Talk:Daily Mail/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 1 August 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Brooker[edit]

Anybody remember Charlie Brooker's Daily Mail Island? Camembert Electrique (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Bloody hell, how old is that? Scarlet A.pngd hominem 00:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Cites PrisonPlanet[edit]

Here: The girl had been home-schooled by her mother but wanted to start going to a regular school, which required her to take a number of immunisations, reports Prisonplanet.com. Really?--ZooGuard (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Climate denial[edit]

I confused the Daily Fail with the Telegraph when it comes to Monckton. Melanie Phillips is the Fail's resident denier and I see them peddling a lot of "soft" denialism in the rest of the paper. I came across this which claims they've changed their editorial stance but I definitely recall a lot of denialist hit pieces besides just Phillips. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Silver?[edit]

Someone changed this to silver without discussion. I'm not sure it's fully ready. Discuss? Blue (is useful) 03:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you think it needs? ТyAsk me about frog-backed securities 03:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
It covers all the necessary topics, what else? Osaka Sun (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, well I guess I'm not a fan of "Best of..." sections. I could live with its being kept and moving the article up to silver, though. Blue (pester) 03:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll admit the snark is laid on rather thick, but honestly it seems pretty ok. ТyAsk me about frog-backed securities 04:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't see the snark getting in the way of the information. the only thing I don't like is the quote at the top - should we be quoting ourselves? There are lots of good DM jokes out there. SophieWilder 08:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with quoting ourselves, as long as it's really good. Admittedly, the current one isn't. But I like quote snark at the top of articles—a layer of snark frosting on top of the big fact cake. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 08:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
As long as it's not overdone, it's good. SophieWilder 08:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The day we're as bad as Uncyclopedia is the day I hang myself. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 08:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

To my mind it still needs some basic copy-editing for grammar and sentence structure. Redchuck.gif ГенгисunbelievingModerator 08:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Femail sidebar[edit]

The Daily Mash - totally want to add this as a reference. It's the sort of thing that's being satirical by being factual. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 11:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Howto: ignore Femail[edit]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Daily_Mail#Femail

"Femail dominates the right hand margin of the Mail's website - usually extending several times the length of all other content - meaning that even if you only care about the political or medical stances of the paper while reading online, you certainly won't be able to escape the latest mega-important headlines about Kim Kardashian's latest photo-shoot or Victoria Beckham's latest publicity stunt."

I dunno about that :) Can someone who speaks wiki better than me put in a RW-style comedy reference that says that these two AdBlock element hiding rules will mean only the Mail's "intellectual" content is visible?

dailymail.co.uk##div.femail

dailymail.co.uk##div.tvshowbiz

92.40.255.77 (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Currently?[edit]

As I no longer live in the UK and I don't read the Mail I'm not sure if this statement from this section is still relevant:

  • The Mail is currently blaming the European Union and European immigration to Britain for the economic crisis in Britain.

"Currently" is always a bad word to use a you never know when it was written, and I thought things were looking up in the UK.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 11:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Zinoviev Letter[edit]

Lord Northcliffe died in 1922. His brother Lord Rothermere owned the paper by the time of the Zinoviev Letter. --Romartus (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

"only Rupert Murdoch's Sun is worse"[edit]

I object to this statement because at least The Sun doesn't pretend to be anything but a tabloid rag. People reading The Daily Mail are lead to believe it's not a common tabloid. — Unsigned, by: 85.211.186.54 / talk / contribs Requesting thread archival (why?) Plutocow (talk)

"Hotel killers"[edit]

While the other articles listed are certainly worthy of mockery, I don't see the problem with being outraged that murderers were released from jail and given jobs at a hotel. Thanos6 (talk) 04:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

religion[edit]

just because someone doesnt have religion as an important part of their daily life doesnt mean they arent religious. also, that survey was only on younger people, who are generally less religious.— Unsigned, by: 168.8.249.165 / talk / contribs Requesting thread archival (why?) Plutocow (talk)

Two Points[edit]

  1. Paul Dacre is no longer editor of the Daily Mail.
  2. The article makes fun of using the Daily Mail as a source and discuses attempts to archive Daily Mail material so it can be consulted without directly giving them ad revenue, but directly links to several articles from the Mail. HeadlessDenise (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
First can be updated. As for the latter, people are too lazy to try to use redirects/archives instead. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 01:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

References[edit]

Can people adding references please provide more than a bare URL. For newspaper articles, the article title, newspaper title, and date is the minimum; try and provide author if available (it's also interesting to note if something is credited to "Daily Mail Reporter" rather than a specific journalist). This means that if the URL becomes dead or the article is moved or taken offline, it's still possible to search for it in an archive or alternative website - most newspapers are archived for all eternity in libraries and services like NewsQuest/Gale/LexisNexis/etc, so we should never lose a story or be unable to verify a reference, if it is properly identified. --Annanoon (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)