Talk:Daily Express

message: I know language like 'far-right' or 'extreme-right' might be seen by some as a little tendentious, but 'right wing' doesn't seem to me to be a particularly accurate description of the paper. Its unswerving traditionalism and virulently anti-muslim and anti-immigrant line surely suggests that an alternative moniker should be found. Unless someone proposes a more neutral way of describing the paper, I would suggest changing it to 'far-right'. So maybe we should read wikipedia's article on chauvinism and think if the Daily Express editorial line can excape it's definition.
That said, why should the hard-right always be allowed to set the agenda? For there seems to be little wrong with expressing a strong opinion - if that opinion has a reasonable degree of evidence/Practical Reasoning to back it up. And, if a 'newspaper' is known for having extreme or far-right opinions, then might not that rag be called 'extreme-right wing'?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.231.52 (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Political allegiance

message: From looking through the Mail Watch website, and from glancing over the front pages most days, I get the impression the "35" front page features is during 2006 alone?  The Mail Watch website catalogues about 25 (depending on some interpretation, whether it is supposed to be a complete record, and my ability to count). Halsteadk 23:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Diana obsession

message: "...as well as the recent addition of "10 pence cheaper than the Daily Mail - and ten times better" due to recent price cuts."
I don't have a copy of the express with me to verify that it says this, but I know that this is incorrect. The express is 40p, the mail is 45p. So, there's only a 5p difference. Haddock420 21:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Price

message: Under this heading is the paragraph:
For some, the paper has been considered homophobic, which may be because the paper's new advertising tagline is "The paper that stands for real values and gives you real value for money". These "real values" include "traditions, progress, good manners, family fun".
This doesn't make any sense. People don't think the Express is homophobic because the paper's advertising tagline is "the paper that stands for real values" etc, they think it's homophobic because of the content of its articles.
-- Markbrough 22:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Real Values

message: The article could probably do with some details on the famous buildings the Daily Express has occupied in the past, including the art-deco Fleet Street building , Ludgate House on Blackfriars Road, and the current Northern & Shell Building. DWaterson 17:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I thought it was the "black glass Lubianka" that Private Eye used to call it. Fab building anyway. BTLizard 10:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The "Grey Lubyanka"

message: Is this an actual scan of a front cover? And if so, does anyone know the date? It just seems too perfect to be true...
:It's the Daily Express in a nutshell! NumberJunkie 14:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: What is the relationship (if any) between the website dailysnack.com.uk
and Daily Express?  PeterLinn 20:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Daily Snack is from Dirty Desmond's Northern And Shell outfit. --Oscarthecat 07:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Daily Snack

message: :Image:Express1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a rationale, but'm not quite sure what's expected. Is what I've written OK? Nick8325 19:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Express1.jpg

message: While the front page chosen is of course amusing, and illustrates the "criticism section" it does not appear to be a NPOV choice.... Rich Farmbrough, 07:30 14 September 2007 (GMT).
         
If it is an actual front page then surely it can't be NPOV- if you have an argument as to why that front page is considerably different to                    the norm then state it. 194.80.32.8 (talk) 05:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: Really should be coverage of price cutting, competitions, give-aways etc. OR at least a ref to another article. Rich Farmbrough, 08:08 14 September 2007 (GMT).
:I've added a reference to giveaways while updating the circulation figures. Barnabypage (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circulation wars 

message: I've updated the "Maddie Express" section. In my opinion this newspaper is disgusting. Myself and dozens of other people I know are getting thoroughly sick and tired of their constant, peculiar obsession with Madeleine McCann. 72 consecutive front page stories... how on earth is this justified?? It's like they're trapped in their own bubble of reality where nothing else happens. An asteroid could hit New York and wipe half the city out, and they'd still be showing Maddie as the front headline. Wjfox2005 09:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would still fail WP:OR. On Wikipedia we record the research that is carried out and reported by others (reliable sources). If you want to show that the Express is overdosing on Madeleine then you need to cite a reliable publication that says so. TerriersFan 00:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This extract from the page should not fail WP:OR as no analysis of the primary source has been made. The claim that X front pages have contained Maddie stories is entirely objective rather than subjective and, per Wikipedia's policy, is easily verifiable as the trusted source is the Express website which lists their front pages. Where this extract might fall down is on WP:NPOV, but NPOV would be satisfied by the inclusion of a counter-balancing viewpoint. It would however be hard to factor in undue weight as it would be impossible to gauge how many people disagree with this POV. I do however agree with it's inclusion in the article as even a short time Googling shows that a number of people agree with the sentiment. Even Maddie's father agrees that the constant headlines about every little thing don't help and he specifically singled out the Daily Express as a culprit. http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.1644291.0.i_dont_think_necessarily_having_newspaper_headlines_with_the_image_of_madeleine_being_thrust_on_to_people_every_single_day_helps_clearly_we_have_seen_irresponsible_reporting.php EarlyBird 02:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Helpful, thanks. I have restructured so that most of it is now OK. The final sentence remains not reliably sourced. However, I think it is factually wrong in any case (see the family comment in the 1st para) and would probably be best out. TerriersFan 01:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maddie Express 

message: :Image:Image-Express2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Image-Express2.jpg

message: Although this is a notable part of the paper's history, the current article appears to be slanted against the Express and looking at the case with the benefit of hindsight. Was it really appropriate for the other papers to "declare Adams guilty" even if he was? Billwilson5060 (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adams murder case 

message: Beaverbrook also discovered and encouraged a gifted editor named Arthur Christiansen, who showed an uncommon gift for staying in touch with the interests of the reading public.
I don't beleive this statement accords with the standards of Wikipedia. Without a reference, "gifted" and "uncommon gift" seem to be unsubstanciated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.41.254 (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsubstanciated sentence? 

message: Compare the text of the article with this:
It looks as if someone somewhere has been copying. Norvo (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source? 

message: I've just removed the entire "Further front-page themes" sections. It seems to be one of those Isn't It Funny sections, a collection of lots of anecdotes about Daily Express stories that seem ridiculous to a particular editor. Some of this could no doubt be added to other sections of the article, but only if actual secondary sources can be found to show that they are particular fixations. As it is, the section made the article look like an attack page. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further front-page themes 

message: I have deleted the 'Daily Express and Daily Mail' section. The section was poorly written, biased and completely trivial pointless information with no sources, it was simply POV. The only source was a completely irrelevant story about Muslims. This had no place in that section. It was simply trying to imply the Conservative Party is 'racist' which is a very false and offensive accusation. I have moved the circulation figures into the end of the 'Desmond era' section. If anyone has any issues please reply I will be happy to discuss. Christian1985 (talk) 20:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daily Express and Daily Mail 

message: Is Steve Rose, who does not have the notability to merit a WP article, notable as opposition to the Express's anti-immigration campaign? Mr Rose has less than 3,500 followers on twitter, compared to the 150,000 who signed the Express petition. Tátótát (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "A Huffington Post blogger" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Daily Express. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090815132414/http://www.asa.org.uk:80/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_46700.htm to http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_46700.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090815132502/http://www.asa.org.uk:80/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_46734.htm to http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_46734.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Daily Express. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/570952/Express-Newspapers-Chairman-Richard-Desmond-gives-1-3m-to-Ukip
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.blindveterans.org.uk/about-us/patrons-and-governing-body/founder/the-late-sir-arthur-pearson%2C-bt%2C-cbe/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160204161945/http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/preston-printing-firm-to-close-with-loss-of-91-jobs-1-7176031 to http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/preston-printing-firm-to-close-with-loss-of-91-jobs-1-7176031
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090429165318/http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=43409&c=1 to http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=43409&c=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Noticed the paper calling and writing about a softer Brexit since the takeover. Even publishing polls that call for a soft Brexit that it would have never published before the takeover.https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1030799/Brexit-news-UK-EU-Norway-style-deal-latest-Ireland-border-Theresa-May-no-deal-latest I am removing the 'hard' euroscepticism to just 'euroscepticism.' Reaper7 (talk) 12:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political shift to the left since Mirror Group take over and softening on Brexit stance 

message: For many years, regardless of numerous complaints directed to Google's 'help' pages on their news feed, Google News has liberally dumped the Daily Mail's proclivity for UFOs, aliens and supposed shocking revelations about (mostly US) astronauts, Neil Armstrong being particularly an object of conspiratorial fascination, on readers.
:eg. "UFO sighting: 'Alien cube ship' TEN TIMES bigger than Earth captured by NASA
::UFO hunters have shared NASA photos they believe show an enormous cubed alien craft exiting from the Sun. Daily Express Yesterday" --Google News, US edition, non-personalized. July 26, 2020
Furthermore, this curious alignment with what can only be in the DM's financial interest has persisted into the present zeitgeist among several social media giants to either suppress, or identify, fake news, Google News' own fact-check right sidebar openly exemplifying this current trend.
Google seems to be silent on the matter, and if anyone is aware of any reputable academic or journalistic secondary sources discussing the issue, I think it would be worthwhile to include them in a short section bringing it to the attention of readers of this article.JohndanR (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daily Mail/Exress·uk·co, Junk Science, and Google News' obsession therewith 

message: Not sure what the point of it is when it's stated the Mirror has only endorsed a non-Conservative party twice since World War 2. Makes for a very blue table. 2607:FEA8:3BA0:4220:B5:7C44:F9A8:AA3A (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Election endorsement table