Just pick one that refers to the newspaper rather than the editor. Also, please provide a link to an article that defines what "middle England" means. If it's undefined then it's no help to readers.   Will Beback  talk  16:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
My preferred position remains that we do not state a political allegiance in the infobox as the Daily Mail has no formal allegiance in a party sense and its editorial position is too many-faceted and debatable to summarise simply. I have not bothered to contest the Middle England label as it is too fuzzy to be taken seriously. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


I suggest you all do something like Drudge which is put something like "generally considered" "has been called" or something of that nature. While not exactly NPOV it might be better. Soxwon (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


Will people stop changing the 'political slant' to BNP. The Mail does NOT and never has supported or associated with the BNP. These claims are false and libellous. In yesterday's Mail (4th June) in a European/Local Election special the Mail actively condemned the BNP referring to them as a 'threat' and was actively pushing support for the Conservative Party in the elections. In future any unauthorised changes will be reported to admin as I am fed up with this persistent vandalism. Christian1985 (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This has gone on for a long time, alas. AFAICT, the Daily Mail is fairly reliably Tory. "Middle England" stopped the warring for a while, since anyone realizes it means Tory <g>. Collect (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
the editorial stance of the DM ref immigration, Muslims, multiculturalism, travellers, and 'foreigners' in general is indistinguishable from that of the BNP. It also supports the BNP's stance that the children and grandchildren of those born outside the UK are 'not really British' (unsigned anon editor)
Horsefeathers. The use of hyperbole does not work in WP articles very well at all, and decidely does not belong on the talk pages either. Collect (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No the DM does not share common ground with the BNP. I am fed up of left-wing attacks corrupting this article. Christian1985 (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

left wing?! who's left wing? I have stated a fact, deal with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You have NOT stated 'facts' at all, you are posting vandalism. The Mail DOES NOT AND NEVER HAS supported the BNP. It is your opinion based on those unreliable sources. Those comments show no support for the BNP and even if they did that doesn't reflect the views of the DM, they are simply people's opinions. I have made an official complaint to administrators and if any further vandalism material is posted further action will be taken Christian1985 (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I stated that the Mail's editorial stance is identical to that of the BNP regarding immigration, multiculturalism and foreigners in general. i have provided a number of examples. If you choose to interpret that as 'the Daily Mail supports the BNP' then that's your problem, but that is NOT what I have actually said.
Your attempt to "just point out" is a violation of Wikipedia's policy against what we call for short hand "original research". Such analytical claims as you are trying to make would have to have been previously published by a reliable source to be included in the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
It is time to semi-protect this article -- and to restore the Tory political view of the DM. All this stuff about "fascist" and the like feeds some of these folks, and if we stick to what was clearly supported, we should be fine. Collect (talk) 11:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Whatever point you were trying to make is false. The Mail does NOT share those views with the BNP, that is just your POV. Those 'examples' are unreliable and biased; website comments, left-wing newspapers and blogs are NOT reputable evidence. I will report any further edits as vandalism. Christian1985 (talk) 11:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

there are millions of references to newspaper articles used as evidence on wikipedia. Can you please a: provide a list of what you percieve as 'left wing' newspapers, and, b: show me where in Wikipedia guidelines does it categorically state that 'left wing' newspapers are specifically excluded? Your obsession with characterising anyone with a different view to your own as 'left wing' demonstrates where you are really coming from with this. Report away, I stand by my edits. The accusations have been made against the DM in a reputable media source, which clearly demonstrates that both the BNP and the DM do not consider the British-born children and grandchildren of migrants to be truly British, and therefore in this regard the BJP and the DM share the same view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've listed the article for semi-protection to combat this blatant and persistent vandalism. I just hope the Administrators will support my request. Christian1985 (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Page Protection

I have had semi-protection put in place for this article as I am fed up of this persistent vandalism (mostly by left-wing Mail haters). Here is some advice; Wikipedia is a repuatble encyclopedic site and such has no place for biased criticisms, insults/attacks, point of view (POV) or comments from blogs or open discussion threads, these constitute original research (OR) and will be swiftly removed. If you want to slate the Mail with biased viewpoints go on a different site because such material is not welcome here Christian1985 (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


Posting true facts about a paper is not vandalism. Deleting them, as you do not like what they imply is vandalism, and censorship.

This page is meant to promoted fact. Not to paint a publication in the best light possible.

Your quote above demonstrates your agenda with right wing policy, and I plan to include it when I report you to the site, for deleting sourceable points from the article, because of political agenda and bias.

You are not a censor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"point of view (POV) or comments from blogs or open discussion threads, these constitute original research (OR) and will be swiftly removed. If you want to slate the Mail with biased viewpoints go on a different site because such material is not welcome here Christian1985 (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2009 "

You open the editorial line with "The Dailly Mail considers itself a voice for middle England". That is a point of view, and in no way fact. You are merely posting how the paper wants to be seen.

Then you delete anything that says the more accurate truth. It's a right wing, tory paper.

As I stated, I will today report you for abuse of editorial powers, censortship, web site vandlisation, deleting sourceable facts because of political bias, and everything else you have done on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted the intro to the "editorial stance". If you are prepared to delete "right wing" because of lack of source, I don't understand how you can post "what the mail considers itself" as a factual account on their editorial policy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceej1979 (talkcontribs) 17:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


The problem is that you post your own point of view on the paper, and then use it as an excuse to delete content you don't like. It smacks of political bias.

When you talk of "slagging off " the mail by "left wing haters" it smacks of political bias from your own end.

I should remind you that wikipedia is encycolpedic, and should cover a subject from all angles. So consistently deleting anything that could go under the "controversy" section, just because you don't like the angle, is demonstrating censorship and political bias.

It is not "hating" to post a sourceable, cited example of how the Mail has been cited by the Press Complaints Comission in the past. Or is it to provide links to controversial news stories of the past.

This is not a site to protect the mail, or slate the mail. It is a site to cover it's entire history - from good to bad.

You openly posting praise of their coverage of the Steven Lawrence case, and yet deleting any discussion or links to more controversial headline smacks of censorship.

I should remind you that it is not your role to censor an article. Or decide upon it's political tone.

"Haters" have a right to post sourced, fair, lines in the article.

This is not a PR page for the paper

Ceej1979 (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


This page is being heavily censored.

It is not an encylopedic articles duty to paint a newspaper in a postive light. It is to document it's history, and give an accurate interpretation of it's past, present and future.

Deleting any sourceable, controversies, just because you do not like what they imply is political censorship, and against the web sites manifesto.

Stating what the Daily Mail "considers itself" is not fact. It's their own PR spin of what they feel they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

So - can you produce any evidence of reliably sourced material being removed by another editor. All I see on a brief glance is undourced POV posts being reverted. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"Controversy" points which have been fully sourced has been completely deleted, numerous times. Author has also messaged people warning them not to create these section again - with the threat of reporting them to wikipedia.

Author messages users, claiming their points are liablleous, and threatening to report them, no matter how accurate or small their change is. As in, me changing "conservatism with a small c" to just conservatism.

Deleting controversial articles. But then claiming the Mail "championed" the Steven Lawrence case, with links to the coverage. How is posting controversial headlines deleted, and posting positive ones allowed? The Mail has a mixed history.

Continually deleting the fact that the paper is conservative, even when cited, on a POV technicality. And yet continually posting it is the "voice of the normal man" and "conservatism with a small c" even though this is also just a POV. The fact that it's both tory and right wing are plainly obvious. An author trying to skew facts.

Continually deleting the readership figures for the paper. On the basis that they point it to it being completely conservative.

Circulation figures according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations, in October 2007 show gross sales of 2,400,143 for the Daily Mail. According to a December 2004 survey, 53% of Daily Mail readers voted for the Conservative party, compared to 21% for Labour and 17% for the Liberal Democrats.[5] The main concern of Viscount Rothermere, the current chairman and main shareholder, is that the circulation be maintained. He testified before a House of Lords select committee that, "We need to allow editors the freedom to edit", and so that the newspaper had no firm political allegiance or policy.[6]"

This was deleted by the author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleting accusations of racism, with sources, because of POV issues. And then posting a huge section on Steven Lawrence, with a quote on how the paper wasn't in fact "racist" because of this.

Not allowing a "controversy" section on the page, no matter how sourced it is. Warning users not to post one, with the threat of being "banned".

Sorry - it's heavily censored.

Ceej1979 (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, deleting "conservative" and "right wing" on point of view issues, and then replacing them with "conservatism with a small c" and "voice for the middle classes".

Happy to post positive POV. Deletes anything that is negative

I should notify you that the editing and censorship of this page, is well known, on various political forums. And a resolution with Wikipedia is being readily sourced.

17:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceej1979 (talkcontribs)

This is what I received when I changed "conservative with a small C" to conservative:

"Please stop vandalising the Daily Mail article with biased opinions, these comments have no sources and are false and libellous. I will be reporting these edits to administrators. Also please do not attempt to post a 'criticisms' section. It will be removed and we will have you blocked from wikipedia. You have been warned" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceej1979 (talkcontribs) 18:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If you read Wikipedia rules, it states that articles must be balanced, and allow all view points on the subject to be made available, if they are sourced, and fact.

Sorry - deleting anything you don't agree with, just because it maybe paints the paper in a bad light is complete censorship - and the subject is in discussion on the complaints boards as I type this.

A "controversy" section, in regards to articles cited by the press complaints comission is fully acceptable for a neutral newspaper page. Especially when you have already posted links to the "Steven Lawrence coverage" supposedly as an example of a great campaign the paper ran. (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Controversy section.

Most newspaper wikipedia articles have this - see The Sun page. I'd like to ask why the editor has continually deleted this section, even though it has been cited and is fully sourceable.

I feel the fact that you have posted about the newspaper's succesful newspaper campaigns (steven lawrence), and even posted quotes about how this showed the newspaper had moved on from the old "racist days" and yet, haven't allowed anyone to post about the numerous times it has been reported to, andcited by the Press Complaints commision on the same subject, suggested editorial and political bias.

In messages, to editors, you have sent warnings not to post this "controversy" section again, under the threat of being banned.

If you read wikipedia rules, on neutrality, it states that all, sourceable sides of the opinion on the subject, should be posted, and the article should cover all aspects of a newspaper.

I feel that in not allowing the "controversy" section to be posted, you are censoring readers from the various controversial stories they have published in the past - stories that have been cited by the press complaints comission, and are totally sourceable.

I realise that you have deleted the section in the past, on technicalities like the source of the sitation, and using the wrong template - so plan to complete a fully sourceable, water tight "controversy" section to be posted in the near future.

Any deletion of this section, if you accept that it is adequately sourced, will bring the neautrality of this page into serious question.

I'd like to hear whether you plan to delete a controversy section, even if it's properly sourced.

take care

Ceej1979 (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The article fully covers some of the "controversies" in the appropriate chronology, and adds also a "libel" section. Where issues are covered in the body of an article, there is no reason to add a "controversies" section. Might you try adding specific sourced sentences (per WP:RS) to the sections where they belong? You should also note that this article does not have just one "editor." Collect (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Collect is right I am not the only editor on this article. There are a lot of accusations aimed at me that are unfair. I have never deleted sourced material about the Mail being 'conservative'. It is Conservative I completely agree and I was fighting for ages to have Conservative on the article but other users kept changing it to BNP, fascist, Nazi and other false labels so another editor removed the 'political allegiance' altogether which I disagreed with. We once had a 'controversy' section posted and 'sourced' from the Urban Dictionary which was full of insults and untruths, surely you cannot call the Urban Dictionary a reputable source? I did write that warning about 'small c to conservative' that was because there were unsourced edits claiming the Mail is 'anti immigration' and such. I am not censoring the page I am simply trying to prevent biased POV material being posted. One IP user was trying to claim the Mail supports the BNP and his 'sources' were comments from an open discussion thread on the Mail website and Guardian website, again hardly reputable evidence. Christian1985 (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Christian, the claim that the daily mail shares policy with the BNP, in the past, and in the present is sadly fact.

I agree, it's unfair to claim that this is "nazism" or linking them to the bnp at all. But also trying to whitewash over the most obvious fact in the world - the Daily Mail is a centre right/right wing newspapers is bizarre. This is supposed to be an encyclopedic, accurate page. Not a PR campaign.

As an example, The Daily Mail mounted a campaign in the 1940s, to stop Jewish Asylum seekers to be allowed into the country, during the second world war.

Both the BNP and the Daily Mail have a shared history of being anti-asylum. Both can be accuses of quite frankly, printing lies, in order to incite hatred towards immigrants.

The Daily Mail has been cited numerous times, by the PCC, for printing falseified stories on asylum seekers - one being that Romanian Gypsies were trapping and eating swans. Completely made up.

A lot of the "vandalism" as you put it, is frustration that this entire page is managed, to whitewash things like this. And gives a totally false account of the paper —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The Mail is NOT 'anti-immigration' it simply supports stronger controls on immigration. I acutally read it and it is not anti-immigration. It also regularly condemns the BNP. Christian1985 (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Mail, racist in public so you don't have to be! (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The Mail is NOT 'racist', that is just your opinion. If any criticisms sections are posted I will be strigently checking references and that is not censorship it is acting in accordance with WP. (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Return to "Daily Mail/Archive 2" page.