Talk:Daily Mail

in the section titled "The Daily Mail in pop culture," the title of the song "Paperback Writer" is first written without quotes, and then again in italics. In addition, the titles of the NME and Tne New Yorker should be italicized, and the initialism NME should be expanded to the full name of the publication. Let's get this fixed and looking professional! 75.118.14.97 (talk) 22:53, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

MOS:POPMUSIC seems to me to mean "Paperback Writer" inside double quotes would be correct, but I won't change. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Not middle market 2600:8801:10F:300:C292:22DB:942F:E5BC (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Richard Caccappolo has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 16 § Richard Caccappolo until a consensus is reached. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

At present the article jumps straight from a section about 1930 - 1939 to the post-war period. Has someone deleted the section covering the Daily Mail's contortions during the second world war? NRPanikker (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

The article contains "There have been accusations of racism against the Daily Mail." sourced solely to an opinion article in The Guardian by Ellie Mae O'Hagan who says a Daily Mail article contained "thinly disguised racism". But I didn't see that The Guardian article quoted anyone else saying that, so changed with edit summary = Changed "There have been accusations of racism" to "A Guardian writer made an accusation of racism" per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Five minutes later Nomoskedasticity reverted with edit summary = Reverted 1 edit by Peter Gulutzan (talk): But it's not just that writer -- as becomes crystal clear later in the very same paragraph. My claim is: no, it is not crystal clear in the first paragraph or later. I am asking for other opinions. If I cannot see consensus to follow the guideline, I believe an alternative is to remove the sentence. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Right in the same paragraph is another accusation of racism, one not sourced to the Guardian. It's not just the Guardian, and it is inaccurate to edit our article to suggest that it is. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

The complete paragraph is Shortly after the Olympics opening ceremony, the Daily Mail published a great steaming turd of an article by a "journalist" called Rick Dewsbury. I won't reproduce the whole sorry thing here, but suffice to say it was an unpleasant mix of contempt, misanthropy and thinly disguised racism. As he complained bitterly of the ceremony's "politically driven multiculturalism", Dewsbury observed: "This was supposed to be a representation of modern life in England but it is likely to be a challenge for the organisers to find an educated white middle-aged mother and black father living together with a happy family in such a set-up." Does anyone agree with Nomoskedasticity that a "crystal clear" statement "right in the same paragraph" is another accusation by someone other than Ellie Mae O'Hagan? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

How tiresome -- playing games... The paragraph in question is of course the paragraph in our article, which reads: There have been accusations of racism against the Daily Mail. In 2012, in an article for The New Yorker, former Mail reporter Brendan Montague criticised the Mail's content and culture, stating: "None of the front-line reporters I worked with were racist, but there's institutional racism [at the Daily Mail]". Two sources, one the Guardian, the other the New Yorker. So, as I said, not just the Guardian. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I thought that the paragraph you were talking about was in the cited article. Anyway, I asked for other opinions, and will see whether anyone else understands me. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I think this was useful. There was also the famous Big-Bang-gate episode and let's not forget that cartoon ... Black Kite (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan's edit correctly reflects the singularity of the racism accusation. To support how the sentence is currently written requires the addition of at least one further citation immediately after the sentence. Rupples (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, that might fix a WP:V problem but what concerned me was WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution." WP:NEWSOPED points to it too. Unfortunately I see that three different editors seem to think that is solved by pointing at non-Guardian items elsewhere instead of doing what WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV says, so I have failed to state the case in a way that people can understand. Okay I give up. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I have no real problem with attributing this, even though it is a statement of the blindingly obvious. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:51, 1 December 2025 (UTC)