Talk:Daily Mail/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Cancer claims

• a cold
• chips/fries
• errr...NSFW
• sausages and burgers
• hair dye
• sandwiches
• mouth wash
• sun cream
• PRINGLES, HULA-HOOPS & PRINCE CHARLES’ ORGANIC CRISPS
• X-rays
• talcum powder
• Moisturisers
• mobile phones
• red meet (double post?)
• tooth whitener
• bagged snacks
• abortions

(unsigned)

Unfortunately, the claims are not only made by the Daily Mail in the examples I checked. Thus ascribing them to the DM would be inapt. [1] shows the BBC with the cancer claim about childhood infections, for example. Collect (talk) 12:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

That said, rather outrageous cancer claims do seem to be heavily associated with the Daily Mail. Off the top of my head, I can't remember references, but it has been parodies in several publications, a few television programs, and of course, YouTube et al. I do think it's worth mentioning on the article. Mouse Nightshirt | talk 10:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's a source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2010/apr/27/dailymail-cancer Barnabypage (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, "inter-paper sniping" is a national sport in the UK. A tad slower than cricket, but with a great deal more emotion. Collect (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Daily Mail cancer scare stories are well documented and notable, see [2]. The famous facebook story deserves a mention, at least. --94.171.77.82 (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

As a passing voice, I've just arrived at the page because I tried to look up the Cancer issue on wikipedia, was amazed to find it's not in the article... I expected it to be a page on it's own... Failedwizard (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Libel cases section

I removed "<!-- omitting all unk[n]own amounts or cases under 30K pounds -->" from the edit window of this article. This is arbitrary, and the use of this template was not raised in the earlier discussion of this issue. Inclusion of specific cases should be based on the verifiability of the case, and the notability of the individuals involved, as is usual for Wikipedia, not the absence of details. Though only indirectly involved, the Blairs are high profile figures, and for that matter we do have an article about Carole Caplin. Yes, libel cases should be included in articles about other publications. Philip Cross (talk) 16:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

There was a reason - we had an editor including cases where the damages were on the order of 100 pounds etc. in a catch-all list for the paper. As every UK paper has had libel suits, it seemed to be more a trivia section than much else. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Including small amounts like £100 probably makes an instant case for removal. Trivia sections usually include information which is tangential to the subject, and I share your dislike of them, but these are reactions against stories in the Daily Mail itself. Hard facts, yes? Philip Cross (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Where similar papers do not have such sections, I fear my distaste for trivia sections is made stronger. And in some cases, listing the libels only perpetuate them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion should be the degree of coverage in third party sources, not the actual damages. The case described in QB VII resulted in only token damages, but was noteworthy nonetheless. TFD (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

1934 Olympia

[3] acsribed end of Rothermere's initial support for BUF to brutality at Kensington Olympia in 1934. [4] iterates it as a cause for loss of mainstream support. [5] ascribed end of DM support to 19 July 1934. Cheers - this had been on an earlier talk page when this was added a long time ago and the cites seem to have been elided. Collect (talk) 11:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Controversies

Why doesn't The Daily Mail, or any Daily Mail writers (see Melanie Phillips) pages have any reference to the fact that they're generally controversial? And have published controversial articles?

I'm assuming it's because they're heavily policed/censored by people who agree with the newspaper/writers. But you know, that's POV editing. Against wikipedia rules.

You know, the Daily Mail was heavily criticized, universally for it's article about Stephen Gateley's death. What's the possible justification for not discussing things like this in the article? Other than not wanting to offend the Daily Mail.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The Gately/Moir criticism is already covered in this article under "famous stories". Are there other prominent criticisms that have been overlooked? --McGeddon (talk) 13:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not keen on "stand alone" criticism sections but if you can see a way of incorporating well sourced criticism into the article, why not be bold and do it. If it get's reverted, we can always discuss why. No reason this page should be any different to any other part of wikipedia. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The Lancet Cannabis article

[6] is likely of interest.

There was an increased risk of any psychotic outcome in individuals who had ever used cannabis (pooled adjusted odds ratio=1·41, 95% CI 1·20—1·65). Findings were consistent with a dose-response effect, with greater risk in people who used cannabis most frequently (2·09, 1·54—2·84). Results of analyses restricted to studies of more clinically relevant psychotic disorders were similar. Depression, suicidal thoughts, and anxiety outcomes were examined separately. Findings for these outcomes were less consistent, and fewer attempts were made to address non-causal explanations, than for psychosis. A substantial confounding effect was present for both psychotic and affective outcomes.

Which was the basis for many news organizations publishing articles thereon. Collect (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

But the article the Mail is talking about is [7], no? I've removed the BBC and New Scientist bits since they seemed irrelevant. That said this, is this story especially (in)famous? shellac (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

For the 2011 study add CBS news [8] Solved: Why pot smoking causes memory loss By Wynne Parry 26 Oct 2011. Le Figaro [9] etc. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC) .

Thanks for updating this, but I'm unclear why they're being included. Mere reporting isn't the substance of the complaint: it's the nature of the report surely? (The CBS article certainly doesn't make the claims that the Mail does) [10] shellac (talk) 09:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The implication was clear that the DM grossly misrepresented the study - while the other RS sources (particularly Bild which used essentially the exact same claims as the DM) also assigned substantial weight to the article. Thus it is proper for Wikipedia to show that the article was widely covered in the popular press. Cheers. BTW, "blogspot" is never used on Wikipedia as WP:RS. Collect (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Collect. Sorry for taking you time up with this.

1. [11] appears to be the primary source: that is where Professor Bishop announced and explained the reason for the award. I don't know whether it's usable per wp:sps.
2. It seems clear from reading that what Bishop's specific concerns are with the Mail article.
3. It is clear to me that the CBS article does not repeat those claims Bishop objects to. But that's original research, I think. (the Bild and Figaro articles are not in my native language, so no idea there).
4. OTOH including the other articles to suggest that they make the same claims as the Mail article also seems to step into original research, doesn't it? Bishop hasn't commented on them, as far as we know.
5. Finally, we have a blog post by an expert in the field, reported by the Huffington Post. Is that sufficiently notable and reliable?

So in conclusion: hmm, no idea :-) You're an experienced editor, and I'd appreciate your input. shellac (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

(od) Blogs are SPS sources at best - and hence only usable for showing that the writer has that opinion. For a mock award, the claim must use a WP:RS source, not a blog. Bild and Figaro explicitly make pretty much the same claims as DM does - abd CBS is not far from it. Thus we have an "award" sourced to a Blog, making claims which must be cited as the opinion, at best, of the blog writer, concerning an article which must be shown in the context of other articles based on the same Lancet article. Schon ein Joint kann Schizophrenie auslösen does not even require German 101, I would think. Bing translates that exact title as Already a joint may trigger schizophrenia which is obvious as to what it says. So we have the absolute requirement of NPOV which shows that the other articles, including one with essentially the exact same title as the one being commented on are found in reliable sources, and the "award" is mentioned primarily in a self-published source, which, if we accept it as being by an expert, is still only usable as being the opinion of that expert. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Political Alignment

The political alignment shows "Conservative" and links to the Conservative Party. By comparison the wiki entry for the Guardian shows "Centre-left liberalism". This is inconsistent, either the Mail entry should be changed to show "centre-right" or the Guardian entry should be changed to show "Labour/Lib-dems". Wikiplan2012 (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I would just leave it out. The reason for the field is that some papers are tied to political parties, for example the Socialist Workers Party and the Daily Worker. But mainstream newspapers do not have formal affiliations and it becomes an invitation to original research, POV-pushing and edit-warring. TFD (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with above, Conservative was accepted after much debate and discussion as a consensus. I am a Mail reader and it is strongly in favour of the Conservative Party even if it is sometimes critical of the Coalition. But "Conservative" is a neutral term. Christian1985 (talk) 23:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Rather than just arguing about it - could we not source it? it took me two seconds to find this BBC article. I quite like the way they put it - "Right-leaning with traditionally conservative values". Obviously we can't just lift that, but if we can incorporate something similar I think that would be a positive step forward. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

What other articles do has naught to do with what should be done here - I think the reading of past discussions and noting the vandalism occurring on a regular basis calling the paper "Nazi" and the like should be used as a moderating argument that the simple "conservative" label has worked far better than any of hte proposed alternatives. Collect (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Collect, Conservative is a neutral and well-accepted label. Unlike many of the people who contribute to (or more often vandalise) this article, I actually read the DM reguarly and these labels of "BNP","far right" or "Nazi" are completely incorrect and above all completely stupid often peddled by left-editors with a grudge to bear. When I first came across this article a few years back now along with other right-wing articles it was completely littered with left-wing views and opinions. Anyway back to the point as an actual DM reader I know the paper and its editorial style well, it is 110% Conservative (as in Conservative Party), I disagree with the insinuation the paper supported Blair in 2001, I don't recall this and I am a long-time reader, the paper has always despised the Labour Party as much as I do. Christian1985 (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I share the concern of the IP that the link to the Conservative Party page gives the improper impression that it is an official arm of the party. Its not, is it? -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

No the DM is not in any way officially affiliated with the party but it is a strong supporter of the party which is why the link is there. Do you feel linking it to Conservatism would be more appropriate, I wouldn't have a problem with that. This would be a good label as the paper does have Conservative values and shares the Conservative Party's centre-right political stance. Christian1985 (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Supporting Fascism

More recently, in the 2012 French Presidential Elections, the Daily Mail has sided with the neo-fascist Front National and its leader Le Pen.[12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by UraBigot (talk • contribs) 09:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by proof and not claims. Please take the time to read through some of our policies or provide a reliable source to back up your claim. Thanks Jenova20 17:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Very well said Jenova20, you really have come a long way since we first crossed paths. I also notice on your userpage you are a Conservative supporter, so we have more in common than we thought. Thanks Christian1985 (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You can share traits with people and still not share opinions with them. I believe the Daily Mail personally to be a disgusting piece of work with an obvious agenda of sensationalism over fact and anti-LGBT/anti-immigration/anti-Europe tastes but it doesn't stop me reading it. Merely ironically that i generally have the opposite opinions of a lot of the comments in their articles and that cheers me up.

I try not to let it impair my ability to be civil, neutral and thoughtful but can still have a bad day. With reference to the Conservatives i agree the need to cut spending to reduce debt and reduce benefits for people who blatantly refuse to work, something Labour don't seem to acknowledge as they would have to admit fault for causing it and clearly can't.

Thanks for the comment, means a lot Jenova20 18:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Very fair points Jenova. I completely agree we do need to cut the deficit and wasteful spending. We certainly need to clamp down on people who are making a living on benefits. You are very right, Labour refuse to accept any responsibility for any of their actions. Christian1985 (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

We have something in common? Never expected that one... I'm also suprised there's a critism about the treatment of female employees section in the article under your watch, doesn't seem like something you would agree with including under normal circumstances? Jenova20 19:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

A columnist in the Daily Mail has openly sided with her. That is not the same thing. TFD (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The Daily Mail allowing one of its columnist to write an article opening supporting Le Pen and the Front National is the equivalent of supporting BNP in the UK not the Conservative party or UKIP for that matter. It is absolutely disgraceful. @ Jenova20 - the proof is a direct link to the article. Your comments about Daily Mail supporting the UK Conservatives are not relevant to the heading. DAILY MAIL SUPPORTS FRENCH FASCISTS. 88.104.26.12

You don't have any "proof" of anything. The Daily Mail does support the Conservatives, I know because I am a Conservative and a Mail reader. And don'ty come on here insulting me, I am not "patronising" anyone. Wikipedia does not tolerate personal attacks, so please behave in a civil manner. Christian1985 (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't bother responding, i believe it just baits these trolls. Jenova20 23:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

It only becomes significant if it receives significant coverage in secondary sources. TFD (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Quotation from Lord Rothermere's "Youth Triumphant"

Firstly, to LioneIt: I wasn't edit warring, I was following Wikipedia's 3 revert policy. Now that we've had 3, I take it to the talk page. I suggest you use more useful edit summaries to explain the reason for your revert rather than berating people for following wikipedia policy in good faith.

The material I think should be included is principall this quotation:

“ The minor misdeeds of individual Nazis would be submerged by the immense benefits the new regime is already bestowing on Germany ”

, which was written by Lord Rothermere in the Daily Mail's Editorial "Youth Triumphant". The source I am using for this quotation is a book by John Simpson -- a highly respected journalist -- and I provided this url for verification: [13]. It clearly states in this reference that concentration camps had already been established and so would be included in the "minor misdeeds", but that Lord Rothermere probably meant only to refer to "beating up of Jews and Communists in the streets, and the smashing of Jewish-owned shops". Reason for inclusion: it's entirely relevant to the stance of the Daily Mail during the inter-war period and directly establishes the meaning of the preceeding sentence:

“ Rothermere's 1933 leader "Youth Triumphant" praised the new Nazi regime's accomplishments, and was subsequently used as propaganda by them ”

The quotation had previously been removed for being separated from the text and thus being highlighted. I placed it within the text body and added context. Why, then, was it removed again? User:Collect removed it with this edit summary:

“ we stick to what the reliable source cited clearly stated, and no more, and avoid undue weight - which means the added stuff leaves - the "new source" from a googlesearch is not verifiable readily, and was printed by a competing newspaper ”

I diretly paraphrased the source. The source I included even links to the relevant passage of the book is immediately verifiable. It did NOT come from a competing newspaper, but a separate book by a respected journalist. — Posted by Luke Goodsell, 08:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Luke, the 3RR policy is not a license to revert 3 times. According to WP:EW, under certain conditions, you could conceivably be blocked for 1 revert. I recommend you follow WP:BRD: bold-revert-discuss. I'd like to emphasize D=discuss. If multiple editors are reverting you--that is a strong signal it's time to take it to the talk page. Regarding the substance of the edit, IMO it is WP:UNDUE. Anyway I'm sure other editors will now chime in, and we'll soon arrive at WP:CONSENSUS. Hope that helps, – Lionel ^(talk) 10:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Lionel, for your feedback. I believe I only reverted once, though. The Skeleton pointed out a problem with content (which was not added by me), I proposed a solution. Collect then reverted my correction. I felt that Collect's reversion (based on the summary he provided) was incorrect and made my first and only revert.

Anyway, the content in question. The previous paragraph (which has so far been retained) states that Lord Rothermere and the Daily Mail supported and praised the accomplishments of the Nazi Party, but is otherwise vague as to the paper's stance, in particular to whether it also criticised the "bad" things that were done. The quotation succinctly establishes that the editorial dismissed such criticism as being about "minor misdeeds" and trivialised the atrocities being conducted.

I would therefore assert that failure to mention such whitewashing of the Nazi Party by the Daily Mail would be whitewashing of the paper's past behaviour. If the quotation were not included, an alternative sentence would need to be included to make the same point.

— Posted by Luke Goodsell, 10:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm really suprised that the material has been removed again. Removing well-qualified references to the Mail's widely acknowledged pre-war sympathy for the Nazis seems to me a blatant and simplistic attempt to offset it's significance in relation to what followed. The Mail had a critical role to play in encouraging acceptance and support of appeasement by the British people. The depravity of what some Nazi's would do could not have been predicted at the time and the Mail was far from alone in its support, but this needs to be contextualised by what the Mail did during and after the war to acknowledge it's mistake, not by trying to ameliorateor or expunge it's stance while the Nazi's were still in ascendance. Mighty Antar (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The single actual quote from the Daily Mail was in this article. The extended commentary about the "concentration camps" is not in the DM editorial AFAICT, and was written by a columnist for a competitor of the Daily Mail, and hence is not really proper in this article. It attributes a position which was not directly made by the Daily Mail - and I suggest the Guardian newspaper is a direct and substantial competitor to the Daily Mail, and that editorial commentary made in it should not belong here - the gist of Rothermere's infatuation with the order of Germany is clear enough already. In short - the reader is already given fully sufficient information on the topic. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Mighty Antar, thanks for your contribution; you've explained the justification for including the quotation much better than me and I agree entirely.

Collect, thank you for your feedback. There is at least one other quotation from the Daily Mail in the article in the "post-war history" section. The extended information about concentration camps being present at the time of the editorial but it was in the source I cited and is verifiable with other sources, too.

The source I used was not the Guardian or a columnist for a rival paper, it was a book by John Simpson. John Simpson is a journalist, reporter and editor for the BBC. He is generally widely respected for his journalistic integrity and ability, and has received many rewards for such. He does not directly compete with the Daily Mail and, though he may still have bias, the information in the cited source may be verified elsewhere. The source I chose is just one of the best for the topic and provides other additional context that would be useful for interested readers.

— Posted by Luke Goodsell, 12:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

mea culpa - one of the sources previously presented was from a book published by the Guardian. I still regard the attempt to insert "concentration camps" into this article as excessive, especially since it is not directly supported by the DM - it might fit in Rothermere's article possibly. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, very well. So you have nothing against the quotation itself, just the preceding sentence? I agree that the phrasing of the leading sentence I added was clumsy, but it's important to note that concentration camps had been established at the time of the editorial, as it shows that the Daily Mail/Lord Rothermere was either negligently unaware of what was taking place, or simply considered them to be "minor misdeeds".

— Posted by Luke Goodsell, 20:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It is, in fact, the SYNTH of adding the "concentration camps" but which I find troubling. It might possibly be relevant to Rothermere, but pretty irrelevant to the Mail. Collect (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the quote could be used instead in conjunction with a quote from a speech Hitler gave shortly before Rothermere's own quote appeared. "The natural claim of the country to its own peculiar intellectual leadership must be met by the early elimination of the surplus Jewish intellectuals from cultural and intellectual life." This appeared in April 1933 around the same time as the Nazis published pictures of their concentration camps filled with the thousands of people they'd arrested on "political grounds" and were holding indefinately. I don't know about the Mail, but both of these items were covered by mainstream papers such as The Times and Rothermere would have had to have been deaf and blind to be unaware of what was going on. It is relevant to the Mail because Rothermere published his "appeal" as an leading editorial which is generally accepted as the opinion of the paper. Churchill wrote shortly afterwards "I was disgusted by the Daily Mail's boosting of Hitler." I think Collect may be confusing concentration camps with extermination camps? that is a critical distinction. Mighty Antar (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

A quote from Hitler used as a relaible source on the Daily Mail? Not. Sorry - claims must be directly germane to the topic of the article. Cheers - we have sufficient information on the Daily Mail opinions already in the article - it would be outre to add Hitler in order to provide SYNTH to the article. Collect (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I guess we'll have to leave you troubled by the "concentration camps". This is John Simpson's Synth not ours so it's directly germane and should be used. I shall also add Churchill's quote as he obviously wasn't so worried about splitting hairs. Mighty Antar (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Collect, the source I linked above by John Simpson does indeed go on to state

“ These minor misdeeds already included the setting up of concentration camps ”

... so it is not our original research.

Mighty Antar, I think that having two, not-immediately-related quotations (such as this by Lord Rothermere and that of Hitler) could be interpreted as drawing a direct association between the two and so would constitute original research. However, the Churchill quotation you mentioned may be immediately relevant to the Daily Mail inter-war history section. Do you have a source for it? Google gave me nothing.

— Posted by Luke Goodsell, 06:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's a source for the quote. [14]. Mighty Antar (talk) 09:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

And such a quote would have to be given in full context - it is clear that the gist was not simply blasting the DM, but expressing his understanding of Rothermere's rationale, and the fact that Rothermere, as opposed to the appeasers, was pacifist, but sought a strongly armed England. [15] The quote was primarily about Rothermere, not about the Daily Mail. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Your link doesn't appear to support whatever it is you're alluding too. How is a quote that says "I was disgusted by the Daily Mail's boosting of Hitler." not blasting the Daily Mail? Cheers. Mighty Antar (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The cite I gave gives the clear text of the rest of the entry where the snippet view from Google stops short. Where only part of an entry is used, there is a clear likelihood that the context has been removed. Thus the full entry is better by far. And the full context refers to Rothermere's odd combination of being a pacifist who wanted a strong military. Which appears to have been Churchil's main point. Did you read the full context? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

So I take it from your response that you'll have no issue with putting in the rest of the quote from John Simpson in to provide context.

“ These minor misdeeds already included the setting up of concentration camps ”

Seeing as we're talking about two peoples comments on a piece that appeared as an editorial leader in the Daily Mail?

Your previous link doesn't seem to lead to what you intended, the full context to the Churchill quote is

"You will by now have made your proposals to Walter – I expect. We seemed from your letter to be in perfect accord upon the arrangements... I was disgusted by the DM's boosting of Hitler. R is sincerely pacifist. He wants us to be vy strongly armed and frightfully obsequious at the same time. Thus he hopes to avoid seeing another war. Anyhow it is a more practical attitude than our socialist politicians. They wish us to remain disarmed & exceedingly abusive. I was glad so many had the courage to vote against making that gangster autocrat for life.". Seems to me the his views on pacifists and socialists might possibly be relevant to Rothermere, but pretty irrelevant to the Mail. Mighty Antar (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Since the source says that Rothermere was probably not referring to the concentration camps, it is wrong to imply that he was. It is also a problem because the impression is that Rothermere supported the genocide carried out in the concentration camps, when at the time they only held political prisoners who had reasonable expectations of eventual release. TFD (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, all the more reason to include more of the Simpson material. It also sounds like you are confusing concentration camps with extermination camps. Mighty Antar (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

All the less reason to include the extraneous material. And I rather think a great many people seeing the claim that Germany had already started "concentration camps" will not make the fine distinction you make. As a result, it would be a disservice to use the term as you propose. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think including even more of Simpson's commentary would properly frame the quotation:

“ In July 1933, six months after Hitler came to power, Rothermere himself wrote an editorial for the Mail headlined 'Youth Triumphant': 'The minor misdeeds of individual Nazis would be submerged by the immense benefits the new regime is already bestowing upon Germany.'

These minor misdeeds already included the setting up of concentration camps at Dachau and Oranienburg, where prisoners started arriving on 31 March 1933. Probably, though, Rothermere means the beating up of Jews and Communists in the streets, and the smashing of Jewish-owned shops.

”

Personally, though, I believe the article would flow better with Simpson's discussion appropriately sourced and paraphrased and only the DM quoted directly.

The entirely valid, relevant and WP:NOR-safe points that Simpson raises and that are significant to the DM's history are:

• DM published an editorial suggesting Hitler's policies would produce immense benefits
• DM excused the 'bad' things associated with the Nazi Party as 'minor misdeeds'
• Such 'bad' things in reality included establishment of concentration camps (which can be worded so as to specify a distinction from extermination camps)
• The DM was either wilfully ignorant of such atrocities or considered them to be 'minor misdeeds'.

Collect, can you fault the inclusion of the quotation included so as to address these points, provided a distinction is drawn between extermination and concentration camps?

The Churchill quotation seems to me to be relevant to the article, but not directly relevant to this DM quotation. I therefore ask that further discussion of its inclusion be placed in a separate talk section so that each quotation can be discussed appropriately.

Thanks, — Posted by Luke Goodsell, 18:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

How about something like this as an attempt to steer a middle course:

As an example of the Mail's attitudes towards the Nazi regime in its early years, in an editorial in 1933, Lord Rothermere predicted that "The minor misdeeds of individual Nazis would be submerged by the immense benefits the new regime is already bestowing on Germany". Journalist John Simpson, writing in his book "Unreliable Sources: How the Twentieth Century Was Reported", commented on this phrase, and concluded that Rothermere was probably referring to the beating up of Jewish people and Communists in the streets, and the smashing of Jewish-owned shops, although the Nazi regime had by that point arrested thousands of Jewish people and were holding them as political prisoners.

SP-KP (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

That is pushing it to POV. We already devote two paragraphs to the paper's support for fascism. TFD (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

See that's the problem I have, I would say that what is currently written is not written from a neutral point of view. What is needed is some historical context to a statement made by the Daily Mail in 1933 in support of Hitler and the Nazi's policies. The policies and actions of the Nazi's in Germany in 1933 were widely reported in the British press - Indefinite internment, murder, beatings, wholesale racism etc. and the Mail's response was they're not really that bad and there is a bright side. Sure the genocide came later, but most people recognised these were not "minor misdeeds". Mighty Antar (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The US government today supports "indefinite internment, murder, beatings, wholesale racism etc." It is not up to us to pass judgment on any of them, but to report how third parties see it. TFD (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Blimey, what an advocate for NPOV. So we should throw in a couple of positive third party reviews of the Nazis to balance things out? Mighty Antar (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't mean downplaying criticisms, but giving appropriate context, like Mighty Antar describes. It was a significant part of the DM's history that it significantly supported and refused to criticise the Nazi Party, and we need more contemporary context to explain this. However, excluding this information about the past extent of the DM's support of the Nazi party wouldn't be NPOV, it'd be whitewashing. The Simpson book I linked above goes on to describe how, even while several other papers were condemning the actions of Blackshirts and the Nazi Party, the DM was publishing regurgitated Nazi propaganda and interviews with Hitler, Mussolini et al free from criticism. — Posted by Luke Goodsell, 06:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of further discussion, I propose we go ahead with the proposal from SP-KP. Mighty Antar (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Try Journalist John Simpson suggested that Rothermere was probably referring to violence against Jews and Communists. Seems about what NPOV will tolerate. It is not our task to tell readers how evil we know someone to have been. And the "concentration camp" bit definitely goes off course. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, how's this? (Italicised text is already present in the article to give context).

Lord Rothermere was a friend and supporter of both Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, which influenced the Mail's political stance towards them during the 1930s. Rothermere's 1933 leader "Youth Triumphant" praised the new Nazi regime's accomplishments, and was subsequently used as propaganda by them. In this editorial, Lord Rothermere predicted that "The minor misdeeds of individual Nazis would be submerged by the immense benefits the new regime is already bestowing upon Germany". Journalist John Simpson, discussing journalism in the 20th century, concluded that Rothermere was probably referring to the beating up of Jewish people and Communists rather than the mass detention of political prisoners that had begun earlier in the same year.

— Posted by Luke Goodsell, 09:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps:

Lord Rothermere was a friend of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, and directed the Mail's editorial stance towards them in the 1930s. Rothermere's 1933 editorial "Youth Triumphant" praised the Nazi regime, and was later used as propaganda by them. In it, Rothermere predicted that "The minor misdeeds of individual Nazis would be submerged by the immense benefits the new regime is already bestowing upon Germany". Journalist John Simpson, in a book on journalism, suggested that Rothermere was referring to the violence against Jews and Communists rather any detention of political prisoners.

Contains your Simpson bit, and avoiding NPOV and WEIGHT issues. Collect (talk) 12:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, once again you're doing everything you can to avoid NPOV and attempting to whitewash a highly significant issue in the history of the newspaper. Prior to the quote, there were thousands of people interned on the slenderest of excuses and the stance highlighted by that single infamous editorial was a political posture that ran through the entire publication for a significant period of time, not some superficial one-off blandishment by Rothermere. This issue needs to be given due weight in the history of the Daily Mail, if we were trying to insert this in a more prominant position in the article, I might accept you had some point, but at the moment you're way off course. Mighty Antar (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

As I removed no facts, how one can call it a "whitewash" is amazing. Rothermere is prominently discussed in the article which is no the newspaper, and not about him. Unless, of cource, you wish to assert that Rothermere's infatuation with Hitler and Mussolini has some real and substantive weight more than is currently given in the article, I suggest it is not a "whitewash" to follow WP:NPOV at all. It is mentioned in the lede, and has two paragraphs in the body of the article. BTW, read WP:NPA before saying anyone wishes to throw in a couple of positive third party reviews of the Nazis . You may discover that such attacks on editors are seldom found amusing by others. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I already felt that the exclusion of the word "concentration camp" was pushing NPOV simply for not calling a spade a spade. I understand, though, that it is a volatile term in some contexts. However, what is wrong with "mass detention of political prisoners"? Your wording sounds like it could be just a handful of political prisoners, rather than the 5,000 initially intended at Dachau alone. Why is it breach of NPOV to acknowledge this simple fact? — Posted by Luke Goodsell, 16:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not up to us to stress any such thing - it is up to us to accurately state what reliable sources directly state. I found absolutely no source saying that the DM supported the establishment of the concentration camp at Dachau, nor does Simpson in any way make a claim remotely akin to that. Thus we use what his beliefs are as stated in a reliable source -- that Rothermere was not talking about things other than what were common knowledge about the "street violence" etc. Adding "simple facts" is, in fact, known on Wikipedia as WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Collect (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Collect for highlighting a policy with which I am entirely familiar. My comment was based on a spurious comparison and in reaction to these somewhat staggering attempts at POV pushing. Best Regards. Mighty Antar (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Simpson relates a number of facts about the Nazis in order to support his view that Rothermere's support of fascism was wrong. If we relate those facts here then we are supporting Simpson's views. However, another writer might take a separate set of facts and provide a different take. For example, some people believed that Commumism represented the major threat and fascism was the only defense. If we want to discuss whether or not Rothermere's judgment was correct, we would need a source that explained the different judgments that various writers have made. However that would probably be giving excessive coverage in this article to a short period of the DM's history. TFD (talk)

This last comment seems a bit of a strange contribution to this discussion. I say this purely as an observation, and not as criticism (as we all say apparently strange things sometimes: sometimes we mean them, and sometimes we are misunderstood). The length of the period in which the Mail held these views is surely a red herring, isn't it? It's the unusual nature (others here might go as far as saying flagrancy, I guess?) of the Mail's views from this period, when viewed from a historical perspective (i.e. a British paper supporting Nazism) that to my mind makes this content notable. Likewise, we can quote Simpson without supporting his views, surely? As an example, my suggested paragraph above doesn't support Simpson's views, merely notes them. Did I miss the points you were trying to make, TFD? SP-KP (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

See the example at WP:SYN: "The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world." "Both parts of the sentence may be reliably sourced, but here they have been combined to imply that the UN has failed to maintain world peace. If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research." In our case, Simpson has put combined facts in order to imply that Rothermere's position was wrong. If we quote the facts it is synthesis, if we re-cap Simpson's views without first establishing the degree of their acceptance, then it is POV. TFD (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm clearer now on what you're saying about quoting Simpson. What's your view on Collect's stripped-back version (copied below)? Does even this fall foul of WP:SYN and/or WP:NPOV?

Lord Rothermere was a friend of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, and directed the Mail's editorial stance towards them in the 1930s. Rothermere's 1933 editorial "Youth Triumphant" praised the Nazi regime, and was later used as propaganda by them. In it, Rothermere predicted that "The minor misdeeds of individual Nazis would be submerged by the immense benefits the new regime is already bestowing upon Germany". Journalist John Simpson, in a book on journalism, suggested that Rothermere was referring to the violence against Jews and Communists rather any detention of political prisoners.

SP-KP (talk) 22:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems fine, although I do not see why the final sentence is necessary. The wording seems unusual and why is Simpson's opinion important? BTW we should not use honorifics, such as "Lord". TFD (talk) 03:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree - but the "Lord" is in the current version -- it really only needs use once in each major section at most, AFAICT. Collect (talk) 11:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've added this. Luke & Mighty - this moves us some way towards the kind of content you are arguing for. Do you want to suggest further changes? SP-KP (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Well a single paragraph which mentions the papers unbridled support for the Nazi's between 1933 and 1939 is a start, so thanks SP-KP. It now has the same amount of coverage as the papers donation of Morning to the Tate. Mighty Antar (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Thank you, SP-KP, for acting as a neutral party. I still think refusal to mention that mass detention of political prisoners was taking place at the time of the editorial is whitewashing, though. — Posted by Luke Goodsell, 19:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Winston Churchill quote - "I am disgusted with the Daily Mail's boosting of Hitler

I still think Churchill's opinion might be important enough to include in the history section. What do others think?

"You will by now have made your proposals to Walter – I expect. We seemed from your letter to be in perfect accord upon the arrangements... I was disgusted by the DM's boosting of Hitler. R is sincerely pacifist. He wants us to be vy strongly armed and frightfully obsequious at the same time. Thus he hopes to avoid seeing another war. Anyhow it is a more practical attitude than our socialist politicians. They wish us to remain disarmed & exceedingly abusive. I was glad so many had the courage to vote against making that gangster autocrat for life.". Seems to me the his views on pacifists and socialists might possibly be relevant to Rothermere, but pretty irrelevant to the Mail.

This is the material set in it's original context taken from a letter to his wife published in Winston S Churchill Vol.5 by Randolph Churchill. His abbreviations are DM - Daily Mail, R - Lord Rothemere, vy - very. Mighty Antar (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

And since the gist of the quote in context is about Rothermere then if it is not on point for this article, it might be on point for the Rothermere article. It is clearly improper, however, to use the first part without using the second part. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It mentions the Daily Mail specifically. Rothermere essentially was the Daily Mail, the latter being the mouthpiece of the former. At the very least, there should be mention in the article that Churchill was disgusted by the Mail's support of Hitler during the inter-war period, but the full quotation helps to show context. — Posted by Luke Goodsell, 06:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And it would be contrary to policy to cherry-pick one sentence without giving the context of the sentence - which clearly was to set the basis for his contiguous sentences about Rothermere. Collect (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Unless you are offering some other material in support, it is only your opinion that Churchill was setting the basis for his contiguous sentences or that the quote is "about Rothermere". Mighty Antar (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The sources give the contiguous sentences directly. Saying that this is my "opinion" is fatuous. And I suggest the "R" is "Rothermere" as the reliable sources specify. Now can you give a legitimate reason for the cherry-picking on a single sentence? Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No, the source is an entire letter, it's you who is cherry picking which bits in your opinion are "contiguous". R is Rothermere as I already stated above, but Churchill has put R on a separate line to the one about the Mail. Regards Mighty Antar (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

(od) [16] shows the material in one paragraph - the prior paragraph ends with "accord upon the arrangements ...." whilc the DM sentence is followed in the same paragraph contiguously by the "R" comments. The claim " a separate line" seems inapt as a claim here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC) (Note - books use a paragraph break for a new line in the manuscript - the fact that "R[othermere]" was on the next line simply means that MoS does not allow hyphenation in such a case for bracketed names for typographic reasons) Collect (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC) [17] shows use of the full quote also in a reliable source, showing the connexion of the thoughts. I trust this is sufficient. Collect (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

2001 Election

I've removed the bit about the Mail supporting Labour in the 2001 election. There's a source given for this, but I'm fairly sure it's not true. Here's a piece from The Guardian on which papers supported which party. [[18]] Jay-W (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I have been a DM reader for many years and it has NEVER supported Labour. It hates Labour as much as I do and I certainly do not recall them backing Blair in 2001. Christian1985 (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

See [19] which describes the DM position in 2001 as "Strong Anti-Labour" which I surmise is not "ringing endorsement of Blair" for sure.

External link not working

The link in the External links section isn't working for me. It redirects to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/index.html . Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

1896-1905

The Daily Mail produced a long series of articles objecting to immigration. These resulted in the British Aliens Act of 1905. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.151.46 (talk) 15:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This was followed by the Aliens Restriction (Ammendment) Act of 1919, also British. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.151.46 (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

What you need for such claims are WP:RS compliant sources making those specific claims. Collect (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

A snippet view of The World's work, Volume 6 (1903), p. 3693, says, "The British Brothers' League was founded in February, 1901, and, aided by The Daily Express and The Daily Mail, it has so far excited public fear as to have compelled Parliament to institute a commission on the question of Alien Immigration."[20] The result was the Aliens Act 1905. While interesting, you would need to show that this has received attention in the history of the paper. TFD (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Page Protection

Thankfully, this page has now been indefinitely Semi-Protected which will stop the countless number of IP vandalism attacks on the article. Christian1985 (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

WaPo error

Note today's news -- the Washington Post reported that Sarah Palin was going to work for Al Jazeera [21]. Next time anyone comments on a DM error, I think someone should add this error to the WaPo article <g>. Collect (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not how WP:Weight or WP:Npov works. If there's notable criticism of any article, then it should be mentioned - not used as a bargaining chip or as blackmail to deter people from adding notable events to this article. Such actions if put to use would surely lead to a topic ban very quickly... Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Huh? I noted that other newspapers "goof" and that WEIGHT would argue that only if an error is out of the ordinary range of errors that it is notable per se. In the case of the WaPo, it is clearly a substantial error due to an apparent lack of fact checking. As for the asinine claim that this is "blackmail" I suggest you read WP:NPA. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you have misread or misunderstood my earlier comment. Each article is individual, and news sources' articles do not get a limit of information (negative or positive), which can be added to only if something of similar value is added to a competitors article. That logic is not compatible with a neutral point of view. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Reference supporting "a newspaper for women" claim is inaccurately used

Not sure how to change this so I'm raising it here. The footnote (currently no.7 , the one from the "Newsmen Speak" book) that is used to support the claim that the Mail was a newspaper for women from the start doesn't seem to actually do this on a careful reading. Using the link provided in the footnote, the linked section of the book says that first another newspaper was started, called the Mirror (not, I think, related to the Mirror existing in the UK today), which was specifically for women. But that failed, so the owner turned it into a "*general newspaper*" called the Mail i.e. no longer a newspaper for women 76.217.24.133 (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Continental Daily Mail and WWI

There are some interesting bits in Hiley, Nicholas (1994). ""You can't believe a word you read": Newspaper‐reading in the British Expeditionary Force, 1914—1918". Studies in Newspaper and Periodical History. 2 (1–2): 89–102. doi:10.1080/13688809409357904. about the Continental Daily Mail around the First War period. I'm busy on other things but if anyone wants a copy of the journal to do a bit of expansion here then just mail me. - Sitush (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

PCC complaints official list

[22]

Sir Christopher Geidt The Guardian Upheld 1 19/11/2013

A woman Croydon Advertiser Upheld 4, 9 25/10/2013

A woman The Mail on Sunday Upheld 4, 9 21/10/2013

Christine Hussain Herald & Post (Luton) Upheld 11 03/10/2013

A woman The Sunday Times Upheld 4 23/09/2013

A woman The Sun Upheld 9 11/10/2013

A woman News Shopper (Bexley and North Kent) Upheld 11 3/7/2013

Christine Hussain South Wales Argus Upheld 11 31/05/2013

Mrs Rosemary MacLeod The Scottish Sun Upheld 5 23/04/2013

Ms Treena McIntyre That's Life Upheld 5, 16 05/04/2013

Vernon Kay Reveal Upheld 1 28/03/2013

Nicki McLellan Kent and Sussex Courier Upheld 1, 4, 10 22/02/2013

Cleveland Police Daily Mirror Upheld 11 19/02/2013

Nick Crossley Halifax Courier Upheld 1, 5 05/10/2012

Rebecca Morris Stourbridge News Upheld 1, 3 27/09/2012

Richard Rawson (also known as 'Fazer') Heat Upheld 1, 3 14/08/2012

A married couple Camberley News and Mail Upheld 3, 6 13/07/2012

A woman Sunday Life Upheld 3, 11 25/06/2012

Mrs Laura McQueen Daily Record Upheld 5 24/05/2012

A woman Daily Mirror Upheld 6, 9 26/03/2012

Mrs Leigh Blows The Northern Echo Upheld 3, 5 15/02/2012

Rod Hemley Herald & Post (Luton) Upheld 1, 5 09/02/2012

Mr Lutfur Rahman The Daily Telegraph Upheld 1 20/12/2011

Press Complaints Commission v Daily Mail Daily Mail Upheld 1 09/12/2011 (this one was a no-brainer I suppose)

In short, in the past year no complaints have been "upheld" against the Daily Mail, one upheld against the "Mail on Sunday" while one was just upheld against the Guardian. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

So what? The PCC is not what we were talking about. --John (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It was one of the sources for "number of complaints upheld" from earlier discussions on this talk page -- as my honesty was impugned, I suggest that the actual list of upheld complaints is properly placed on this talk page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Successful lawsuits

There are quite a few missing. Shall we add them? --John (talk) 05:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Minor ones were removed quite a while back (read the talk page archives, please) -- statistically the DM has about the same number of lawsuits as the Guardian which does not have such a list (which "apologised" to Tesco to get one suit dropped, etc.). And we should then also add the unsuccessful lawsuits -- which seem to be a quite large number, indeed. Cheers -- Wikipedia is not the place to show that one dislikes a newspaper, but to provide encyclopedic information on the topic. Collect (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

[23] shows the past few years have had more than 70 defamation cases per year, up from the usual prior levels of 50+per year. The Sweet & Maxwell study attributes the rise to a number of factors, the main one being celebrities – sports and showbusiness stars – making defamation claims against the media. Collect (talk) 13:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean Talk:Daily_Mail/Archive_4#Daily_Mail_Libel_Section? I am not seeing support there for removing "minor ones"; what would that consist of, ones where they paid out less than £200,000?! I'd love to see a reliable source for "statistically the DM has about the same number of lawsuits as the Guardian"! The talk page is not really the place for ad hominems, in fact there is no place for them on Wikipedia, but I did notice that you've been repeatedly accused of OWN issues on this article. Just be careful, all right? --John (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The page used to include one under 1K pounds -- the fact is that there are over fifty defamation suits brought per year against British media -- the vast majority of which are unsuccessful. The Daily Mail does not, in fact, have significantly more losses than other papers -- and the famed Times loss against Lance Armstrong shows that some of the cases may, in fact, be ill-founded. The "stuff" in the sandbox page would never meet Wikipedia standards at all ... carping that an online site does not link enough is a silly cavil, and if anyone tries bring up "transphobia" again on Wikipedia, I shall likely react viscerally <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Dump the notable ones in the WP:Spinout article at User:Jenova20/Criticism of the Daily Mail and Mail Online. It's a work in progress in my userspace at the moment but add what you like. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 14:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

LGBT discrimination is an issue on Wikipedia, just as it is for the Daily Mail (like it or not). Your personal opinion on the matter concerns me little, but is not good for Editor Retention. Live and let live? ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I urgently suggest that such additions to this page would run quite afoul of the best interests of the encyclopedia and of ArbCom decisions. This is not my "personal opinion" but the expressions of the consensus found on the proper noticeboards, and I again suggest you drop that stick. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC) Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The listing of successful lawsuits against the Daily Mail presents the implicit view that it is unreliable and malicious. A better approach would be to use books about journalism that explain how the paper is normally perceived, then mention which lawsuits were significant. TFD (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Then i'd suggest you read up on the topic at Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts: "Summary style" articles since no consensus exists according to the help pages. And next time don't bring up transgender people/editors in such a manner that could bring negative attention to yourself and possible the entire project. The stick is entirely one of your own making for whatever reason you had/have. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

A book is not a bad idea. Do you have one in mind? Meantime, I would go with the next-best thing, which is likely to be high-quality news sources like the BBC and the Guardian. Collect, I am still interested in your reliable source for "statistically the DM has about the same number of lawsuits as the Guardian". I am not in the least interested in transgender issues and do not quite know where that came from. --John (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think he likes an article in my userspace which mentions the Daily Mail among others. User:Jenova20/Transphobia in the media. I can only speculate as to why. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 18:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, two months have gone by and I don't think Collect (or anyone else) is going to provide a source for "statistically the DM has about the same number of lawsuits as the Guardian", a laughable claim if ever there was one. It's time to discuss which ones we need to add; it is definitely one of the things this publication is most noted for, printing lies and then having to pay compensation for it. Let's hear some opinions please; I don't want this to be open-ended and it shouldn't be controversial to add some well-sourced controversy here. --John (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not require a separate source that the number is similar to other papers -- though I already gave reliable sourcing that the number of independent complaints is proportional to other sources, and the number of upheld complaints is actually lower than other papers. I think you forgot that. Cheers -- and remember Wikipedia policies trump your fairly evident dislike for the paper. Collect (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I accept your apology for talking shit and then being unable to justify it when challenged. I'll get to work on this and probably start adding some tomorrow or Sunday. Cheers. --John (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:NPA and WP:CONSENSUS before making "bold edits" contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I am sorry you did not read the source [24] about the number of suits, but since I gave it, and it is real, I suggest you now do so. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

If you're maintaining that this source backs up your bullshit claim that "statistically the DM has about the same number of lawsuits as the Guardian", you are digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole. And calling your bullshit out for the bullshit it is, is not a personal attack. If we're recommending each other things to read, for you I think it would be WP:COMPETENCE. And now you may happily have the last word; I am completely indifferent to your outpourings. Following that, does anyone with a clue have an opinion on this? --John (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• Collect, I don't think you had linked that earlier in this discussion, so I hadn't read it either. But really, this? How does that prove that the different papers etc etc? And how can we call a lawyer's website a reliable source? (As a side note, I'd hate to see a complete list of law suits here or anywhere else--some notable ones, yes, where "notable" is a matter of editorial consensus and should take into account damages sought and awarded, and amount and depth of coverage.) Drmies (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

)od) Did you read the actual full report (not just the précis)? and the other official report I gave indicating that the number of independent complaints for the Daily Mail was about the same as for a number of other newspapers? (The Daily Mail tends to get up to 10 "complaints" for the same single article -- the number of articles complained about is similar for a number of newspapers, and essentially no complaints were judged serious for any of the papers -- again I linked on this talk page to the press complaint numbers in the past). A later Sweet & Maxwell report linked News Corp. papers to the greatest number of defamation lawsuits, far more than the Daily Mail had in the past couple of years. [25] mentions only one major DM case in the past year -- which is a far cry from the claims made that the DM is frequently guilty of libel. Need more? Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• No, I'm just going by what's here in this thread. Is there a link to the full article? I don't see it on the page with the summary--blame my old eyes (if you do, I'll sue for defamation of course). And I can't read the FT article, unfortunately. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

First -- there are plenty of examples of suits currently in this article -- it is not logical that more should be added because any editor thinks the article would be improved by stressing additional weight not found in reliable sources. Second -- years of experience have taught me how to see some material otherwise made difficult to see -- I suggest you ask your nearest computer person how it is done <g>. And for now, NotW seems to hold the record for lawsuits. Newspapers of any area or any era are rarely inerrant -- even the NYT regularly posts "corrections" IIRC. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

We'll take that as a "no". I don't know why you can't just say "I made a claim not backed up by the source I gave, sorry about that", but that's up to you of course. --John (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

If I were to say that, then I would indeed be lying. In each case above, the sources provided by me are accurately reflected in the claims made about them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Remind me, which source is it that backs up, "statistically the DM has about the same number of lawsuits as the Guardian" again? --John (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The reports on lawsuits from a reliable source which have been given here at least three times now and is produced annually and gets mentioned in other reliable sources annually. WP:IDHT might apply to your cavils at this point. Meanwhile I would suggest you note the singular lack of support for your crusade from other editors at the RfC below. Collect (talk) 13:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Gosh. I almost feel sorry for you at this point. It's important that this article isn't dominated by your inaccurate statements. Is this a "crusade"? I don't think so, but clearly you are welcome to your opinion, and I am sure others will treat it with all the seriousness it deserves. --John (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Major, noteworthy cases, not currently included in the article

• Ryanair, September 2013
• Ugandan prime minister Amama Mbabazi, July 2013
• Britam Defence, June 2013
• Sally Morgan, June 2013
• Andrew Miller, December 2012
• Societe Generale, March 2012
• Neil Morrissey, January 2012
• Lady Moore, October 2011
• Matt Lucas, December 2010
• Madonna, October 2009
• Kate Winslet, March 2009

These are ten eleven easily-found examples which are noteworthy and are not currently included in the article. It is quite easy to find more, and to find more sources for these ones. I worry that by including six successful and two unsuccessful cases, we are not doing this aspect of the Mail's modus operandi full justice. What do others think? --John (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC) Added to, --John (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll give it another 24 hours. If there are no competent objections in that time I will start to add some of these to the article. --John (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

There are succinct, specific, and "competent" objections. I urge you to use an RfC here if you wish to get a consensus, but so far there is not one for your proposal. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:WEIGHT as a start. If we listed every single lawsuit for every single newspaper, we would be overwhelmed with trivia. Sticking to the most notable cases makes more sense. The Ryanair casr involed a number of newspapers, not just the DM. The Uganda case was "based on a report by the Ugandan auditor general" and clearly the DM was not a "culprit" therein. The Britam case involed the DM being duped by forged emails. The Morgan case involved a person whom the DM accused of not being an actual psychic ... something which seems risible, alas. The Miller case saw an earlier statement: "In a preliminary judgment in 2011, high court judge Mr Justice Tugendhat ruled that the article meant that there were, at the date of publication, reasonable grounds to suspect that Miller was a willing beneficiary of improper conduct and cronyism because of his friendship with Blair in respect of the award of a number of Met contracts to his company worth millions of pounds of public money."

On each case, British law requires the publisher prove the absolute truth of any claims -- and the fact that the DM could not prove that Morgan was not a true psychic does not seem, to me, to be of sufficient weight to claim that the DM deliberately defamed her, etc. We could always list every action against other newspapers (in some cases, the allegations were published by multiple newspapers -- the unusual nature of British libel law has been noted in other articles), The net problem is that a list of such actions as the psychic case might well make the article ludicrous indeed. We have sufficient examples of libel cases in the article currently ... and the fsct you call this the modus operandi indicates a possible POV issue. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC) BTW, the Madonna case was not about defamation or libel at all, but about ownership of photos. Had we listed it as such, we would have misused the source. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

We need some evidence that this is a pattern typical of (British, at least) newspapers, before we can justifiably turn away from what is evidently pretty well-reported. Perhaps there is some source that can provide a summary and comparison? Mangoe (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I have given several cites on this talk page -- including the report of the complaint commission (where there are essentially no complaints against the Mail being upheld), the report on total number of libel suits (where the single largest group of lawsuits is against the News of the World, it appears), etc. We already cover a number of lawsuits in the article -- this is not an issue of removal of a reasonable number, but an issue of addition of a large number of cases with an explicit stated desire to show a "fact" not asserted by a reliable source per policy. Collect (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I call bullshit, again. You have a track record of lying on this issue; why don't you provide a cite that actually backs up what you are trying to say, or else shuffle off and let other editors take care of this. --John (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Your vocabulary appears to be uncivil once again, and thus is worthy of zero notice from anyone. And since anyone can view the substantial number of cites I have given,, your personal attack is not only off the mark, it calls into question precisely what mark you are aiming at. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Whoosh. --John (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

'Middle Market'

The mail is not middle market, the 'reference' is Mr Wright talking about the paper he owned and completly biased, this should be removed (at best),"hate filled right wing gutter press" would be more factual (but some of those that read it have probably managed to crawl out of the cave in which they dewll and scrape their nuckles accross the floor to turn on a computer, so would revert that edit). --89.242.28.172 (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Your editorial position is noted. As is your literacy. Collect (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

As the resident shill/fanboy, please can you either find a decent source for the laughable 'middle market' status or remove it as it isn't appropriate. Also, I fail to see poor literacy in my previous comment, perhaps it's your lack of reading comprehension (probably the cause of the incredibly biased original reference), that is the problem.--89.242.28.172 (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Your rhetoric does not work on Wikipedia - the claim is sourced properly. Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

How is a quote by somebody about thier own newspaper is an unbiased reference? Doesn't Wikipedia:ABOUTSELF apply (I know it's not a direct match, but surely the core principle of taking a quote about something somebody owns as a valid quote is stupid). You can't dismiss the just because you love the daily mail, I'm not attacking the entire article just the phrase, 'Middle Market', either find a proper reference or it should be removed. I'm not even asking that we warn the user that the following article may contain unjustified hate and racism, just that if the article claims the Daily Mail is 'Middle Market', it finds a better source!--89.242.28.172 (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

In the source, Peter Wright is referring to the Mauil on Sunday, the newspaper he then edited. Not quite what is needed here. The Daily Mail is usually thought to be a "middle market" newspaper, and many more references confirming this detail could be found if necessary. The citation of comments by two left-wing journalists on this point should resolve the issue. Philip Cross (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

A very quick Google search brings up countless references characterising the Mail as mid-market, e.g. The Guardian, McNair's "News and Journalism in the UK", Cole & Harcup's "Newspaper Journalism", etc.

It is a description of market positioning (simplistically put, the paper is aimed at people who want something more serious-seeming than a red-top tabloid, but less heavy than a "quality" paper). Not a term of either praise or criticism, or a description of political position. Barnabypage (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The IP user coming on here is making some very bold claims which they have no evidence to support. Middle market is properly sourced is supported by a consensus of users. You can't go around making ridiculous remarks calling it "hate filled gutterpress" and "racist", these are simply YOUR opinions and not supported by any evidence. So please stop coming on here and insulting people and respect other people's comments. Just because YOU don't like the DM doesn't mean everyone hates it. It is one of the most popular newspapers in the UK, FACT. Thank you Christian1985 (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

1896

The Mail's long campaign of 1896 to 1905 is not mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.176.183 (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

RfC on adding substantial number of lawsuits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

A close was requested at WP:ANRFC, so here I am. The consensus here is against the inclusion of a full list of lawsuits. Several of the opposers are in favour of a shorter list of most significant cases, and several supporters appear to be able to live with that, so I would suggest that discussion continue along those lines. Alternatively, if I may be permitted to offer a suggestion of my own, a stand-alone list could be created if somebody believes the topic is significant enough to merit such. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Ought the list of lawsuits be greatly expanded, as listed above, for the reasons given in the posts suggesting them. 12:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC) 22:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

comments

I suggest that the purpose of the encyclopedia is to produce neutrally worded encyclopedia articles, and that trying to "expose" any person, place or thing to having their intent questioned in order to get "full justice" in any article is contrary to policy. I rewrote the RfC, though I still suggest that the reasoning explicitly presented is improper;

we are not doing this aspect of the Mail's modus operandi full justice

Seems on its face to be a bit askew of Wikipedia policy. Our task is not to right wrongs, but to produce an encyclopedia. Collect (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Came via RFC, so uninvolved in this dispute. I'm only going to deal with the first half of the RFC question "should the list be greatly expanded?" My answer: No, but maybe some addition is warranted. Hope I can help you call come to some consensus. Collect is right that this is about due/undue weight. Not every lawsuit the Daily Mail has been involved with (and certainly not only those that it lost) should be included in the article. But at the same time, don't try to force neutrality on a subject that doesn't warrant it (if the Daily Mail gets sued a bunch, it is ok to mention this). Pick which ones should be included based upon the amount of coverage they received in proportion to the total Daily Mail coverage. Sally Morgan case, for example, because it was weird appears to have gotten play in a lot of different media analyst publications (similar to the Rothschild case already in the article) and may warrant inclusion. The Andrew Miller case, in contrast, seems like a blip with no ripples really going anywhere. Rather than blanket adding cases, pick and choose which ones appear crucial to the coverage on the topic. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• I noticed this on Drmies Talk page, which I visit regularly in hopes of being enlightened by his good humor. Lawsuits should be included loosely based on the following criteria (a) if the settlement was for a substantial portion of the publication's revenues (b) if the lawsuit is famous, notable, unique, controversial, etc. in some way as determined by an abundance of source material and/or the strongest criteria (c)if the lawsuit is discussed in-depth in profile stories about the publication's overall history or (d) if it played a role in the company's history, established legal precedence or had a specific impact on things.

For example, I notice currently the last two sentences of this section having nothing to do with the Daily Mail and many of these are settlements for 30,000 in currency, which seems petty. Those for 400,000 may be worth including, but a 30,000 settlement could be included if it meets the other criteria, for example if it developed new case law that was influential in future lawsuits. In each case, we should have it in proper paragraph-style prose and enough context should be provided for the reader to understand why the lawsuit is significant.

A couple other things I notice on the flip side of things is the extensive awards list and list of editors, which I would characterize as equally undue of the opposite sort and mostly unsourced. Presuming the publication does not have a specific reputation for libeling subjects, my instinct would be to trim the lawsuits down to 2-3 of the most significant and merge with History, then trim the equally undue bulleted lists in other areas as well. CorporateM (Talk) 18:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• No lawsuit section. As per Collect above, ' Our task is not to right wrongs, but to produce an encyclopedia'. If any lawsuits meet the criteria given by CorporateM they might be considered for inclusion. I also agree that the awards list should go. 'The Sun', 'The Daily Express', and 'The Times' do not have either lawsuits or awards; 'The Guardian' has awards only. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• No lawsuit section here for a RfC, the encyclopedia should remain neutral. I also support the removal of awards, to make the article completely neutral. Wickedlizzie (talk) 11:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• • Suggesting that you are somehow remaining neutral by leaving out both lawsuits and awards presupposes that these two issues are in some way balanced and cancel each other out. If an award or a lawsuit meets pertinent notability criteria then it should be included. Whether a series of successful or unsuccessful lawsuits reflects anything else is for the reader to judge, omitting it for any other reason is a distortion.Mighty Antar (talk) 18:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Fine to mention individual lawsuits if they are genuinely significant to the history of the Mail and/or the British media in general, and if reliable sources can be found to give context to why they are significant. Looking at the list above, I truly doubt that four from a single year would be significant in those ways, and we should also be aware of the temptation of recency.

As for awards, the winning of an award is not all that significant; what it was won for might be. So, if the Mail has won a major award for a particular campaign, a new supplement, or what-have-you, we could mention the award in passing when mentioning that campaign or supplement, again if they are genuinely significant to the newspaper's history.

Worth stating once again that all major newspapers attract lots of lawsuits and win lots of awards; there needs to be significance well beyond their mere existence. Barnabypage (talk) 12:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• support Barnabypage there are certainly some lawsuits that the paper has been involved in that are important markers of its history/history of media litigation and representative of the mainstream views of its impact and reputation. There are many that are not and are merely muckracking. There are certain awards that are noteworthy in historical perspective that should be included, and many that are run of the mill ordinary business and should not be included. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support adding lawsuits - Here via Feedback Request Service and completely uninvolved. The list is a significant part of the history of the paper and should be included here, within reason. Not mentioning it at all isn't what I'd call encyclopedic. Jusdafax 03:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2014

Change political status from conservative to populist. 203.117.37.231 (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

If only you knew the discussions in the past -- "Conservative" was the clearest choice, and correlates with a political party in the UK. "Populist" does not seem sourced anywhere that I can tell. Collect (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Collect is right, The DM is not "populist" this is simply a POV label. The DM is Conservative in its support for the Conservative Party and its generally centre-right stance editorially. There are no reliable sources for the above claim. Please leave it as is. Christian1985 (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2014

That the political alignment be changed from 'conservative' to 'populist' because just conservative is too vague 218.186.15.10 (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 19:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and refused on the correct grounds that Conservative is a well-accepted and sourced allegiance. The Daily Mail is conservative both in its editorial style and its strong support for the Conservative Party. It is not "populist", that is a vague label, it is not true and not sourced. I support the refusal of this edit change. Thank you. Christian1985 (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)