Jump to content

Talk:Daily Mail/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Sourcing concerns

Like five other editors I have concerns regarding the sourcing of the clause:

"The Daily Mail has been widely criticized for its unreliability,"[1][2][3][4][5][6]

My previous comment regarding this issue was, unfortunately, deleted from the talk page and archive because of a technical problem. The concern regarding the sourcing of the clause mirrors that of the other editors. The word "widely" in the clause is a controversial statement and should not depend on the analysis of wikipedia editors. The reliable source which analyses the data (i.e. criticism because of unreliability) needs to make that conclusion. The sources provided do not state anywhere "widely". The editors who want to include the word "widely" have not provided a quote which could be interpreted as saying this. Most of the inline citations provided are of poor quality:

The first cite Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source does not have the Guardian say in its own voice that the Daily Mail is unreliable. It merely states the position of wikipedia. This citation should not be used. There is conflict of interest and wikipedia should not be referencing itself as a reliable source.
The second cite Daily Mail: Most Unreliable Paper For 3rd Year In A Row is a low caliber source which is ultimately based on a blog source. The usage of IPSO for analyzing reliability is a decent approach, however, no consideration was given for the number of stories published by each newspaper. Obviously, a newspaper which publishes few stories will need few corrections.
The third cite Mail Supremacy does not state that the Daily Mail is unreliable, rather it discusses that it uses all kinds of bells and whistles and flashing lights to increase viewership.
The fourth cite The Daily Mail cancer story that torpedoes itself in paragraph 19 is an opinion piece; however, if this is overlooked, it is a decent source for stating that the Guardian has criticized the Daily Mail for unreliability.
The fifth cite Will Drinking Diet Soda Increase Your Risk For A Heart Attack? is problematic since it is a Forbes article by a non-staff writer which uses a blog award to make its case. The source should not be included. It is not clear if the blog award is being serious and what qualification the blogger has in media analysis.
The sixth cite I am unable to access and no page number has been provided for where it supports the relevant claim. Also it should be noted that the book is by Ben Goldacre who wrote the Guardian opinion piece in the fourth cite.

In conclusion, the word "widely" is not supported by the sources and should be removed. I look forward to a cordial discussion on the topic. If individuals wish to repost their comments or make new comments that will all help to move this discussion along. --Guest2625 (talk) 07:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

After this discussion began, David Gerard has removed the fifth cite (forbes.com). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
yes, it was a Forbes contributor blog and so not an RS - David Gerard (talk) 05:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for removing the unreliable source. --Guest2625 (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Jackson, Jasper (9 February 2017). "Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source". The Guardian. Retrieved 11 February 2017.
  2. ^ "Daily Mail: Most Unreliable Paper For 3rd Year In A Row". The Media Fund. Retrieved 8 July 2020.
  3. ^ Collins, Lauren (April 2012). "Mail Supremacy". The New Yorker. Retrieved 12 January 2016.
  4. ^ Goldacre, Ben. "The Daily Mail cancer story that torpedoes itself in paragraph 19". The Guardian. Retrieved 1 August 2015.
  5. ^ Trevor Butterworth (21 February 2012). "Will Drinking Diet Soda Increase Your Risk for a Heart Attack?". Forbes. Retrieved 12 March 2012. "Research" has also revealed the risk of the Daily Mail misreporting a study's findings, especially when there's an opportunity to write an alarming headline. As Dorothy Bishop, a Professor of Neurodevelopmental Psychology at Oxford University, noted in giving the paper her "Orwellian Award for Journalistic Misrepresentation" the Mail sets the standards for inaccurate reporting of academic research.
  6. ^ Goldacre, Ben (2008). Bad science. London: Fourth Estate. ISBN 9780007240197.
Guest2625 has said it all well so I don't need to repeat all my earlier comments, except to remind that the wording is due to a now-blocked user. I'd favour removing not just "widely" but the whole poorly sourced sentence, although perhaps it would be acceptable to attribute properly e.g. "People associated with The Guardian (named here) have criticised ..." and move outside the lead. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes. I agree attribution is important for controversial statements. --Guest2625 (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Please note that the exact phrase "The Daily Mail has been widely criticized for its unreliability" is no longer in the article. The first mention of "widely" is in the fourth paragraph:

"The Daily Mail has been noted for its unreliability and widely criticised for its printing of sensationalist and inaccurate scare stories of science and medical research, and for copyright violations. The Daily Mail has won a number of awards, including receiving the National Newspaper of the Year award from the British Press Awards eight times since 1995, winning again in 2019."

--Guy Macon (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Great. It looks like things are moving along. The location of "widely", however, still remains a problem. As other editors have mentioned, the location of this sentence is problematic. Questions of due weight come up. The lead is meant to summarize the body of the article. The word "widely", now proceeding the second clause, is not supported anywhere in the body of the article. If someone disagrees, please provide a quote from the body of the article which supports this claim. A productive way to proceed to sort out the sourcing problem, would be to step-by-step go through the concerns raised regarding the sources. The exact order doesn't really matter, because some of the concerns are more difficult to resolve.
In conclusion, the word "widely" is not supported by the body of the article or its sources, and should be removed.--Guest2625 (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Guest2625, you mean there are people who don't consider the Daily Mail unreliable? I'ts OK, there is an educational video to help them. Guy (help!) 08:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah. I like that video that danny guy is very funny. However, like you obviously know, some random youtuber is not a reliable source. Humor is good but logic and discourse are the best way to answer questions of concern. --Guest2625 (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Guest2625, satire is a powerful tool. The issues it highlights are real and substantive, from the xenophobic rhetoric to the unhealthy obsession with very young women (see also "all grown up" and "sidebar of shame"). Guy (help!) 11:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree the issue of misogyny is important. However, on Wikipedia there is no room for beliefs based on comedians, pub mates, or online chats. The only thing that matters is the facts in the reliable sources. --Guest2625 (talk) 10:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Evaluating the concerns

Alright. Let's begin to evaluate the concerns as a group:

Is The Media Fund a reliable source?

  • No. The Media Fund is not a reliable source. It has no editorial board. It does not have a section for corrections. There appears to be only one individual (i.e. Steven Durrant) operating the site. There is no indication that Steven Durrant is an expert in media analysis. The website is a self-published source and should be removed from the article. I encourage anyone who agrees to be bold and remove the source, so that we waste no more time deconstructing the reliability of this source. You can contribute below with yes/no/comment if you wish to join the conversation. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • No. This was added on July 8 by Czello who said "Let's discuss this on the talk page" but didn't, so far. Guy Macon has posted a notice on WP:RSN about sourcing disputes here but so far as I can see has not tried to defend using themediafund.org, so far. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
    • That's because I understand the difference between asking whether a source is reliable and deciding that it is or isn't reliable before asking the question. I am not a big fan of asking a question when you have already decided that there is only one answer you will accept. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
      • +1. -sche (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
      • -1. Perhaps the indenting is wrong? I asked no question, I answered Guest2625's question, which is done in a conventional style that I've seen many times. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
        • The indenting is fine. You said something about my behavior: "Guy Macon has posted a notice on WP:RSN about sourcing disputes here but so far as I can see has not tried to defend using themediafund.org, so far." I explained my behavior: "That's because I understand the difference between asking whether a source is reliable and deciding that it is or isn't reliable before asking the question." Could it be that you are so used to seeing aggressive people make assertions and post arguments in the form of a question that you no longer understand when some of us ask actual questions because we want answers? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
          • Since the indenting is deliberate, then this comment was addressed to me: "I am not a big fan of asking a question when you have already decided that there is only one answer you will accept." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
            • That is correct. I addressed it to you. You made a comment about me ("Guy Macon has posted a notice on WP:RSN about sourcing disputes here but so far as I can see has not tried to defend using themediafund.org, so far.") I answered by telling you why I have not tried to defend using themediafund.org: ("That's because I understand the difference between asking whether a source is reliable and deciding that it is or isn't reliable before asking the question. I am not a big fan of asking a question when you have already decided that there is only one answer you will accept.") This is the second time I have explained this to you. Again, I strongly suspect that you are so used to seeing aggressive people make assertions and post arguments in the form of a question that you no longer understand when someone ask an actual question because he wants answers. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I added this initially as (the now banned) BorkNein wanted additional sources. That said, if it's been determined to not be reliable I have no qualms in it being removed. — Czello 15:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I have asked for further input on the reliable noticeboard concerning the above question in a more narrow fashion than Guy Macon here. --Guest2625 (talk) 04:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Not seeing any indication of this, though the facts are trivially verified from the primary source. Guy (help!) 08:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment The problem is that the article concerned relies on an analysis in a self-published site Tabloid Corrections, which would be definitely considered unreliable. Note also that the analysis there is based on complaints upheld by IPSO, but a number of newspapers such as The Guardian and The Independent are not subject to investigation by IPSO, so sanctions by IPSO cannot be used to make any comparative/superlative statement about the press in general (e.g. "most unreliable paper") without qualification. This the headline and content of The Media Fund patently failed to make clear, and that would suggest that it is an unreliable source. Hzh (talk) 11:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I should make this a No since it makes no attempt to give an accurate report. Hzh (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Guest2625 + Peter Gulutzan + HzH say "No", Czello seems neutral, Guy Macon doesn't answer, JzG|Guy is ambiguous, there was no answer to Guest2625's question on WP:RSN, and the only editor who answered Guy Macon's question on WP:RSN i.e. GRuban probably means ... well, I won't interpret. Let's give it another two days in case many silent-until-now editors overturn the consensus for "No" here. If they don't, and if nobody else has finally removed the cite to themediafund.org, I will. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Peter. I didn't specify there, because I didn't look carefully, but will now. We don't have an article about The Media Fund (Media Fund seems to be something completely different). I can't find many reliable source articles about it on the web, only one, in fact, https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/oct/02/fund-launched-to-create-independent-media, which implies pretty clearly that it's founded with an intentional left-wing bias. It is more than just Stephen Durrant, https://themediafund.org/about-us/the-team/ so it's not necessarily a WP:SPS, but the half dozen people there are a variety, only one journalist, Durrant himself is listed as an activist. All that tends to argue against reliability. Then there is what I did write on RSP, that the article we're using as the source here similarly says that The Times is almost as bad. The Times is the United Kingdom's paper of record, over 200 years old, used as the model for and lending its name to countless newspapers around the Globe, so calling it unreliable says a whole lot more about The Media Fund than it does about The Times, honestly, and what it says is not good. I'm not British myself, but our article Daily Mail says "the United Kingdom's highest-circulation daily newspaper", so I'm guessing it's not some obscure topic that this marginal source would be the best we could get to write about it. So, yeah, I don't think we need this. --GRuban (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Now four of the four editors with clear opinions have said no, and two days have passed. I have removed the cite. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Shortly after I wrote that, Guy Macon took the issue to WP:RSN again, archived here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Is there a conflict of interest when Wikipedia partially uses its own opinion to label a newspaper unreliable in the lead?

  • Comment I will wait to formulate my opinion in order not to sway other people's opinions. --Guest2625 (talk) 04:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • No, that's ridiculous - David Gerard (talk) 05:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Ha ha ha ha! No. Guy (help!) 08:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes. I agree with the now unnamed individual that there is a conflict of interest. (For the lay reader, to see the full discussion see talk page history and archive 7). On Wikipedia there are two spaces. There is the mainspace (the articles) and the backspace (the talk pages, noticeboards, policy pages, village pump, etc.). Morally, we have an obligation to keep them separate. We, the writers of Wikipedia, have a conflict of interest as concerns the Daily Mail article. In our backspace, we have collectively determined that the newspaper is unreliable. However, when writing the Daily Mail article, we need to remain neutral and objective and not interject our backspace determinations. On the article page, it is our duty and policy to stick to what the sources on the article page state. We cannot sneak our opinion through a Guardian article that mentions what our opinion was in Wikipedia's metaspace. It should be noted that editors specialized with category tagging have already come to this conclusion. See the discussion here. --Guest2625 (talk) 04:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Notice: I have asked for advise on this topic on the conflict of interest noticeboard here. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
By "now unnamed individual" you mean ban-evading sockpuppet. Be careful: proxying for ban evasion is sanctionable. Guy (help!) 11:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Guest2625 is in fact advocating against preserving the edit of a ban evader. As I've mentioned before, the controversial wording is due to this revision by Zionziho who is now blocked. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Peter Gulutzan, that's a very creative interpretation of I agree with the now unnamed individual that there is a conflict of interest. As I said, the "now unnamed individual" is not, in fact, unnamed, it's a checkuser-blocked sockpuppet and Google readily identifies their off-wiki agenda and probable status as a WP:LTA. Proxying for banned users is indeed sanctionable, and any appearance of doing so is best avoided. Guy (help!) 08:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
That's correct. Obviously, content from a banned user should be deleted. I'm scratching my head as to why this other stuff from Zionziho another banned user still remains. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • No It is fine to mention Wikipedia's opinion provided it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Whether or not we can use it or any other source to conclude that the DM is seen as generally unreliable is a separate issue. TFD (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • How would this be a "conflict of interest"? (Do you perhaps mean to invoke WP:CIRCULAR?) -sche (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a conflict of interest in a classic definition of the phrase. A conflict of interest means two or more interests are in conflict. Wikipedia believes and has policy in place that states the Daily Mail is unreliable. However, when writing the Daily Mail article Wikipedia is required to be neutral and only rely on the article's sources. The two competing interests are (1) its belief/policy that the Daily Mail is unreliable and (2) its requirement to be neutral when writing about the Daily Mail's reliability.
A bias is a conflict of interest. The bias can be financial, ideological, religious, or anything else. Some examples might help. I am a member of democratic party. I am editing the Ronald Reagan article. I have in this case a political conflict of interest. I am a member of the democratic party. I am editing Kamala Harrison's article. Once again, I have a political conflict of interest. I am Jewish. I am editing on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. I have a religious conflict of interest.
When Wikipedia utilizes a reliable source that references itself to help note that the Daily Mail is unreliable, the conflict of interest becomes realized. Wikipedia by utilizing a correctly sourced statement which references its opinion/policy pushes down the scale of neutrality. Wikipedia's internal decision might be correct; however, it is still a biased opinion that should not be used to buttress the claim that the Daily Mail is unreliable. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
We don't have a bias in respect of the Mail. Our "bias" is in respect of sources: we are biased towards reliable ones, and always have been. Full marks for your creativity here, but we did not conjure up the idea that the Mail is unreliable, that is taken entirely from independent sources. You might just as weell say that we have a COI in respect of creationism because we say it's bollocks and we reject creationist sources in science articles. Guy (help!) 08:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
So, place those independent sources into the article so they can be evaluated. Why are you clinging on to this reference which sources to the opinion of Wikipedia's noticeboard? --Guest2625 (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, you are the one who is fixated on this source. Guy (help!) 22:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
I care because having that source being used like that in the lead reflects poorly on Wikipedia. And other's agree see the reliable source noticeboard here. --Guest2625 (talk) 06:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Guest2625, in your opinion. Shared by, to date, one ban-evading sockpuppeteer. Guy (help!) 22:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Guy, you're a specialist in reliable sources. Read the concerns I originally mentioned. They are completely fair concerns. My worry is individual dislike of the article's topic might be causing a lack of objectivity by editors. My interest is not in newspaper articles, but I can start working on this article if necessary. --Guest2625 (talk) 04:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Interesting. Let me try two analogies. (1) The New York Times interviews me and writes an article. In the article, I state the Guardian is unreliable. Now, I head on over to the Guardian wikipedia article. I add to the lead the sentence: "the Guardian has been noted as unreliable" and use the New York Times reference. Do I have a conflict of interest when editing the article? Is there a problem with the added sentence or source? (2) The New York Times interviews President Trump and writes an article. In the article, Trump says the Guardian is an unreliable source and his staff do not use it. Now, I add to the lead the sentence of the Guardian wikipedia article "the Guardian has been noted as unreliable" and use the New York Times as my reference. Is there a problem with this addition? --Guest2625 (talk) 08:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
You're just posting the same stuff over and over now - David Gerard (talk) 11:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Told you dude. Sea Lions.   --Guy Macon (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Pretty clear we can't use Wikipedia's opinion to label a newspaper unreliable. The Guardian is reliably reporting on what Wikipedia said, but that doesn't make Wikipedia an expert on the reliability of newspapers. The Guardian might as well be reporting the opinion of some high school students, and we couldn't use that either. --GRuban (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • No. We cannot, obviously, cite ourselves directly; but when Wikipedia is covered by a secondary source we can report on that the same way we would when anyone else is reported on in a reliable source. The very nature of an WP:RS is that they will do research and reporting using primary sources that we would not site directly, including Wikipedia itself. --Aquillion (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a reliable source for stating the Daily Mail is an unreliable source?

Since nobody is suggesting using Wikipedia as a source, and we already have guidance on using Wikipedia as a source, this seems rather a pointless discussion. Guy (help!) 08:57, 31 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.

  • Comment Contribute below with yes/no/comment. --Guest2625
  • This doesn't appear to be a coherent or relevant question for this issue. You're also raising this as a second section concerning the same source discussed specifically in the above section - but you're presenting it as separate. You might consider not spamming this talk page with not-even-wrong questions for a bit, until the existing questions are resolved. There is a properly-formed RFC in progress below - David Gerard (talk) 12:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The Guardian is the source of the article published on theguardian.com. Wikipedia is the subject. — Newslinger talk 10:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • No Wikipedia is not a reliable source. But that is not the same thing as using a secondary source that mentions a finding made by Wikipedia. TFD (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • As TFD says, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but this question is pointless because Wikipedia is also not the source being cited. (More generally, these repeated non-neutrally [mis]constructed questions are part of why I started a proper RFC using previously-discussed wording below.) -sche (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
-sche, That's correct it's a notable opinion so citing it via a secondary source is fine. The problem is what one does with the opinion in the article. The opinion is not a fact. So, the opinion should not be used as a fact to buttress the claim that the Daily Mail is unreliable. I personally do not think such Wikipedia meta-content should be added anywhere to the article. However, it definitely should not be added to the lead where it is being used to help summarize that the Daily Mail is unreliable. For me, this glaringly obvious.
An example might help. Let's say we were editing republican-pedia. In the backrooms of the noticeboards, we determine that the Guardian is unreliable and ban it. The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal breathlessly report that republican-pedia has banned the Guardian because it is unreliable. Now of course, we also have a secondary hobby over at Wikipedia. We joyously skippy-doo over to the Wikipedia Guardian article and add to the lead that "the Guardian has been noted as unreliable" using the New York Times as our reference. Do you see the problem now with what is happening with Daily Mail article? If not, I'm willing to try to explain further. The fault lies in me for not being able to explain more clearly. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
WP:DEADHORSE - David Gerard (talk) 10:11, 31 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.
Please wait for the RFC to be over

Should the sixth citation for the book Bad Science be removed because there is no page number given?

  • Yes. The citation should be removed since without a page number the information cannot be verified. I have obtained a copy of the book and cannot verify that it supports the sentence's claim. The book is 338 pages long. Please see the wiki article Bad Science for a book summary. As the lead of the wiki article states: "Bad Science is a book by Ben Goldacre, criticising mainstream media reporting on health and science issues". The book criticizes mainstream media in general about its reporting and does not single out the Daily Mail. The vague usage of this source with no page number is problematic. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Should the fourth citation to Ben Goldacre opinion piece in the Guardian be removed from the lead sentence?

  • Yes. The source should be removed from the lead. The source is being deceptively used to give undue weight to the claim that the Daily Mail is more unreliable than other mainstream UK newspapers. I have gone ahead and researched Ben Goldacre's Guardian science column (see here). Goldacre's column is in fact very similar to his book in that it criticizes all of UK mainstream media. To get an idea of how deceptive, the usage of this one reference is see his website under the category media here. In those listed articles, he criticizes at a minimum the Guardian, Observer, Daily Mail, BBC, Independent, and Sun. I like Ben Goldacre. He is a smart guy and has some great articles. See The dangers of cherry-picking evidence:
"In the 1980s, researchers such as Celia Mulrow produced damning research showing that review articles in academic journals and textbooks, which everyone had trusted, actually presented a distorted and unrepresentative view, when compared with a systematic search of the academic literature. After struggling to exclude bias from every individual study, doctors and academics would then synthesise that evidence together with frightening arbitrariness."
Just to make it clear once again that he is criticizing all of UK media see the article How far should we trust health reporting?: "It seems that the majority of health claims made, in a large representative sample of UK national newspapers, are supported only by the weakest possible forms of evidence." Proper sourcing and due weight is the key to Wikipedia's success. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Sounds like you're cooking up some tasty WP:OR. I also offer the following as a product of my own intuition: are you headed towards trying to get the DM undeprecated? Good luck with that... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I am attempting to verify the sources of a sentence in this article as I stated on July 18. I am here at this article as an outside observer because of an earlier request for comment. It's not clear to me why people are so perturbed about the verification of the sources. Only a few days ago was I able to obtain the Goldacre book. I'm scratching my head trying to figure out what is problematic about my above analysis of the Ben Goldacre sources. I have never experienced this form of strange behaviour on a talk page. As far as Wikipedia policy and WP:DAILYMAIL I am indifferent. I have faith in the collective wisdom of my co-editors. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Blythwood: Guest2625 has asked "Should the sixth citation for the book Bad Science be removed because there is no page number given?" (click "Show" above to see the whole question). Apparently you were the editor who added a cite, although the sentence has been changed and moved since. So I guess you might remember reading Bad Science. Do you think there is a page which supports the sentence? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan, Guest2625, thanks for the question. Some quotes from the book that describe The Daily Mail as inaccurate: "The Daily Mail in particular has become engaged in a bizarre ongoing ontological project, diligently sifting through all of the inanimate objects of the universe in order to categorise them as a cause of-or cure for-cancer" (chapter 6, p 86), "the natural home of miracle cures (and sinister hidden scares)" (p 136), "the Daily Mail, international journal of health scares" (p 299). My feeling is that they have actually cleaned up their act a bit recently (they've invited Goldacre to write for them a few times, in fact) but we could use sources for that. Blythwood (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Blythwood: Great to see an editor who's willing to discuss and give reasons. Although I agree with much that Guest2625 has said, I'll take it that there's no consensus now for removing this particular cite. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the page numbers. Ben Gold Acre does criticize the Daily Mail on those pages. The bigger problem for this article as whole is that the reference is being used to indicate that the Daily Mail is the sole purveyor of poor science. The Ben Goldacre book as you know criticizes all of mainstream media. I could go to all UK newspaper articles and add in the lead of the article that: Ben Goldacre has criticized newspaper Y "for its printing of sensationalist and inaccurate scare stories of science and medical research". Using Goldacre's book, I would be able to provide multiple page numbers and quotes. I'll give some examples below of criticism of other newspapers.
"Aqua Detox is a detox footbath, one of many similar products. It has been promoted uncritically in some very embarrassing articles in the Telegraph, the Mirror, the Sunday Times, GQ magazine and various TV shows." (Chapter 1 pp 11)
"Sometimes it’s clear that the journalists themselves simply don’t understand the unsubtle difference between the evidence and the hypothesis. The Times, for example, covered an experiment …" (Chapter 11 pp 194)
"The Times in March 2006 headed: ‘Cocaine Floods the Playground’. ‘Use of the addictive drug by children doubles in a year,’ said the subheading. Was this true? … The Telegraph also ran the ‘cocaine use doubles’ story, and so did the Mirror... So the newspapers were right: it doubled? No." (Chapter 13 pp 213)
"‘US Scientists Back Autism Link to MMR’, squealed the Telegraph. ‘Scientists Fear MMR Link to Autism’, roared the Mail. ‘US Study Supports Claims of MMR Link to Autism’, croaked The Times a day later. ... These scare stories were based on a poster presentation, at a conference yet to occur, on research not yet completed, by a man with a track record of announcing research that never subsequently appears in an academic journal." (Chapter 15 pp 262)
The above quotes and pages are only a small sampling of examples of Ben Goldacre criticizing different mainstream media. Obviously, if editors want to use Ben Goldacre and the page numbers provided above by Blythwood in the body of the article that is fine. However, it is deceptive to use Ben Goldacre in the lead, since the summary of his Guardian column and his book is that all of UK mainstream media science coverage is poor. (as an aside, I have an epub version of the Goldacre book, so page numbers will be shifted in regards to the paperback version) --Guest2625 (talk) 23:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
You're conceding the claims are well sourced, but you don't want them in the lead because ... he talks about other media too? I think you're stretching in an attempt to impeach this source, and it's an entirely suitable source for the job it's doing - David Gerard (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
If you look at my initial concerns, I have never disagreed that Ben Goldacre criticized the Daily Mail. My concern regarding Ben Goldacre's criticism was about due weight and whether it should be included in the lead. If you look at my position in the RFC, I am fine with including Ben Goldacre's criticism of mainstream media and by extension the Daily Mail in the body of the article. I don't disagree with his article How far should we trust health reporting? where he says: "It seems that the majority of health claims made, in a large representative sample of UK national newspapers, are supported only by the weakest possible forms of evidence." --Guest2625 (talk) 09:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Guest2625: I agree it's undue but there doesn't seem to be enough support for removal. Do you agree that discussion re the cites you've mentioned so far seems to be over, for now? Do you intend to start discussion on the remaining one, the New Yorker article? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
The New Yorker article does not state that the Daily Mail is unreliable. However, I'll wait until after the request for comments closes to discuss my concerns regarding that article. It was suggested above that then would be a better time for me to discuss my sourcing concerns. As it stands, the sentence in question is inaccurate and should not be in the lead. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for your work so far. I'll respond to the RfC. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Positively antediluvian criticism section lead

While doing stuff for other articles I came across what appears to be a 1925 allegation (page 388 of The New Negro) by American historian W. E. B. Du Bois that Cadbury paid the Daily Mail to cover up labor conditions in British African colonies where cocoa was produced and promote a boycott of Portuguese African cocoa as being produced under worse conditions. Or something like that. Anyways, a quick search didn't produce any corroborating hits but I thought I'd mention it here in case any Daily Mail enthusiasts want to do some deep digging. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 04:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The criterion for inclusion isn't deep digging, it's weight. If expert sources typically report this, then it belongs. TFD (talk) 05:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, the deep digging part would be coming up to speed on the expert sources on the intersection of the early twentieth century trans-national cocoa markets and pay-for-play British journalism. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 11:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Du Bois most probably meant the Daily News founded by Charles Dickens in 1846 see the Britannica entry from 1911. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying! --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 11:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

We missed an award

--Guy Macon (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, Le sigh. The Daily Mail is a crappy tabloid. It's deprecated because in addition to being a crappy tabloid there's excellent evidence that it is also malicious, careless with facts, and the #1 vector for churnalism in the UK. Oh, and the Sidebar of Shame. They could fix those things. I am still hoping that Greig will fix those things, because he is actually a reasonably responsible person (at least by comparison with Dacre). But current indications via Private Eye are not encouraging. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@David Gerard: The source cited indicates that, by my count, two people have criticised the Mail for its use of copyrighted material: Martin Fletcher and James King (and, generously, perhaps also the anonymous people on social media who Fletcher mentions). This isn't sufficient to support the article's claim that "The Daily Mail has been noted for ... copyright violations." Fletcher and King's claims are likely to be true, and it's possible that they belong in this article, but given that (1) comment pieces like this are usually not appropriate sources for statements of fact, (2) per MOS:LEAD "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article", and (3) this is a point with some legal implications, the current sourcing is not sufficient for the current wording (and its prominence). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Re: "this is a point with some legal implications", if The Daily Mail was going to sue Wikipedia they would have done so long ago.
Also, James king didn't just accuse. He was an eyewitness and did it himself at the orders of Daily Mail management.[1]
--Guy Macon (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I've added a few of these to the article (the ones that are obviously reliable sources) and slightly changed the wording to reflect the sources. Per MOS:LEAD it would still be best if the lede were actually sumarising the body of the article, though. (I obviously don't think the Mail is going to sue us, and wouldn't particularly see that as a reason not to include particular claims. But, regrettably, appeals to the law are often more persuasive than appeals to good encyclopaedic content and good writing, so I thought there was no harm throwing one in.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Guy Macon, the Mail stealing an article from Cracked was looking like the top fail of the year, and then Trump retweeted the Babylon Bee. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Sigh.
Tweeting an article about Twitter shutting down. On Twitter. That's the stupidest thing i have heard in a long time. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
In order to make the claim, we would need a source that says the Daily Mail has been widely criticized for instances of copyright infringement. I think we should follow the example of the New York Times article, which had an extremely widely covered case of plagiarism that was the subject of a 2013 documentary, A Fragile Trust. It is not mentioned in the lead, but in The New York Times#Jayson Blair plagiarism (2003). The former executive editor of the New York Times Jill Abramson has herself admitted to plagiarism, but there is no mention of her in it in the article. Plagiarism is a common occurrence in news media. We would need a source that says it is a great problem in the Daily Mail. TFD (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC on the inclusion of certain statements about unreliability and inaccuracy

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.
In this RFC, Wikipedians yet again consider the reliability and accuracy of the Daily Mail. On the basis of the evidence presented below, Wikipedians reach a clear consensus that it is appropriate to say, in the lead, that the Daily Mail "has been noted for its unreliability, and has been widely criticised for printing sensationalist and inaccurate scare stories of science and medical research." The article already says this, so the effect of this RfC is to confirm our current wording.
Any comments, complaints, and criticism of this close should be directed to my talk page in the first instance.—S Marshall T/C 11:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

1) Should the lead say the Dail Mail "has been noted for its unreliability", and if so, 2) should it say it has been "widely" noted for that? 3) Should it say the Daily Mail has been "criticised for its printing of sensationalist and inaccurate scare stories of science and medical research", and if so, 4) should it say it has been "widely" criticised for that? -sche (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

  • In the interest of having (what I hope is) a neutrally-constructed RfC, after two prior RfCs by a now-blocked user (one of which was early-closed and archived and the other of which was simply erased) and a number of other discussions and comments (including by socks of that user) which have been described as not being neutrally constructed or structured, I have started the RfC above closely following wording discussed previously. -sche (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Responses

How can 4 possibly be true when the body of the article only states: The Mail's medical and science journalism has been criticised by some doctors and scientists, accusing it of using minor studies to generate scare stories.[1][2] Logic states that: "widely" > "some". And even the word "some" is incorrect since it is only Ben Goldacre who is referenced in the sources. Correct sourcing is vital for Wikipedia. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Goldacre, Ben (2008). Bad science. London: Fourth Estate. ISBN 9780007240197.
  2. ^ Goldacre, Ben. "The Daily Mail cancer story that torpedoes itself in paragraph 19". The Guardian. Retrieved 1 August 2015.
I could do without sea lions. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I would like to have a civil conversation about your statement. Would you mind showing me evidence of any negative thing any sea lion has ever done to you? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • 1, 3 and 4 are unambiguously true. 2 is also true but may (or may not) need attribution. I note with amusement the fact that some editors are questioning the reliability of sources that say The Daily Mail is widely viewed as being unreliable (which is a good thing; we should always question the reliability of all sources) while ignoring the elephant in the room: you can search all day and find source after source that talks about how unreliable The Daily Mail is while finding exactly zero sources that say that it is reliable. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
    Guy Macon, true dat. Guy (help!) 00:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
    The problem with The Daily Mail is systemic and affects everything they do without exception. They always choose whatever behavior maximizes profit.This keeps fooling Wikipedia editors who try to read the tea leaves and predict what areas they are reliable for.
If publishing accurate football scores maximizes profit, they will publish accurate football scores. If they ever decide that telling lies about whether Wigan Athletic F.C. won last week will be profitable they will tell lies about whether Wigan Athletic F.C. won last week.
If publishing articles that appeal to Conservative and Unionist Party members maximizes profit, they will do that. If they ever decide that suddenly switching to supporting the Liberal Democrats will maximize profit, they will start doing that instead.
If publishing retractions and corrections makes money, they will publish retractions and corrections. If publishing retractions and corrections loses money, they will stop publishing retractions and corrections.
If telling lies about celebrities brings in more money than they lose through fines and lawsuits, they will tell lies about celebrities. If telling lies about celebrities starts costing them more in lawsuits than they make in increased circulation, they will see that they are losing money on the deal and stop telling lies about celebrities.
Note that they do whatever maximizes profit, not whatever maximizes readership or makes the readers happy, although those things often overlap. If they ever decide that offending 90% of their readers will maximize profit, they will happily offend 90% of their readers.
Because of this basic truth, trying to decide in what areas The Daily Mail will decide that being reliable will turn a profit is a fool's errand. You are holding yourself hostage to their judgement as to what will maximize profit, and assuming that just because so far telling the truth about who won last week was profitable, it will necessarily remain profitable. The Daily Mail is not to be trusted in any area, even areas where they have a history of being reliable. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Attempt to focus attention on a typo that was corrected as soon as it was pointed out
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Daily News? You mean Daily Mail? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Update: I asked that because Guy Macon repeatedly mentioned The Daily News. Instead of replying, Guy Macon removed my question, and I reverted because WP:TALKO. Then Guy Macon changed what he had written despite WP:TALK#REPLIED. But I forgive, just as I forgive Daily Mail if it makes corrections silently. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment, per "Unsupported attributions", we need a source that makes that conclusion before including it. It takes original research to determine how authoritative and representative the claims of inaccuracy are. Alternatively we could say the paper's reporting is inaccurate if we could find a reliable source (i.e., not an opinion piece) that says that. While this may seem onerous, if we don't find a statement in reliable sources it lacks significance for inclusion. TFD (talk) 02:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm good with all four. Count me out of the pedantic nonsense that says we need a source that uses the word "widely" before we can write "widely" in our own text. If there are a good many sources of sufficient quality criticising this newspaper's stories for being unreliable and inaccurate, then it has been "widely" criticised along those lines. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Nomoskedasticity, policy does not say that sources must have the same wording, just that they convey the same meaning, in this case that the Daily Mail is considered unreliable by informed observers. We are opening ourselves up to right-wing editors finding a bunch of columns by conservatives and making making claims that fascism is left-wing or whatever the latest theory in the echo chamber is. Besides, it would be ironic to ignore Wikipedia policy of reliable sources in order to say that another publication is unreliable. TFD (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • See #Sourcing_concerns above. Guest2625 started a thread for discussing each source cited for the sentence. So far, one source (forbes.com) has been removed, one source (themediafund.org) is the current focus, others merit discussion. I hope that this RfC will not cause derailment of the attempt to look at the sources individually. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • All four are fine with me. Multiple RSes = "widely" for purposes of 2, IMO - David Gerard (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. It is bad form to open a request for comment when there is an ongoing discussion about the same topic on the talk page. However, I might be wrong. There are two editors with administrative privileges participating in the conversation, so I'll defer to them on procedural etiquette. Nonetheless, I am very excited to see all the new voices which have joined the conversation. --Guest2625 (talk) 06:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose "1", "2", "3", and "4" in the lead; support option "3" in the body with attribution to Ben Goldacre. Option "2" and "4" cannot stand based on the sources. If people believe the word "widely" can stand, please provide the quote or relevant sources which would support the words usage. As the discussion above has made clear, the current sources do not support "widely" in either location. Option "1" and "3" are more complex. Editors should realize that in fact option "1" is merely the generalization of option "3". Since option "3" is all that remains after the winnowing of the sources, one should ask oneself if it is appropriate to include this one statement in the lead. The answer is no. The sentence should not remain in the lead until the body of the criticism section and its sources support the claim in a due weight fashion. Lastly, attribution is necessary for controversial statements. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support 1, 3, 4, maybe 2 as well, all per the discussion above. I suggest a notice at WP:RSNB if there isn’t one already. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
    There is. See WP:RSPDM 📌 and WP:DAILYMAIL. 📌 --Guy Macon (talk) 11:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support #1, #3, and #4 based on currently cited sources. Neutral on #2 unless more reliable sources emerge. — Newslinger talk 10:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support 1, 3, & 4, per Guy Macon - Idealigic (talk) 11:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support 1 and 3, but oppose 2 and 4. The use of "widely" is WP:SYNTH and OR from sources randomly cobbled together, particularly from sources that have axes to grind (e.g. The Guardian). You can find other sources that are ideologically opposed to Daily Mail, but it serves no useful purpose to use them to represent the wider view because they are not the wider view. It would be equally wrong if someone finds a number of right-wing sources to say that say that a liberal-left politician/organisation is "widely" criticised. Avoid using Wikipedia's voice for what is a POV. Hzh (talk) 10:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support 1 & 3 as well as 2 & 4 if well sourced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support 1, 2, 3 and 4. I note the Daily Mail continues to lead the chart for IPSO-regulated publications with the most complaints that have required remedial action for the fourth year running. It's good to have these RFCs, you never know when one day a dead horse may rise. Mighty Antar (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • This RFC concerns this article and the sources in it. IPSO corrections and using them to determine the reliability of the Daily Mail needs to be shown in a secondary reliable source. There was no proof provided that the Daily Mail leads with the requirement of remedial actions. Reading the News Corp UK IPSO Annual Statement 2019 (Sun Newspapers), Associated Newspapers Annual Statement 2019 (Daily Mail newspapers), and Reach PLC Annual Statement to IPSO 2019 (Daily Mirror newspapers), it is clear that some hand-wavey analysis by us to determine reliability by IPSO adjucations is ill conceived. For 2019, there were upheld IPSO adjudications of 12 against Daily Mirror newspapers, 8 against Sun newspapers, and 7 against the Daily Mail newspapers. But, please look at the IPSO website. All IPSO monitored newspapers should be commended for allowing themselves to be monitored by a third party. Most of the other English speaking newspapers in the world aren't monitored by any third party. --Guest2625 (talk) 06:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
The "needs to be shown in a secondary reliable source" rule only applies to article content, not talk page discussions. I also note that Guest2625, like everyone else on every article talk page, often makes arguments that are not found in any reliable secondary source. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • 1) No. Saying "noted" violates WP:CLAIM. 2) No. The word "widely" is material that no cited source "directly supports" so adding it would violate WP:V. 3) No. The words "been ... criticised" are opinion without in-text attribution so violate WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. 4) No. "widely criticised" etc. is part of a revision by a banned editor so WP:BANREVERT applies: "the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert". Now, as to sources: because this RfC was started prematurely some of the opinions above were added before the cites were discussed in the "Sourcing concerns" thread started earlier; one was removed just before the RfC was posted, another was removed last week, and others have been questioned re WP:DUE considering this is the lead. What's left is: Guardian re the Wikipedia ban, Goldacre article in Guardian, New Yorker, Goldacre book which "draws heavily on [Goldacre's Guardian] columns". Since Wikipedia opinion is not accepted as global opinion and Goldacre criticizes lots of media, only The New Yorker cite would have any validity -- if it supported the statement. But, though it vaguely mentions "detractors", it also has good things to say, so pushing only this is a violation of WP:NPOV. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
    Peter Gulutzan, as a matter of policy, BANREVERT does not apply because the editor was not subject to any ban at the time the edit was made. We do not do damnatio memoriae. Excluding Goldacre because he also criticises other media is... novel. The fact is, he is particularly critical of the Daily Mail - as most health commentators are. There is a reason that we have satirical sites like the Daily Mail oncological ontology project: their health reporting is routinely hyperbolic, inaccurate, and notoriously often based on press releases from quacks and charlatans. Marsh has an entire website devoted to churnalism, and much of it is in the Mail, the leading outlet for bad PR. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Actually the sentence that I was quoting from said edits "made by a banned editor", but I'll concede that Zionziho is blocked as a sock puppet rather than banned. My mention of Goldacre is based on the quote from Goldacre in the Sourcing concerns thread. The problem of the sentence's poor sourcing will not be solved by referring to poorer sources. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Goldacre's book is a good source for the claim, not a poor one - David Gerard (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Goldacre's book does not discuss the reliability of Mail but criticizes media with a wide swath for medical reporting. Referring to it as "international journal of health scares" and "natural home of miracle cures" is about all there is. It's available on archive if you'd like to, you know, read it? fiveby(zero) 20:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support all as an accurate summary of the sources. The purpose of the lead is to summarize the body; using "widely" to summarize a lengthy, diverse list of sources is not synthesis - it falls under WP:BLUE / WP:CALC and does not require an independent source specifically stating it when the breadth of cited coverage is sufficiently clear. (Note that this is different than stating that it is always referred to that way or is 'generally' referred to that way, which requires research beyond just summarizing the sources and therefore would be synthesis - this may be what is tripping some people up above, since comparable but not quite the same phrasings often lead to WP:SYNTH issues. But "widely" is a reasonable summary provided our sourcing is unequivocally broad, which in this case it is.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support all per the mountain of evidence presented in the discussions listed at WP:DAILYMAIL. Those discussions were about the use of the Daily Mail as Wikipedia references, but the information presented there about the widely recognized unreliability of claims made by the Daily Mail is plenty to answer the question being asked by this RfC. — Tartan357  (Talk) 04:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
This is a wikipedia article, therefore, the reliable sources backing the claim need to be in the article. A relevant opinion will need be based on the sources currently in the article. --Guest2625 (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

On August 25 Legobot removed the RfC template. On October 3 Guy|JzG removed an overlapping thread started by Lobsterthermidor. On October 6 Guy|JzG removed the disputed tag from the article with edit summary = "RfC is stalled but consensus clearly favours inclusion of this text". The text includes "widely" etc. I see no formal request to close but an uninvolved editor is free to do so. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree. This sentence is still in dispute and the tags should be added at the relevant locations. It is not clear to me why on October 3 Guy|JzG removed the thread started by Lobsterthermidor. Lobsterthermidor is not a banned editor. It's very rude to just delete a whole talk page section like that. If Guy|JzG doesn't want to revert that erroneous edit, I'll restore that talk page section. We value the input of all editors on wikipedia. --Guest2625 (talk) 05:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Most of that section is from a sockpuppet: See User:Jack B Williamson. If you decide all by yourself to restore it without seeking consensus, other editors can decide all by themselves to remove it again. I suggest that you seek consensus for such an action. My opinion is that JzG was correct in removing a duplicative thread that was becoming a sock magnet. Another editor (Peter Gulutzan) appears to agree: "I believe this overlaps with the RfC on the inclusion of certain statements about unreliability and inaccuracy. If so, there is no need to bring it up as a separate thread". --Guy Macon (talk) 05:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Wrong, WP:TALKO. Please stop making claims about what I might "agree" with or am trying to "focus attention on". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Please look up the difference between "agrees" and "appears to agree". Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • No This RfC is just an end-run around the WP:V policy and WP:ONUS. The sources and text in the reliability section do not support such a summary in the lead. #3 could be easily cited, and if there were enough content in the body then it would be appropriate to summarize in the lead. I do not know whether appropriate sources could be found for #1, certainly they are not present in the article at this time, and if widely were true I would think there would be no problem finding sources and this discussion would not even be necessary. fiveby(zero) 20:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support 1, 3 & 4 as well as 2 if sourced, per the above discussions. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 10:03, 26 October 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.

Failed verification

The sources given for "The Daily Mail has been noted for its unreliability and widely criticised for its printing of sensationalist and inaccurate scare stories of science and medical research": "Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source", "Mail Supremacy", and "The Daily Mail cancer story that torpedoes itself in paragraph 19" simply do not support the give claims. David Gerard please provide quotes from the articles which you think support the claims. fiveby(zero) 01:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Please read the extensive discussion already on this talk page and in its archives - David Gerard (talk) 09:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Fiveby, oh the irony: "failed verification" could be the motto of the Daily Mail. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
None of which addresses the issue, do these particular sources support the claims made in the preceding text?
This is one example from a 10 year old article which ran with a press release[1] and buried the facts (The late caveat, torpedoing the central premise of a news piece, is a common strategy in many newspapers.) Poor reporting based on exaggerated and misleading press releases is by no means a problem confined to Daily Mail[2][3][4] One example is not evidence of being "widely criticised".
There should certainly be criticism of the paper's medical reporting: The Daily Mail published almost twice as many articles as its nearest rival, The Daily Express, and over eight times as many articles as The Guardian.[5] No reason to doubt Ben Goldacre's characterization as International Journal of Health Scares, but this particular source provides no evidence or support for such.
An eight year old article from The New Yorker with some history, discussion of culture, marketing, bias and mostly concerned with Dacre. There isn't any discussion of science or medical reporting, it's a long article but I see no discussion of the paper's reliability. If I missed something maybe you could provide a quote?
The is all about the ban RfC and discusses the opinion of WP editors. "...has been noted for its unreliability..." is a weaselly statement to begin with, but the only evidence cited is that Wikipedia has called it unreliable. Surely there is something else? Who else has noted unreliability? This bit of navel gazing does not support the claim being made.
Per WP:NOR ...each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly..., Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research. fiveby(zero) 15:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Kirby Jess (October 5, 2010). ""Breast cancer diet" story based on research that wasn't about breast cancer". Cancer Research UK Blog.
  2. ^ Lomangino, Kevin (February 9, 2020). "Tainted at the source: Misleading PR claims that flow downstream to health news consumers". Health News Review.
  3. ^ Jaklevic, Mary Chris (March 19, 2020). "News release labeling to combat a global scourge of exaggerated claims". Health News Review.
  4. ^ Sumner, Petroc (2014). "The association between exaggeration in health related science news and academic press releases: retrospective observational study". BMJ.
  5. ^ Robinson, A. (2013). "Analysis of health stories in daily newspapers in the UK". Public Health. 127 (1): 39–45.
Did you check the RFC literally on this topic? - David Gerard (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
I did not challenge the article text, but the applicability of the sources used in support. No matter what the above voting concludes for article text the prohibitions against original research and requirements for verifiability still apply. The {{Failed verification}} tags you removed are for when the source does not support what is contained in the article, and despite the source not supporting the article, the source still contains useful information on the topic. Since you removed those tags can you quote from those sources where they make such statements explicitly? fiveby(zero) 16:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Those were part of the RFC discussion also. Did you check the RFC literally on this topic? - David Gerard (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
I see no such quotes from these articles supporting the claims above or in Archive 7. Regardless of the POV voting in the cart-before-the-horse RfC, WP:V and WP:OR are core policies. There are citations in the current article text which clearly do not support the preceding claims. The {{Failed verification}} template is for identifying such misused sources and an alternative to outright removal when, for instance, there is an ongoing RfC or when likely that better sources might be found to support the claims. Per WP:BURDEN please provide quotes from the articles which directly support the claims. A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is directly present in the source, so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of Wikipedia:No original research. fiveby(zero) 12:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Fiveby, you asre second-guessing the RfC and trying to replace its conclusions with your own. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

David Gerard, see WP:PROVEIT. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. WP:STICKTOSOURCE each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. These are core Wikipedia polices and not subject to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. I have repeatedly asked for quotes from these sources that "clearly support the material as presented in the article". Since you are removing the failed verification tags, you should provide them. fiveby(zero) 12:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding somewhat older sources, is there any source anywhere that makes the claim "The Daily Mail was fabricating stories X years ago, but since year Y they have reformed"? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand the question, have they reformed? "The Mail and The Guardian stretch reality to fit a frame, just as Breitbart does," If there are older sources that discuss reliability then please, put them in the article. By refusing to live up to the policies intended to make Wikipedia reliable, editors here are simply proving The Times right in saying "appears to reflect less a concern for accuracy than dislike of the Daily Mail's opinions." fiveby(zero) 15:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daily_Mail/Archive_8&oldid=1136647520"