Talk:Daily Mail/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

New Editor + IPSO

Shouldn't it mention that there will soon be a new editor, Geordie Grieg? Not sure my wiki editing skills are up to this. Also I added a line to say that the newspaper is regulated by the organisation IPSO which is important to mention because the newspaper is criticised for accuracy in the piece. For non-UK readers, IPSO is a press regulator that can force the paper and website to print corrections to articles found to be inaccurate. Sources: [1]

[2]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Booklung (talk • contribs) 13:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Reference blanking under the edit summary "improve" is rarely a positive contribution. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Except of course in this case. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 14:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Why? You've left an unsourced statement behind. You've also removed IPSO, the acronym by which this organisation is always known. Neither of these are useful changes. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Note that my final changes were before Andy typed the above. the IPSO acronym took our readers to a disambig page, which isn't good enough for me, so I changed it to what is now extant. The end result is for me much better than linking our readers to a pdf written by those nasty people at the Snail. OK? Put the damn ref back if you want. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 14:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/jun/07/new-daily-mail-editor-to-be-geordie-greig
  2. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5393359/IPSO-upholds-Mohammed-Ahmed-complaint-against-Mail.html

plastic pollution campaign

The Daily Mail's long-running campaign against plastic pollution is worth mentioning as a long-running story. Perhaps it is worth doing a section on the paper's campaigns. Another one might be to stop the deportation of Gary McKinnon the hacker to the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Booklung (talk • contribs) 08:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

'Powder Keg Paris'

The Mail Online has deleted a lengthy news article focused on "illegal migrants" living in the Paris suburb of Saint Denis, after a string of apparent inaccuracies were highlighted on social media. Including the journalist,Andrew Malone, confusing the city of Saint Denis with the department of Seine Saint Denis.

The article has been removed and the journalist has quit twitter.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/aug/06/daily-mail-removes-powder-keg-paris-report-after-complaints https://www.buzzfeed.com/patricksmith/mail-online-deleted-an-article-about-illegal-migrants

Lordb (talk) 04:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Kalev Leetaru article

The fairest article I've read on the en.wp ban of the Daily Mail was written by

Snooganssnoogans: has just reverted
the article on the grounds that the Georgetown academic was not an RS. I have added his name to his arguments rather than Forbes' as a result. Does attributing the source of the criticism more precisely satisfy your concern Snoog?

Also, regarding whether the competing London-based paper The Guardian should be cited by name concerning what they report about their competitor, I think we'll just have to disagree. ~ 🐝 ~ SashiRolls t · c 17:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Translation: "The fairest article I've read" means "an article which agrees with what I believe".
Related:
--Guy Macon (talk) 03:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I think you should maybe do a little basic research. You are asking for tertiary confirmation about a secondary source. This is not needed by policy. Leetaru is an expert on digital matters, having published academic works about Wikipedia, in particular [1]. For passersby from the press, the article these guys want to delete is:
"In February 2017, the English Wikipedia banned the Daily Mail as an "unreliable source" to use as a reference in Wikipedia. Its use as a reference is now "generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist".[1][2] As reported by the Guardian, Support for the ban centred on "the Daily Mail's reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication".[1] Kalev Leetaru was more critical of the "general prohibition", observing that "a review of the comments advocating for a prohibition of the Mail yields not a single data-driven analysis performed in the course of this discussion[,]" and that Jimmy Wales' personal opinion on the matter was given to open the debate, which was subsequently decided by fifty users voting for the "ban" without public input or site-wide discussion.[3]

References

  1. ^ a b Jasper Jackson (9 February 2017). "Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source". The Guardian. Retrieved 11 February 2017.
  2. ^ George Bowden (9 February 2017). "Daily Mail Banned As 'Reliable Source' On Wikipedia In Unprecedented Move". The Huffington Post, UK. Huffington Post. Retrieved 9 February 2017. The decision was made by the site's community
  3. ^ Kalev Leetaru (2 October 2017). "What Wikipedia's Daily Mail 'Ban' Tells Us About The Future Of Online Censorship". Forbes. Retrieved 25 December 2018.
There is no policy-based reason that I would need to try to find a tertiary source that would please you talking about Leetaru's essay (there are several that come up quickly in Google, of course, but you would want to complain that they just aren't good enough for the Wiki-warriors, who, like Guy, wrote "Kill it! Kill it with fire!" when speaking of the Daily Mail. Of course, you won't accept anything from the Daily Mail, from Wikipedia sucks, from American Thinker, from other blogs, etc. Sending me searching through the dogpile for you is simply not warranted by policy. The insiders don't like to see their antics criticized by experts who haven't drunk the kool-aid, but it is admittedly pretty funny to see the lengths you guys will go to to keep all criticism of your info-wars hidden. SashiRolls t · c 01:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite

Support for the ban centred on "the Daily Mail's reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication". While many in the press expressed support, /* refs */ others were more critical of the process. Kalev Leetaru, for example, observed that Jimmy Wales' opinion on the matter was expressed early and that there was no "data-driven analysis" during the debate, which was decided by 50 users without seeking wider public input.

----
There were some problems with my original prose which I have tried to rectify. Note now there is a space where anyone who wants to can add a great list of articles to convince the readers how brave & daring those early Wikipedians were to kill The Mail with fire (if you prefer terms other than "the industry" or "the press" in the concessive clause, gnome away at it...)
Shouldn't we have the humility to post a little criticism of our !own disordered house? SashiRolls t · c 04:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
If the Daily Mail wants an editorial, let it print it themselves. If you want to
Right Great Wrongs, go elsewhere and start a blog. --Calton | Talk
12:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea what the Daily Mail wants. I just want people to stop trying to
Right Great Wrongs by banning the paper because they apparently didn't apologize enough to George Clooney. SashiRolls t · c
21:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

When is Forbes OK?

Good idea. I would suggest that any editorial (and any wikipedians who wander by) should study this claim about "notability" and compare the Snoog's fondness for other random contributors to the same publication as long as they are being unkind/unfair to one of his political enemies. Same paper, much less balanced op-ed by a little known guerrila-skeptic type columnist, but it was good enough for the Snoog: hypocrisy? or just "sloppy application of high sourcing principles?" SashiRolls t · c 02:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Pinging @
Snooganssnoogans: in case they want to explain what appears to be a double standard. SashiRolls t · c
02:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
The author of the Forbes piece is indeed a recognized expert, so I was wrong to remove it as a non-RS. Any text on the reaction to Wiki's DM ban needs to fulfill NPOV and "fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". Whether it meets
talk
) 09:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
@Aquillion:, as you have no doubt seen, Snoog has retracted their criticism of what you called a "random academic", but who is in fact an expert. I saw you were poking around in the lead saying positive things needed to be minimized and/or deleted because most of the article was criticism of the Daily Mail. Funny how that works. People keep deleting things, so the article remains unbalanced. Until we see this article (or one from the Daily Mail itself) about the wiki activists banning a national newspaper because they DONTLIKEIT we can conclude that their desire to "kill it with fire" has overwhelmed any minority desire at en.wp to see a more balanced presentation. Insofar as folks at RS/N say the paper isn't banned from en.wp, this part of the entry is, as you know, fake news (or the folks at RS/N are spreading false news). Either way, not a great look for a platform that deems itself sufficiently savvy to determine that a source is unreliable across the board based on isolated anecdotes.
I would appreciate that you take the time to decide which articles you would like to add to the rewritten version above to get your POV across most effectively, now that consensus is that Leetaru actually knows what he's talking about when it comes to en.wp. Best, SashiRolls t · c 21:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

While I agree the Forbes article is a reliable source, it is used here as a primary source for the opinions expressed by the author. So indeed you would need secondary sources to establish the notablity of the opinion. Furthermore, the author's complaint is mostly about the procedure, not whether the decision was correct. I think it is

coatracking
to devote space to that in this article.

My complaint about the section is that while it provides the reasons for the decision, it does not mention dissenting views. In terms of fairness, I liked Jon Sharman's article in The Independant, WIKIPEDIA BANS THE DAILY MAIL AS A SOURCE FOR BEING 'UNRELIABLE', which does this. (And not just because they mention me.) Otherwise there is no need to expand this section.

I'm surprised btw that the hundreds of otherwise super efficient Russian internet trolls decided to give the vote a miss.

TFD (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

HillBillyHolliday, now blocked, initiated the voting by citing "many people including Jimmy Wales". This was before the latter resigned from the GMG (§). That looks bad. I've read elsewhere that there were 58 votes, so I should probably add "around" to 50, but this too is a point of fact, not an opinion. Finally, the fact that there was no "data-driven analysis", I suppose you could argue is an opinion, but reading the 1st RFC it seems to me to be a cold, inert fact. When the Mail was banned on Virgin trains (search for train in the entry ^^) it turned into a bit of a PR snafu. Bref, were Wikipedia not the source for both DDG and Google's infoboxes as well as showing up in front page results on any given topic, all the while disclaiming legal responsibility for anything that shows up (t)here, because there is no (t)here (t)here, I probably wouldn't care.
Maybe the trolls were busy hacking Berliners? Who knows. We are all berliners. Interesting amplification of the WP:PRIMARY argument TFD, I'm not entirely convinced, but yes, other criticism of the other criticism might turn the wardrobe into a bit of a mess. I suppose it will need its !own page to run its merry course through the deletion process. :) SashiRolls t · c 23:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

1st RfC link

Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL 🍆 SashiRolls t · c 23:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Founder's Name Misspelled

The name of Harold Harmsworth is erroneously listed as "Harlod". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.54.37.209 (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Done! Thank you. TFD (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Article removed from Google searches

As of June 6, 2019, this article has been removed from Google searches, see this notice. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2019

change {{Portal|United Kingdom|Journalism|Conservatism}}

to

  • {{Portal-inline|Journalism}}
  • {{Portal-inline|London}}
  • {{Portal-inline|Conservatism}} 82.14.227.91 (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: No reason's been provided as to why inline's better. –Davey2010Talk 22:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2019

change {{Portal|United Kingdom|Journalism|Conservatism}}

to

  • {{Portal-inline|Journalism}}
  • {{Portal-inline|London}}
  • {{Portal-inline|Conservatism}}

Reasons

In order that the font and its size matches the other items in the list 82.14.227.91 (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done
talk
) 15:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2019

Founded in 1896, it is the United Kingdom's second-biggest-selling daily newspaper after The Sun.[4]

change to:

Founded in 1896, it is the United Kingdom's third-biggest-selling daily newspaper after Metro and The Sun.

and change the citation to:

https://www.economist.com/britain/2018/03/22/the-sun-is-toppled-as-britains-biggest-newspaper

Reasons

The original citation is from 2012, and apparently the Mail and The Sun have been overtaken since then. Note that I'm making a bit of an assumption here, as the full article is behind a paywall. I took the citation from the page from The Sun, and I'm just guessing that the Mail got pushed into third, instead of further down.

 Partly done: source changed. Melmann 17:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Correction for accuracy

BorkNein bloicked as a likely sock of user:Brian K Horton. Guy (help!) 15:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

One (1)

 

Please remove the words "widely criticised for its unreliability", as this claim is not backed up by the citations provided.

 Not done: The claims are supported by both sources and the article itself. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The sources at the end of the sentence do not contain this phrase, or anything that can be construed as the same sentiment in a different form of expression. If other sources exist that do support this claim, either in the article or not, please identify them.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I do not think I need to establish a consensus for these changes, precisely because they are manifestly not controversial. I do not believe I have said anything about the problems with the current text in these three requests that is not already widely accepted on Wikipedia - sources should be provided for claims like "widely criticised" at the end of the sentence they appear, and should directly support that claim with those or similar words. And the contents of sources for claims like "critics have ....." should be accurately reflected regarding who has said what according to the source provided. On all three counts, nobody has provided any proof that I am mistaken, for example by providing quotes or links, despite my clear request they be provided here after the first denial of the edits. Blind assertion is not proof I am wrong, nor is it evidence of the existence of a claimed controversy that should delay necessary edits.

If fellow editors disagree with your changes, then yes they are controversial no matter how right you think you are - the proper way to solve this would be to follow
WP:BRD and not split the discussion between 3 (or more) talk page threads but to centralise it in one place. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs
) 11:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the difference between controversy and stonewalling. The very fact you did not address this point, does not fill me with confidence that a discussion will be anything but a further exercise in stonewalling. But if you think it will be in Wikipedia's best interest to make it this hard for people to make uncontroversial changes, then so be it. I have given you every chance to understand my position. — Preceding

talk • contribs
) 12:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

It's been over 24 hours since I started the discussion below, and it hasn't attracted a single comment. As such, this is clearly an uncontroversial edit, otherwise you would have expected somebody to register their dissent by now, especially one or both of the two people who have already denied this request.

talk
) 17:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

See below. Even after I started a "discussion" as requested, literally nobody has objected to the extremely specific reasons I have given outlining why this request should be uncontroversial for any Wikipedia editor. That is a workable Wikipedia consensus, as far as I understand it (silence is consensus).

talk
) 18:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Two (2)

 

Please replace the words "There have been accusations of racism against the Mail" with "In 2012, a Guardian opinion piece by Ellie Mae O'Hagan claimed that "every now and then" the Mail publishes "thinly disguised racism", citing pieces by Rick Dewsbury, Richard Littlejohn and Samantha Brick, to persaude "angry liberals" of the merits of an economic boycott of the newspaper", as a more accurate reflection of the citation provided (said opinion piece).

 Not done: The claims are supported by both sources and the article itself. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

What is the relevance of this reply please? I did not say the text does not support the source (although it is correct to say it does not support the plural use of "accusations", unless meaning number of instances not critics, in which case the reason for the change still stands). Please address the reason given for the correction. If other sources exist that would justify the use of the plural, either currently in the article or not, please identify them.

Three (3)

 

Please replace the words "Critics accused the Mail of unnecessarily highlighting the judge's sexual orientation due to anti-gay motives" with "The editorial for The Observer newspaper on the ruling, in condemning the "hard Tory Brexiterrs and their accomplices in the lie factories of Fleet Street" said in reference to the Mail's piece, "some of these sleaze-peddlers even dipped into homophobia", as a more accurate reflection of the contents of the citation provided for this claim.

 Not done: The claims are supported by both sources and the article itself. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

As above, what is the relevance of this reply please? I did not say the text does not support the source (although it is also correct to say it does not support the plural use of "critics"). As above, please address the reason given for the correction. If other sources exist that would justify the use of the plural, either currently in the article or not, please identify them.

WP:SIG and sign your comments in future. I do not agree with your suggested change but like you I fail to understand the comment by Chaheel Riens that "The claims are supported by both sources and the article itself". I actually looked at the cited source and failed to find any support for the sentence, so maybe the problem is real. BowlAndSpoon inserted the first version mentioning what Daily Mail said about a "gay" judge citing rt.com and Collect removed the cite, then BowlAndSpoon changed to a cite of an Observer editorial on guardian.com, which lacks specific criticism of Daily Mail anti-gay motives. Unless the support is in ft.com which is cited after a later sentence (and which I can't read), some appropriate choices are cite rt.com, or find where Daily Mail said it and cite Daily Mail, or remove the sentence and anything dependent on the original cite. Peter Gulutzan (talk
) 19:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
The Observer editorial does contain a sentence of specific criticism of alleged homophobia, hence my proposed change, to better reflect its contents. I don't know what is in the FT piece either, but nothing you've said above leads me to believe it was added to support the claim. I doubt using RT or the Mail itself will be acceptable, given both are considered unreliable by Wikipedia editors.
talk
) 14:09, 4 July 2020 (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.

Discussion of "widely criticised for its unreliability"

BorkNein bloicked as a likely sock of user:Brian K Horton. Guy (help!) 15:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Please indicate with a yes, no, or other, to each statement, whether you agree with the following statements....

1. Wikipedia has a duty to ensure the claim "widely criticised for its unreliability" is backed by at least one source. This is based on the principle that statements made in Wikipedia articles are meant to be verifiable.

2. That those source(s) should be provided at the end of the sentence where this claim appears. This is based on the principle that statements that are likely to be challenged, should be sourced with an "inline citation".

3. That those source(s) should contain the words "widely criticised for its unreliability" or words to that effect. This being based on the principle that Wikipedia editors are not allowed to draw their own conclusions from sources, for example by taking a handful of criticisms in sources, and claiming these represent widespread criticism.

4. If these three tests are not met, the statement either needs to be appropriately reworded if not removed entirely, without delay. This is based on the principle that the burden of proof for any claim that appears in Wikipedia, rests on those wishing to have it included in Wikipedia. — Preceding

talk • contribs
) 12:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Prevention of accuracy Presumably related to the comment above, but I am not sure why my two other attempts to make this article more accurately reflect the sources, have been similar swiftly rebuffed. The explanation merely says "rv SPA".

talk
) 18:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:SPA - you have shown no interest in any other area of the project, not even a desire to find out what "SPA" might mean. Chaheel Riens (talk
) 19:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, thank you for the link, that being a very crucial part of being able to know what SPA means. On current evidence, I am not sure whether it would make any difference at all if I did show interest in any other area, and if it did, I don't think that would reflect very well on Wikipedia.
talk
) 20:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Note that the above exchange was moved and reformatted by Guy Macon. If there was a better place for it, I do not think it was here, but I don't really want to argue over such minutiae, I only want it noted that he is moving and reformatting comments that were not his (and as far as I know, he is meant to at least make note of such alterations of the record, so that others are not misled).

talk
) 15:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

"Literally the first source says this"

With nobody showing any interest in this discussion, I went ahead and removed the text for being unsupported by the sources given, on the basis that silence is consensus. This was swiftly undone by someone claiming that "literally the first source says [the Mail has been widely criticized for unreliability". If that person means [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website 

this Guardian piece], I think it is rather obvious it does not literally say that, and the closest it comes to saying anything like it, is merely quoting Wikipedia editor's personal opinion. If nobody objects, then in 24 hours I will attempt to make this edit again. 
talk
) 17:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Please don't be tendentious - David Gerard (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your point.
talk
) 18:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:N). But, just to make it clearer, I've added a second source that highlights its unreliability. — Czello
18:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Neither The Guardian piece, nor the the Media Fund source you just added, supports this claim. As in, they do not state, neither literally or in so many words, that "the Mail has been widely criticized for unreliability". The Guardian piece only supports a claim like "a majority of Wikipedia editors (and Jimmy Wales) think the Mail is unreliable" and the other source only supports a claim like "the Mail received the most sanctions from the press regulator IPSO in 2019". It seems rather obvious you are drawing conclusions that are not in these sources, and that is not allowed, as I have explained above. If you want Wikipedia to make this claim, you need to actually find a source that actually says it, or words to that effect (so as to avoid plagiarism).
talk
) 19:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Concensus is clear

It's been well over a week since I was asked to entertain the idea that removal of "widely criticized for its unreliability" from this article is a controversial edit that must obtain a consensus before being made. I have done as requested, and fully laid out my case above, and it is now clear that of the only two people who have opposed this edit with respect to its actual merits (as opposed to procedural objections) neither has done enough to succeed. My argument is strong because it correctly applies Wikipedia policy, which is pretty clear on the matter. The two objector's arguments are weak. Chaheel Riens is weakest, since all he has offered is the simple blind assertion that "The claims are supported by both sources and the article itself" (see the section for Correction for accuracy One), and he has flatly refused to explain what he means by this vague statement, either by identifying or quoting these sources. Czello's argument is only slightly stronger in the sense he has actually tried to explain himself (see the section above), but it is precisely these explanations that reveal he is completely mistaken, and hasn't understood the relevant policies at all.

talk
) 17:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid you don't quite understand how consensus is gauged here. Hint: it's not up to a protagonist to judge it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the hint. I am disappointed that you can't even do me the courtesy of replying to relevant posts on your talk page before acting. Hint: that is considered rude. To repeat that point, for such a small dispute, it is considered perfectly acceptable to let the protagonists work out what is and is not a consensus backed edit, by a mixture of discussion and direct editing. You have interfered with that process, which makes your claimed stance of being a neutral observer, look very unconvincing. Especially as you have now obstructed this change more times than anyone else, including the two people with merit based opposition - twice declining the requested edit, and twice more rejecting the actual edit. Hint: that might be considered disruptive. You are not giving Chaheel Reins or Czello a dignified means of withdrawal, and I think they deserve a better explanation than this sort of condescension. If you force me to embarass them by formalising the weakness of their arguments or otherwise seeking their explicit acquiescence, I can do so, but I hope they understand this was never my intention.
talk
) 18:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
When multiple people revert the same edits you keep making, consensus is against you and you're being tendentious - David Gerard (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I beg to differ. When people are reverting without offering any explanation, and seem to be quite deliberately refusing to engage with the discussion on the merits of the edit that they can see with their own eyes has been opened, that is considered disruptive. As it stands, only three people have addressed the merits, and it is one strong argument versus two weak ones. That is a consensus.
talk
) 18:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
"If you force me to embarass them by formalising the weakness of their arguments" -- Honestly dude, with comments like these it sounds like you're
WP:CHILL. — Czello
19:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
WP:1AM seems to apply here - David Gerard (talk
) 08:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Does it? As I have already explained, from where I sit, it is two against one on the actual merits of the edit, all other objectors bringing merely procedural opposition, including yourself. Do you disagree? Even if you do, it's still only three against one on the merits, and I can't see how your argument will be any stronger than that which has previously been attempted by the other two, one of whom seems to want no further part in defending it, the other also having quickly given up. It is actually quite surprising to realise there are far more people objecting on mere procedural grounds, than on content policy grounds. It is being implied by those prodecural objectors that there is way more support for this text than has actually been shown thus far, and that it would have been far stronger than it actually is. I will take that page's advice therefore, and try to find some means of ensuring those who have a view and are prepared to make it known, with their words, are compelled to actually state it, so it can be properly tested for policy compliance. After all, simply asking them to join the discussion, hasn't seemed to have brought them to the table.
talk
) 12:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Request for comments

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This RfC is a clear violation of
WP:RFCNEUTRAL and should be relisted with neutral wording. --Guy Macon (talk
) 14:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Given it is a claim that has the

talk
) 13:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Mail Online demands browser warning U-turn". BBC News. 23 January 2019.
  2. ^ "Daily Mail has a pernicious, lying agenda, says Jon Snow". The Independent. 26 June 2012.
  3. ^ "Thatcher ally accuses Daily Mail of 'telling lies' about Ralph Miliband". The Guardian. 2 October 2013.
  4. ^ Nuccitelli, Dana (13 February 2017). "This is why conservative media outlets like the Daily Mail are 'unreliable'". The Guardian.
  5. ^ Eaton, George (25 August 2011). "The Daily Mail lies about today's immigration figures". New Statesman.
  6. ^ "Protest against Daily Mail to 'stop the lies' on benefits". New Statesman.
  7. ^ "Clooney blasts Daily Mail for "dangerous" lies about his fiancée that "exploit religious differences"". New Statesman. July 2014.
I'm afraid that isn't the issue at all. Nobody is disputing examples of criticism can be found, the issue is the lack of any source being willing to state in their voice that the prevalence of examples means the Mail has been "widely criticized", or words to that effect. "Widely noted for" would simply be saying the same thing, because why note it, if not to criticise? It is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide if what they see in a simple Google search constitutes widespread criticism, precisely because they are not qualified to do so. They are not reliable sources, they are meant to only reflect what reliable sources say. And if none of them make this claim, or words to that effect, they will have to live with the fact they must wait until Ben Goldacre for example, decides he wants to put his name to a piece that says it. So far, he has not done so (unless you are claiming he has done so in one of those links, and if you are, please identify which one, and what passage you think would support this text). Merely providing ever more sourced eamples to persuade the reader the conclusion drawn by Wikipedia editors who want Wikipedia to make this claim, is frankly not enough, for the policy based reasons I have already stated.
talk
) 13:00, 12 July 2020 (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.

The question

(The above heading was added by me at a later date)

talk
) 17:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Other than blindly asserting it, Guy Macon has provided no actual explanation for why he believes the RfC question is not neutrally worded, nor what is apparently wrong with the formatting. As such, these concerns, if they are valid, are simply not going to be fixable without further details, neither by myself, or anyone else for that matter. It also seems to stretch credulity that a two sentence statement is not "brief".

talk
) 15:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

If you insist on posting an RfC, feel free to use the exact format from [2] but with your name on it instead of mine.
The question you wrote is extremely biased, Examples: "Given it is..." (making a claim instead of asking a brief neutral question), "has the potential to cause harm" (coming to a conclusion instead of asking a brief neutral question), "adequately sourced" (that's for the RfC to decide, not for you to assert in the question), "such that readers are not being improperly asked to draw their own conclusions" (editorializing), and "if you think it can, please provide proof" (argumentative).
My proposed question ("Request for Comment: Should the lead of this article say 'widely criticized for its unreliability'?") is brief and neutral. It is also properly formatted (containing a survey subsection, posted as a top-level comments), which yours was not.
You are allowed to make your arguments, but you are only allowed to make them in your !vote, not in the RfC question. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
I used the format given in the example, so I don't know where you got the idea your format is the correct one. Where did it come from? More importantly, your complaints about the question, do not seem to take into account that they are all part of a question, not any statement of fact by me, except perhaps "given....". Are you, therefore, claiming that the above people have been misled by this claim, that perhaps this statement is not likely to cause harm and be open to challenge? And therefore they just didn't realise I was trying to deceive them? I posed the question I did, in the way that I did, because it is important to provide all of that context, which was all derived from the relevant content policies it links to. These are requirements, they are not optional. If someone says something appears in a source as part of their answer here, they are required to link to it, and quote the passage. Well, they are not required to, but you cannot dispute the fact they will be wasting their time if they do not do so, because I will appeal if their opinions are attributed any weight at all by the closer. It can only be argued it is not neutral, if it can be shown the portions you want to remove were either not relevant, or give improper emphasis to one aspect of policy to the detriment of another. Is this your position? If so, you haven't explained it very well. Your alternative question is brief, sure, but it doesn't address the stated concern, which is not whether it should be said, but whether it is adequately sourced. I don't want to deny anyone thir right to include it, if that is what they want Wikipedia to do, but there are content policies they need to follow if they want to, as far as I can determine anyway. And I am afraid it simply isn't possible to ask if something is adequately sourced, without saying those exact words. I asked the question neutrally, precisely because I did not "assert" in the question that it is not adequately sourced.
talk
) 15:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
I believe that Guy Macon is correct that the wording was not neutral, and I believe that it is too late to apply the WP:RFC advice "Do not close the RfC just because you think the wording is biased" because there were already several replies. The close looks legal. Maybe this question would have been better: Is the sentence beginning "The Daily Mail has been widely criticised for its unreliability ..." adequately sourced?Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
That would still be a biased question according to Guy Macon, because you are still "asserting" it is not adequately sourced.
talk
) 17:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
BorkNein, pPlease stop stuffing words in my mouth. You suck at mindreading. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Your words were perfectly clear: "The question you wrote is extremely biased, Examples: ... "adequately sourced" (that's for the RfC to decide, not for you to assert in the question)"
talk
) 02:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Peter Gulutzan, the wording "Is the sentence beginning 'The Daily Mail has been widely criticised for its unreliability ...' adequately sourced?" would be acceptable from a standpoint of being brief and neutral, but would hurt BorkNein's chances of getting the result he desires compared to "Should the lead of this article say 'widely criticized for its unreliability'?" With my wording a person answering could say no based upon sourcing, weight, NPOV, liking it in the body but not in the lead, or any number of other reasons. With your wording the a person could !vote that it is adequately sourced despite wanting to remove it for some other reason. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Okay. I expect I'll be happy with whatever words others agree on, if any. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Since I was the person who asked the question, perhaps you can confine your comments to proposing a question that asks what I want to ask, but satisfies your idea of neutrality. That is, after all, the reason you gave for closing the RfC early, a non-neutral question. I have absolutely no interest in where the statement is placed in the article, or how to reword it if people think the statement itself is not neutral, I am only concerned with whether it is a made up Wikipedia fact with those appended sourced examples only being there to give the impression it isn't made up, or if this is genuinely how Wikipedia editors think a claim like that should be sourced. I don't think you can get around the fact thet asking people if something is adequately sourced requires asking them if it is adequately sourced, and that is a perfectly neutral question, but I am willing to give you a chance to prove this really was your concern.
talk
) 02:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
For one thing it seems to be claiming (based on the first hyperlink) that the statement is a
WP:PLAGIARISM is also head-scratching. Basically it feels like this RFC was written to presume several points that are actually under dispute and, therefore, is non-neutral, especially when it could have been written in a far more neutral 'should we say "widely criticized for its unreliability" in the lead' or 'is this statement adequately sourced' without all the arguments that presume key points at issue. --Aquillion (talk
) 23:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
I am happy with any suggested question wording that let's us move on to the important work of establishing whether there is a consensus for the idea that "has been widely criticized for its unreliability" is such an uncontroversial and widely reported fact that it apparently wouldn't need sourcing at all, never mind any concerns regarding what any sources that might be provided actually have to say. I am just frankly scratching my head, given the early results of the RfC, that anyone now commenting here about the question, really thinks there is any form of replacement question that is going to reveal to all those above, that I totally tricked them into wrongly believing this is a potentially harmful claim that Wikipedia has to source with inline citations, and that these sources would have to actually say the claim, or words to that effect. I mentioned plagiarism, because some editors might choose not to lift a whole sentence word for word, and instead choose a form of words that says the same thing. That being distinct from choosing words that inappropriately draws conclusions from sources which aren't to be found anywhere in the sources.
talk
) 02:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

What do people think of this as a proposed question.....

1. What are the appropriate

sourcing requirements
for the statement "widely criticized for its unreliability" that is currently in the article? 2. Are they currently being met? 3. If not, is that fixable, and if so, how?

I was going to leave it at 1., but I realised that doesn't really get anyone anywhere, unless you ask 2. and 3. I can't see any bias here, nobody is being misled by any scary talk of harmful content or inline citations or original research, and it satisfies outliers like Aquillion, because of course you can answer 1. as "None" and "n/a" for 2. and 3. if that is your actual interpretation of content policy. I don't think it is the correct interpretation, by about a million miles, but I'm happy for the moment to live in a world where, like, that's just my opinion.

If there are no serious objections in the next 24 hours, I intend to post another RfC, using this as the question, with the format I used above, but as a separate top level section at the bottom of the page with the title "RfC: sourcing of "widely criticized for its unreliability", because, well, I don't exactly know why, but I can't be bothered to waste another day arguing over such minutiae, just in case there is actually a genuine problem caused by doing it my way.

But creating a new top level section at the bottom does rather beg the question, given the separation it creates, as if it were some brand new issue with no relation to prior recent discussions, would it be appropriate to draw respondent's attention to the now closed RfC? If so, how? I am also assuming it is OK to ping all those who commented in the first RfC?

talk
) 18:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Be sure that you read and understand Wikipedia:Canvassing before pinging a bunch of people. Free clue: many editors have pings disabled, which is why the usual method is a neutral notice of the talk page of everyone who commented on the previous RfC. Wikipedia:Canvassing explains how to do this under "appropriate notifications" --Guy Macon (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2020 (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.

How to write a properly formatted RfC with a brief and neutrally worded question

Here is how it should be formatted:

==Request for Comment: Should the lead of this article say "widely criticized for its unreliability"?==
{{rfc|media}}
Should the lead of this article say "widely criticized for its unreliability"? ~~~~
===Survey===
* '''Yes.''' Example yes !vote. ~~~~
* '''No.''' Example no !vote. ~~~~
===Threaded discussion===
Example threaded comment. ~~~~
:Example reply. ~~~~

The above wikimarkup would create the following on this page: (section headings converted to bold)

Request for Comment: Should the lead of this article say "widely criticized for its unreliability"?

[ Standard box explaining what an RfC is ]
Should the lead of this article say "widely criticized for its unreliability"? [Signature of person posting the RfC]

Survey

  • Yes. Example yes !vote. [Signature of user A]
  • No. Example no !vote. [Signature of user B]

Threaded discussion

Example threaded comment. [Signature of user C]
Example reply. [Signature of user D]

Notes:

  • BorkNein is free to post the above as a new RfC. Or he could ask me and I would post it for him with his name on it.
  • The above places the RfC is in a new section, not in a subsection of an existing thread. That's the main formatting problem with the closed RfC.
  • Unlike the closed RfC the above question is brief and neutrally worded.
  • The above has subsections for a survey of !votes and for threaded discussion. This works better than cramming replies in between the !votes.
  • BorkNein could put all of the arguments he tried to stuff into the question and any additional arguments into a yes !vote or into a comment in the threaded comments section.
  • Other editors could do the same. For example, in the discussion above Aquillion wrote "For one thing it seems to be claiming (based on the first hyperlink) that the statement is a WP:BLP violation and that the Daily Mail is therefore a living person - otherwise the 'potential to cause harm' bit is nonsensical; by definition a widely-accepted truth does not cause harm." That's the sort of thing he could put into a yes !vote or into a comment in the threaded comments section.

--Guy Macon (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

For the second time, I got my format from the example in the page that says what an RfC is, and if it's all the same to you, I am going to stick with it, since I didn't notice any problems with it, and actually see some benefit to it, compared to this suggestion. The issue of the neutrality of the question, is of course already being discussed above.
talk
) 02:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
No you didn't. Ignoring the non-neutral question an the fact that you appear to be unable to count equals signs when using an example,
WP:RfC clearly points you to guidance with examples: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting
.
You might want to consider the fact that you, a new
WP:SPA editor who has been here 2 weeks and has edited Wikipedia 67 times (only 13 times to articles) are lecturing an editor who has been here 14 years and has made 50,000 edits on how to edit Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk
) 03:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
I got the format from WP:RFC. I may not have copied the example there exactly, but I remain bemused at your insistence that my formatting choices have actually caused "problems". What problems? Since we are ignoring the issue of the question here, I have seen absolutely nothing so far that would require the cessation of an RfC becuase I formatted it as "===Request for comments===". As /Example formatting makes clear, not following your other preferences, is not a problem. You acting as if your 14 years and 50,000 edits means I am required to follow your other preferences, is a problem. You insulting me, is a problem.
talk
) 10:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
BorkNein, you can of course stick to your preferred method of dealing with things - but it will get you nowhere, and alienate any possibility of support and sympathy. Pretty much like Guy, I'm bemused at your insistence of correcting and arguing with an editor who is making great (and frankly unnecessary) effort to help you. (Also took the liberty of correcting Guy's WL typo for the SPA link.) Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
We all have our own ideas regarding what is helpful and productive I guess. Answering questions not exactly being your idea of a productive afternoon on Wikipedia, or so it seems.
talk
) 10:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Borknein, are you having a good time here? Do you have a good sense of using your time well? Any accomplishments to note (e.g. on your user page)? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
WP:DUCK for Brian K Horton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Guy (help!
) 16:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Will someone just do this instead of leaving a discussion half-finished? Hzh (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2019

165.225.38.203 (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The article states that "The Daily Mail is a British daily middle-market[2] [3] newspaper", although it should state "The Daily Mail is a racist, British daily middle-market[2] [3] newspaper " as the entire public has observed its biased attacks on Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. The article should be updated for accuracy. Thank you.

 Not done: Words such as "racist" should be avoided. aboideau talk 13:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

'Widely criticised'

Wiki page says at the moment: 'The Daily Mail has been widely criticized for its unreliability, as well as printing of sensationalist and inaccurate scare stories of science and medical research[11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

Do these references really support the 'widely criticised' claim for accuracy - three out of five come from one author, Ben Goldacre, and another is supported by a reference to a story saying Wikipedia considers it unreliable (is this encyclopaedic?), and an Oxford University professor who is a blogger giving a self-created 'Orwellian Award for Journalistic Misrepresentation' to the Mail. Incidentally, Goldacre criticises many other newspapers and magazines for their science journalism, including the newspaper he used to work for, the Guardian, as well as the Telegraph, and even the New Scientist. The 'journalism award' is was based on one nomination - by an anonymous blogger called Neurobonkers - over a 2011 article.

Perhaps for the sake of encyclopaedic neutrality it should just say 'criticized' or provide more references that are wider ranging than two individuals. Or alternatively "has been ruled to be unreliable by Wikipedia" following a vote. Booklung (talk) 10:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

  • I can't see any credible challenge to 'widely criticized'. Going as far as 'ridiculed' would be accurate, but would need better sourcing. The meme of 'Things that cure cancer / give you cancer (according to the Daily Mail)' is a persistent one in stand-up comedy for the last couple of decades, in particular. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Andy here. We could get away with saying it's been "widely ridiculed" by citing some of the RS compilations of DM mockery that exist out there. Some of the sources used right now are more than a little bit sarcastic, even. Hell, there's even a song about it.
Tell me all about it.
 13:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah I agree with the above comments, the Daily Mail is a laughing stock, lifting articles without attribution, falsifying news, quackery etc...it's purgatory for rubbish journo's. A quick google search finds endless articles pointing out it's appalling reputation.
talk
) 01:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • In Britain there is a Press Complaints Commitee for when newspapers fail in honesty or accuracy. If the Daily Mail was anywhere near as bad as the far left Guardian and its hateful readers complain it is, then steps would have been taken by the PCC to do something about it. The Guardian has an industry based on hiding its complaints as a simple Google search will show. Parts of the main article are just a left wing character assassination of a right wing newspaper they loathe. It lacks impartiality.(185.8.243.175 (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request

Please add this under " The Daily Mail in literature":

In the

Vernon Dursley is a Daily Mail Reader. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chox2019 (talk • contribs
) 11:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per
WP:IPC –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos
) 04:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, page 23: "'Uncle Vernon's large red face was hidden behind the morning's Daily Mail." https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1Vs9AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=%22%27Uncle+Vernon%27s+large+red+face+was+hidden+behind+the+morning%27s+Daily+Mail.%22&source=bl&ots=uxzDgrzTJk&sig=ACfU3U2MsCdxF2a0YBEZHuhAR6-pKGuERw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi5kYHwkpTlAhVEalAKHdgLCdcQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22'Uncle%20Vernon's%20large%20red%20face%20was%20hidden%20behind%20the%20morning's%20Daily%20Mail.%22&f=false

Best-selling UK newspaper

Just a note that The Daily Mail is now UK's best-selling newspaper, overtaking the Sun - [3]. I'm not sure whether the lead needs to be changed now since it may be temporary, but just thought it may need mentioning. I don't think it is worth mentioning Metro in the lead since it is a free newspaper and its circulation figure is pretty meaningless. Hzh (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Just added that to the lead, also current newspaper of the year Piecesofuk (talk) 05:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


Daily Mail eclipses the Sun to become UK's top-selling paper https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jun/19/daily-mail-eclipses-the-sun-to-become-uks-top-selling-paper?utm_term=RWRpdG9yaWFsX0d1YXJkaWFuVG9kYXlVS19XZWVrZW5kLTIwMDYyMA%3D%3D&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=GTUK_email&utm_campaign=GuardianTodayUK 

  The Daily Mail sold 980,000 copies a day on average last month, and the Mail on Sunday sold 878,000 a week, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations figures published on Friday.

Peter K Burian (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

No article reference to being identified as an unreliable WP source

IMHO, it seems noteworthy that this article should have an entry somewhere that it is no longer accepted as a reliable source for other WP articles as determined by a consensus of the WP editorial community. RS Noticeboard. § Music Sorter § (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Here's a business insider article about it https://www.businessinsider.com/wikipedia-has-banned-the-daily-mail-as-an-unreliable-source-2017-2?IR=T
talk
) 00:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Quote. "Some of those who opposed the ban also pointed to inaccurate stories in other respected publications, and suggested the proposed ban was driven by a dislike of the publication." There is a rabid hatred of the right wing Daily Mail by left wingers which is behind this campaign to see it branded as dishonest. Mention it online, as I do on QUORA and the hatred and bile just pours out. Such people are what is behind the wikipedia ban.(185.8.243.175 (talk) 05:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC))
Look, regardless of whether this criticism is justified, if it's mentioned in the lede there should be a section discussing it in the body. HLHJ (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I find it hilarious that some editors are questioning the reliability of lower-quality sources that criticize Thae Daily Mail despite them being far more reliable than The Daily Mail Itself. Per

WP:PARITY "Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources". In essence, mainstream sources don't talk about The Daily Mail for the same reason that they don't talk about Infowars claiming that the US government kidnaps children and makes them slaves at our martian colony. Do a web search. Virtually every source that bothers to comment on the reliability of The Daily Mail talks about how unreliable it is. Pretty much nobody defends it. To get a good idea of how widely criticised for its unreliability The Daily <ail is, just do a web search about Wikipedia deprecating it as a source -- something that was covered in multiple high quality sources. Count how many that say the Wikipedia was wrong and that The Daily Mail is reliable. Now count how many say "about time! What took you so long?". --Guy Macon (talk
) 15:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Infowars was covered by John Oliver in 2017. For The Daily Mail you could use The Mash Report. Here are some quotes:
2018-01-18: Well, Nish, as ever, the Daily Mail provides a very good barometer of the British public, with this headline, which actually happened... Sociologist Carolann Peterson says in the article... Nish, it's an absolute minefield! What could possibly be wrong with spanking a colleague?! Or the prospect of a sudden arm grabbing you from the shadows?! Hang on, are these real headlines? They're real, Nish! They're genuine headlines! Welcome to the world![4]
2018-02-01: Where did you pick that outfit, General White Man Emporium? Yeah, whatever. What about you? You got anything? You're like the Daily Mail's wet dream. Not bad.
2018-02-15: I feels like for most of my adult life the only things we talk about are "immigration" and "how we never talk about immigration". Also Bake Off. And then there was the time where we combined them both, when Nadiya Hussain was in it and the Daily Mail lost their mind and suggested that now to win you needed to make a "chocolate mosque".
Also: The writer Liz Gerard found that between 1st January and the date of the referendum, the Daily Mail and the Daily Express each published 34 front-page articles about immigration. In case you were wondering, none of them were positive.
2019-02-26: It appears to have been mentioned, but you'll have to look up the episode. Should be about three quarters or so in.
2020-04-03: Johnson next addressed the public on March the 12th and was uncharacteristically serious. The Daily Mail called on its leaders to trust the judgment of the government, but according to the Guardian, on the same day, an internal e-mail at the Mail's parent company advised non-editorial staff to work from home because government advice was no longer adequate. The Prime Minister had lost the confidence of the paper whose previous criticisms of him amounted to: "perhaps his dick is too big and nice."
Hope that helps. - Alexis Jazz 20:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Quoting Jimmy Wales

Masem on June 16 inserted with edit summary = "Jimmy Wales' support of WP decision to deprecate DM". I object. First, saying "decision by the community" and "the community's choice" is not backed by an RS. Second, it's piling on, because we already have quoted Wikipedians' criticisms and the long (44-word) quote from Jimmy Wales is not adding fact it is just adding another Wikipedian's criticism. Third, if CNBC is regarded as RS for the quote, then CNBC's word "banned" is what's being supported, not the paragraph's incorrect word "deprecated". Fourth, although I accept that for Wikipedia-policy reasons we cannot cite the objections that the Daily Mail made at the time, I see no reason that Masem took only Mr Wales's criticism, and left out the response from the very same article, such as:

"Only today Anthony Weiner has pleaded guilty to sexting with a minor as a direct result of an investigation last year by DailyMail.com. We will be interested to see who Wikipedia cites as the story’s source", the media group added.

Indeed they will be, if they become aware of this (part of the David Gerard edit series, eliminating a credit of the Daily Mail for the Anthony Weiner story). Is there consensus for Masem's edit? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

This appears to be a proxy for attempting to relitigate
WP:DAILYMAIL. We already know the Daily Mail cannot be trusted for claims about itself. Is there third-party notability of the DM breaking the story? If there is, then use that - David Gerard (talk
) 17:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh, and to answer the question: Masem's edit looks fine to me. It's a relevant person's opinion on the topic to hand (the deprecation of the DM), cited to an RS - David Gerard (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
And as best I know, Jimmy took no part in the discussions at all (I don't believe any WMF staffer did in their capacity as a WMF staffer) so this would make it a confirmation from someone of WMF-type authority that the community did a reasonable thing if the purpose of WP is to use high-quality reliable sources to build a quality encyclopedia. --Masem (t) 17:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Why did you not choose the CEO then? She was widely quoted. And why do you think this confirmation is relevant at all? It wouldn't matter if they disagreed, but it certainly would be worth noting if they had. It certainly seems to be entirely unsurprising that Mr Wales hates the Mail, and the Mail specifically. He was after all, a member of the board of The Guardian at the time.
talk
) 19:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
This statement surprised me, but it's true if it means "at the time of the RfC". Mr Wales joined The Guardian board in January 2016,
WP:DAILYMAIL was closed in February 2017, Mr Wales left the board in April 2017. The interview was published in May 2017. Peter Gulutzan (talk
) 15:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it should be included. It's a passing comment by Jimbo in one source. We wouldn't even be discussing it if this weren't a Wikipedia article. Even the source only mentions it because it is relevant to a website that Jimbo was setting up. TFD (talk) 23:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
So at this point Masem's edit lacks consensus. But I'm not reverting unless I see more objections. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree Jimbo's quote should not be included. It's a passing reference and then there is also the conflict of interest as mentioned above, because of being on the board of the Daily Mail's competitor the Guardian. I also think the whole paragraph about Wikipedia's deprecation of the Daily Mail should be removed. The event is trivial and meta wiki cruft. It also looks immature that Wikipedia is mentioning itself in the Daily Mail article, as if Wikipedia's opinion should matter in the world of journalism. Wikipedia should be self-effacing and just keep out of the articles. If the quote remains, obviously, Jimbo should be given a courtesy notice on his talk page of it and this conversation. I'll use an analogy to show the problem with including the quote.
The New York Times interviews me and writes an article. I'm the chief editor of Britannica. I'm also on the board of Pepsi. In the article, the New York Times writes about Britannica's new office policy of banning Coke from the office. The employees decided that Coke tastes bad. The New York Times asks my opinion about this decision. I agree with the decision and say "What the heck took the office so long, Coke tastes like sh-t. I know Coke doesn't like hearing about it but it is true." A week later Britannica updates its Coke encyclopedia article and adds in the criticism section about the taste of the soda that the office of Britannica has banned Coke because it tastes bad. They also add my quote that I completely agree and use the New York Times article as the reference.
Simply put meta wiki cruft. --Guest2625 (talk) 06:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Why does the passage imply a causal connection between Jimmy Wales's view, and the Mail's response? I tried to correct this misleading statement by simply removing "Though the Daily Mail strongly contested this decision by the community," but I was obstructed by David Gerard, for reasons I am not clear on.

talk
) 18:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

A majority of the editors in this thread are against Masem's edit, and we have given reasons. I have removed it. I agree that it is courteous to tell Jimmy Wales, but believe that a ping will suffice. I do not mean that I agree with his rule about quoting him because I respect his opinions and have quoted him myself on talk pages. I agree that the rest of the paragraph, not just the quote, is of dubious worth; however, this thread's title is "Quoting Jimmy Wales" so removing more than the quote could be regarded as going beyond what's proposed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Update: The removal lasted two hours before being reverted by Calton, who did not participate in this talk page discussion. There is still no consensus for Masem's edit. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
You're trying to go too far, which makes your edit ripe for reversion. Propose a more specific modification. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Support Massem's edit. The claim "A majority of the editors in this thread are against Masem's edit" appears to be incorrect. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
The claim was correct at the time that I made it. Subsequently people have supported Masem's edit. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daily_Mail/Archive_7&oldid=1136647513"