Talk:Daily Mail/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV or not? 

message: # 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)
# 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)
replies: text: Why is everything in bold, it doesn't make your opinion more correct! Also please sign comments.137.138.46.155 14:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some criticisms

message: 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)
thread_title: First World War circulation plummet

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: I've corrected the POV sections but there is still pov disproportionality

message: 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)
thread_title:  When did it go tabloid? 

message: This article is riddled with left wing bile and needs a total overhaul. CalJW 22:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Neutrality - or lack of it

message: 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)
thread_title:  the people have a right to know 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Galloway?!? 

message: Is the nickname Daily Hate also an (intentional) Nineteen Eighty-Four reference? --El Zilcho 16:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe so. I'll stick something in to suggest it. Liam Plested 09:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: How about "Some believe that..." or "Some have compared..."? Barnabypage 12:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: "Some believe that some believe that..."? ;) Barnabypage 15:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Daily Hate" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Two things 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Emergency fix 

message: 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  tags and if its not cited in a while I'll move to talk page pending citation. - FrancisTyers · 23:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Daily Fail

message: surely there has to be a neutral criticism section.
How could you possibly criticse a paper that reports hot cross buns have been banned in case they offend! 172.142.15.232 17:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  criticism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Right or Far Right? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Why no criticism/controversies? 

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

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

message: Is the Daily Mail a reliable source? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reliable Source? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Help!! 

message: 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)
replies: text: I don't think we need a <EM>full</EM> 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)
thread_title:  Mail on Sunday  

message: 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  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)
thread_title:  References 

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

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

message: :Despite its anti-immigration stance the paper has however campaigned for failed asylum seekers from Zimbabwe to be allowed to stay in Britain. Of course, there is the argument that this campaign was mostly to protect white Zimbabweans against deportation.
The second part I assume would be easy to confirm, thus probably doesn't need anything to support it (for me anyway). But the second statement seems speculative/OR, and really needs to be assigned as a quote to someone notable, or otherwise sources/fixed. --86.148.73.228 20:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement needing support?