WikiProject iconJournalism B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconConservatism B‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source

Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source Online encyclopaedia editors rule out publisher as a reference citing ‘reputation for poor fact checking and sensationalism’ It said: “Based on the requests for comments section [on the reliable sources noticeboard], volunteer editors on English Wikipedia have come to a consensus that the Daily Mail is ‘generally unreliable and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist’. Summarising the discussion, a Wikipedia editor wrote: “Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. An edit filter should be put in place, going forward to warn editors attempting to use the Daily Mail as a reference.”

Peter K Burian (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC) https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website[reply]

I agree that it needs to be added, but we don't need a long list. Several reasons that's not desirable, among them WP:UNDUE and also that the Huffpo article repeats what is in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Also it's inside-baseball stuff. Let's not go overboard please. Coretheapple (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Coretheapple I won't argue with you as to how much of the Huffpo article was necessary BUT, the content I added was not in the Wikipedia press release. The Huffpo person did a lot of work finding those examples on the Talk pages. None of the other news reports I saw mentioned concrete examples.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter K Burian (talk • contribs)
Ok, but the WP:UNDUE issue was my main concern. Coretheapple (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Coretheapple Keeping WP:UNDUE in mind, I added a few words to the brief content re: Huffpo to make the examples more readily understandable. Peter K Burian (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it necessary to have this in the lead? Seems to fail WP:Lead and WP:Undue to have this featured here, this is done nowhere else for any other publication. Marquis de Faux (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't belong in the lead but should be included in a general discussion of the perceived accuracy of the paper. Note too that recentism applies. We will have to see what the ban really means, whether it is extended to the other UK tabloids or whether it is dropped, in which case it would not worth be mentioning at all. TFD (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it does belong in the lead. It's a question of degree: on health, science and many other topics, it's not that the Mail slips up every now and then, or approaches topics from a conservative perspective many of their critics in the media disagree with. They get the facts really, really, really wrong (i.e. their ridiculous "does X cause cancer" scare stories, which run every other week and are never anything but a complete joke), and to an extent unusual for such a large-market newspaper (as opposed to aggregation shops like the downmarket end of Buzzfeed, which is at least honest about what they do). While I didn't take part in the discussion, then, I fully support its conclusions. I mean, let's be clear, the paper has published good articles (for example they've let Ben Goldacre, who's strongly criticised their health coverage, write a guest editorial) but that's despite, not because of, their general approach, and we can consider articles like that by recognised experts as if they'd been self-published. (And, to be clear to the people asking "where does this end", yes we should be putting other news sites on notice here. Publish more obviously hoax stories about how chocolate makes you lose weight and we might put you in the sin bin too.)
If they show signs of cleaning up their act I'm very happy to discuss this again. Blythwood (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anybody is arguing about the substance of the Daily Mail. The main question is whether or not a consensus reached by an oneline discussion panel is notable enough to be included in the lead section for a major newspaper. It certainly should be included in the body, but it seems to me like it fails WP:Lead and WP:Undue as well as WP:Recent. There is certainly no precedent for this. Marquis de Faux (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no real evidence here, other than prejudice. Most tabloids in the U.K. are sensationalist and many people will remember the lies published by the Daily Mirror about British soldiers in the Middle East. There is nothing really wrong with the Mail but there is hate directed at it because it leans to the right politically. Is the Sun or Mirror or Star banned? Are the state owned media of extremist states banned? It's too easy to cry "fascist" but this is how the Wikipedia editors are behaving. A handful of editors reacting to their own regressive, prejudice, determining what millions can read. Just goes to prove....if you want a reliable, accurate encyclopaedia, don't read Wikipedia. Kentish 14 February 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.62.161 (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be mentioned because per weight it received a lot of coverage. But it is not very important to the overall topic and therefore does not belong in the lead. Perhaps include in a section on the general reliability of the paper, adequately sourced of course, which could be mentioned in the lead. TFD (talk) 02:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While Britain does not have press censorship in real terms, there is a Press Complaints body which can be complained to and the law as a last resort. Britain has an adversarial press where most are deemed either right or left wing, and the left wingers like The Guardian can be guaranteed to launch attacks on right wing political parties and the right wing press, such as the Daily Mail though right wing newspapers almost never attack left wing newspapers. According to "newsworks", The Guardian has a daily circulation of 156,176 while the Daily Mail has a daily circulation of 1,511,357. That shows who the British people trust the most.(124.122.183.10 (talk) 08:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Editors

who are the 'editor(s)' who decided on behalf of entire Wiki community that the DM was an unreliable source? Someone trying to get a foot in the door at Conservative HQ? 78.147.137.165 (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)puzzled democrat78.147.137.165 (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion can be found here. Coretheapple (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth adding a link to said discussion to the talk page template at the top? It's hot news right now, but when the brouhaha has died down it would be useful to be able to either point editors to the discussion, or to have it easily reached. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is closed. The decision to ban the DM is nothing to do with accuracy; rather it is the political bias of the unelected Wikipedia editors. Very similar to the Nazi book burning period. The editors don't like the Mail, so they have banned it and have decided to hide behind claims of "inaccuracy". Kentish 14 February 2017 GMT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.62.161 (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth paragraph of the OTHER CRITICISMS section says, "users of the English Wikipedia rejected the Daily Mail as being a reliable source for its articles, deeming its reporting to be "generally unreliable"." Read literally, that would be true if only two (2) users rejected the Daily Mail. It would also be literally true if each and every user rejected the Daily Mail. That wording is, therefore, in desperate need of re-writing to remove the ambiguity and false impression of how important that event was. 97.120.31.14 (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is innaccurate

The last paragraph of the lead is factually wrong, even if it summarizes the source accurately. The "panel of contributors" did not conclude that the Daily Mail could not be used. The panel of contributors participated in the consensus process, which a group of closing administrators then assessed. The source also describes this process as a "vote," which is clearly at odds with WP:NOTVOTE. What we have a is a paragraph pulled from a source pulled from comments on Wikipedia, placed squarely in the lead. This is poor encyclopedic form. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, seems to me like it also fails WP:Lead and WP:Undue as well as WP:Recent. There is certainly no precedent for this. It should not be in the lead. Marquis de Faux (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes as well to all 3. I will attempt to improve the lead. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's well sourced. Unless you can present sources to the contrary, the removal is against policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well sourced does not merit its inclusion in the lead. The entire article is well sourced. Why not put the entire history, all notable stories, all awards, all related lawsuits in the lead? Tell me why a consensus reached by an online discussion panel is notable enough to be included in the lead section for a major newspaper. It certainly should be included in the body, but it seems to me like it fails WP:Lead and WP:Undue as well as WP:Recent. There is certainly no precedent for this, and other editors seem to agree. Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First, two folks in a new discussion is not "talk page consensus". Second ... you're actually right. I thought this was being removed from the body, my bad for not paying attention. I agree this is not lede material.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There were at least 6 different folks in a discussion about this if you scroll up. Thanks for recognizing mistake though. Marquis de Faux (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Enemies of the People

Under "Criticism," the Mail's actions are headed "Homophobia accusations."

That may be bad enough, but it is surely far from being the worst line of criticism about that headline and article, which was an attack on the independence of the judiciary and hence on the British democratic system.

The judges are also variously portrayed as "Blair's Pal," and having "... a record of displaying short-tempered impatience,"

Unfortunately there is some lack of precision in the current Wikipedia article on this: the references do not support the points that are being made, and the Daily Mail Online in fact still refers to one judge as being 'Openly Gay' on its site today http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3903436/Enemies-people-Fury-touch-judges-defied-17-4m-Brexit-voters-trigger-constitutional-crisis.html

Citing the supposed sexual orientation of the judge was just one of several devices to undermine the authority of their judgement because the Mail didn't like it, not just or even for 'anti-gay motives.'

It is the revelatory and ad hominem nature of the Mail's attack that caused most offence, and concern that any argument would have been considered if it helped to denigrate the individuals who carried out their duty to uphold the Law: individuals who are prevented from responding, and definitely won't sue.

Thus there is a strong case that the headline here should be 'Sedition' or at least 'Attempt to Undermine Constitutional Judgement by Personal Attack on Judges,' but, lest those invite unnecessary controversy, may I suggest that at least some supported commentary along the lines of my two prior paragraphs be added here, as they are indeed the criticisms that have most concerned observers about the way the Mail has gone about promoting its view.

In fact the Mail's tactics here here have become further important mobilisers of the argument against press self-regulation, especially self-regulation of the press by the Mail's editor and his appointed successors.

Amusingly the Mail's online article today includes the phrase, "The judge who has threw a spanner in the works yesterday...," which offer lots of scope for criticism in its own right.

Atconsul (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking court judgments is not sedition, at least not under UK law. TFD (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear it. Apart from anything else it's one unfettered aspect of free speech that is probably uncontroversial. It's the personal attacks that are subversive, even if not an offence in law, an offence against international reason. Atconsul (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTAFORUM Marquis de Faux (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2017

I have noticed the article includes very small, very very basic, very contemporary references to homophobic, racial, and sexist accusations against the Daily Mail. Given the newspaper's output spans decades and decades, and given there are numerous historical grievances against it, I believe these sections ought to be expanded to well beyond - only, currently - the past year or two. These sections give no impression whatsoever of the scale of abuse (or rather, the accusations of cultural abuse and litigation) that the Daily Mail is renowned and indeed infamous for. BeanHash (talk) 12:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)— BeanHash (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I note that the requester is a WP:SPA, and that the amount of negative material in this article is already very substantial. Piling Ossa on Pelion is unwise and contrary to policy. Collect (talk) 12:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP (talk • contribs) 12:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Fail/Wail redirects

There are currently a number of perjorative redirects up for discussion. I was initially against keeping, but having read about Template:R from non-neutral name, it seems fair. And there's a The Grauniad redirect.

That The Grauniad links to a specific section that deals with it. Should there not be such a section here? If these names are significant, and if they appear in RS, there should be a short, neutral sub-section here, possibly under criticisms. Certainly, there's a Torygraph redirect, and The Telegraph mentions it. Thoughts? Bromley86 (talk) 09:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

Please add a hatnote to WP:DAILYMAIL

((selfref))

-- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 04:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Categories