Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:58, 22 November 2013

Journalism B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives

Archive 1 - 27 November 2007 Archive 2 - 28 August 2009 Archive 3 - 17 May 2010 Archive 4 - present

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

1896-1905

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

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

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

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

Page Protection

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

WaPo error

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

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

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

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

Successful lawsuits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daily Mail Controversies?

The Mail is an old and widely-read paper and like many tabloid newspapers, it has a long-standing reputation for sensationalism and severe partisanship. I don't feel the article is providing properly unbiased history, especially regarding contemporary incidents in which the Mail has published articles that have incited very forceful reactions from certain groups, demographics. Honestly, I hate the Mail so it's natural that I'd want to see negative aspects of the rag's history highlighted, but it really does seem to me that this article, while not clearly biased in favour of the Mail, doesn't make any real effort to provide an objective review of the Mail's history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.137.59 (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

That's because Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia not a soapbox for people to vent their personal grievances about things they hate. I despise the left-wing rag the Daily Mirror and republican rag The Guardian but I am not trying to fill their articles with negative content. This article is perfectly balanced as it is. It has actually been significantly improved over the years as it was full of completely biased partisan content. Christian1985 (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Continental Daily Mail and WWI

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

• B-Class Journalism articles
• High-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• B-Class Conservatism articles
• Mid-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles