Talk:Daily Mail/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Daily Mail. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Gay Genes Story

Latest comment: 15 years ago16 comments8 people in discussion

This is one of the more famous headlines that the Daily Mail has run so should be mentioned in the Famous Stories section. Please discuss here rather than deleting repeatedly without explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.38.25 (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The story was not especially associated with the Daily Mail. The sources provided make it clear that the story originated with the sensational press release of a particular scientist. It was he who hyped the story and the Mail just reported it uncritically, along with numerous other papers. This is a common occurrence which seems to happen every time there's a scientific conference - the press commonly latches onto some story like the recent brain training story which came out of the British Science Festival. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Whilst the uncritical reporting of a scientific press release is not unusual, the interpretation of the story was unique to the Daily Mail, and it was for this reason that the episode has become famous. The erroneous reporting of the findings as being a 'gay gene' was found in many news sources at the time. Although this may be an over-simplistic interpretation of the findings, it is neutral in terms of attitude towards homosexuality. The Daily Mail report was responsible for the addition of "Abortion hope". This interpretation cannot be connected to the author of the study on which the headline was based. The sentence describing the headline that had been added to the wikipedia article did not comment on the appropriateness of the headline, only mentioning that it is famous. Since this is clearly true, the edit should not have been undone. I have re-instated it.

No, the matter was described as a media frenzy and numerous newspapers printed similar headlines such as "Proof of a poof" (Sunday Sport) and "Parents may demand abortions after tests" (The Sun). Suggesting this to be some special invention of the Daily Mail is distortion contrary to WP:UNDUE. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless it is untrue to say that the Daily Mail reported the story uncritically since the suggestion of an "Abortion Hope" was not in the original press release on which the story was based. In any case, the section of the wikipedia article is entitled "Famous Stories". Since the story IS famous, its entry here is justified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.38.25 (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The source How to (or not to) communicate science lists the Daily Mail's headline amongst a selection from other newspapers without giving undue prominence to it. It then explains the true source:

“

But before castigating the press, it is important to see how those stories emerged. The answer lies in the press releases put out by Science and in interviews given by Hamer himself, which raised all these issues, including Hamer's suggestion that he would patent the gene or gene marker so as to control its potential use for prenatal screening. As Kitzinger points out, below the headlines, the press stories were a good deal more cautious – indeed more cautious than Hamer had been.

”

So, spinning this as an especially wicked story of the Mail's is not NPOV. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this story should be included in the "famous stories" section and that the Daily Mail's version of the headline is sufficiently opinionated to be noteworthy. In fact it would be justified to add further detail explaining exactly why. The source cited above provides plenty of such detail for addition to the Wikipedia article. It lists a number of papers that reported the findings as follows:

“

"When Dean Hamer claimed, in a paper in Science in 1993 [1], that he had identified a gene marker for male homosexual behaviour (Xq28), the headlines were appropriately sensational:

“It's in the genes – how homosexuals are born to be different” (Daily Mirror, 17 July)

“Genes that may chart course of sex life” (Daily Mail, 17 July)

“Proof of a poof’ (Sunday Sport, 18 July)

“Mums pass gay gene to sons say doctors” (Sun, 17 July)

“Abortion hope after ‘gay genes’ finding” (Daily Mail, 16 July)

(I owe this selection to Jenny Kitzinger in a forthcoming paper.)

”

The other newspaper reports are indeed equally scientifically inaccurate to the Daily Mail's, and this may indeed be attributable to the inaccuracy of the press release. However they are merely reporting that a gene has been found that is associated with homosexuality. Only the quote from the Daily Mail 16 July includes the phrase "abortion hope".

The headlines in the other newspapers suggest that gay men inherit homosexuality. The Daily Mail's headline is the only one that expressed the hope that this might be used to prevent the existence of homosexuals.

There are dozens of easily accessible references that indicate that this story is famous, however this does not appear to be felt necessary for the other famous stories in the same section of this article. In fact, the uniformly positive tone of the "famous stories" section without this headline is unbalanced.78.145.71.248 (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible controversy - the paper's website is currently getting negative attention for homophobic coverage of Stephen Gately's death http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1220756/Why-natural-Stephen-Gatelys-death.html 87.127.97.148 (talk) 10:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the mail is frequently and, in my opinion, justly accused of homophobia. The paper's strong reputation for homophobia and opposition to immigration should be mentioned in its wikipedia article for a balanced view. The current version of this page is so unbalanced in the Mail's favour it seems very suspicious.67.201.103.245 (talk) 22:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is not unbalanced and the Mail is NOT homophobic and it is NOT 'anti immigration' it simply supports stronger controls on immigration. The article is fine as it is it has a neutral point of view. Christian1985 (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC) - that's not what M&S, Charlie Brooker, The Guardian (& other papers/blogs), and a large amount of Twitter & facebook members think http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/16/stephen-gately-jan-moir 87.127.97.148 (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Christian, really, I am formally questioning your partiality, in regards to the Daily Mail. I would like you to answer the criticism right now. I have put up numerous controversial stories, properly sourced, which you have taken down. It is not your job to censor this article, to try and put up the image of the title that you would like.

I WILL be adding a controversy section. And I WILL source it properly. And if you delete it, I will formally report you to the website as a vandal. And an unfit person to be operating on this page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.223.67 (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You can report me all you want, your last reports were rejected by Administrators because I have done nothing wrong. I have been through this before and you refuse to listen. Your 'facts' were not properly sourced you use unreliable sources which contravene Wikipedia guidelines. Also many of your edits are POV (ie your opinions) like 'anti immigration, that is NOT a fact it is simply your opinion. I am not a vandal and I am NOT censoring anything. I have looked at your previous edits and none of them were factual they are POV or from biased unreliable sources. Also I have not removed your latest edits but they were rightly removed. Christian1985 (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Christian. They were properly sourced. Completely. I have not even made a complaint about you, as of yet, so your claims that this has been rejected is another outright lie.

The sources I used were Newspaper articles on The Mail being reported to the Press complaints commission on various things. The press complaints verdict, via their web page. Those are the sources you try and claim aren't reliable.

"Also many of your edits are POV (ie your opinions) like 'anti immigration," What is "anti EU" and "Pro monarchy then" that you posted on the page? That's your point of view.

I want to warn you Christian, I will report you (and your actions on this page) as it's attempt to censor sites like this.

Not only that, but I will print all of the edits that you have removed on this discussion page (as well as the forums) to fully expose your continued censorship of this page.

You are walking a very very fine line on this website.

Censorship of page

These are the items deleted from the page, by Christian1985 in the last 24 hours.

The deleted controversy section:

1: Jan Moir controversy on Steven Gately.

Claim "unsourced". Sources: The Daily Mail article. The PCCs press release on the article.

2: Accusations of racist cartoon printed.

Claim "unsourced". Sources: The Article. A Guardian article on the BMA reporting the Daily Mail to the PCC. The Mail's apology on the subject.

3: Accusations of homophobia by Richard Littlejohn in columns.

Sources. About 5 newspaper articles on the subject, including one of about 50 Guardian articles on the subject. Claim by censors "unsourced.

===Christian=== It's not acceptable to break every Wikipedia rule in the book, on a daily basis, and then claim that people complaining about this are making "personal attacks".

Constantly deleting (vandalising) edits, and lying about the reasons for doing so.

I think you should really wake up to the fact that it's perfectly acceptable to have a controversy page on a newspaper wikipedia page (all newspapers are guilty of breaking PCC rules). And understand that no matter how much you love the daily mail, you simply can't use edits and deletions to control the papers image on here.

These are the rules. If it's fully sourced, and true, it's fact. You can't delete it.

Rules you don't respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.223.67 (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I have done nothing wrong I respect the rules I haven't broken any. I have every right to delete entries on Talk pages when you are posting libellous information about me claiming I work for the Mail. Christian1985 (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The future of this page

Christian, seriously, here is where I stand.

Every tabloid page on wikipedia has these edits. And all of them are respected. As they are accurate, sourced, and fully follow wikipedia. I'm willing to accept that you didn't make the last deletions, but I think it's obvious that you have in the past.

I really don't want to argue on this subject every month of the year, but in the future, you simply have to accept changes. When you have a paper that has been reported to and charged by the Press Complaints Commision, more than any newspaper in the country, and not one of these notorious stories has been allowed to stay up on the page - which I accept is by various users - you must see how people view this as censorship.

The edit button is not to uphold the image of the subject. It's to print fact. You may argue that some of these edits are "leftist" and have an "agenda" and you're probably right. But at the same time, in printing NOTHING on the subject, it's biased in the other way.

There must be a medium on this page. I apologise if I have individually offended you, and you feel as if you have been targeted, but a lot of people are very unhappy with how this page is managed, and it needs a resolution.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.223.67 (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Printing facts is not nearly as important as sticking to actual wikipedia policies, like WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV, which your edits didn't do a very good job of. I've attempted to rescue a few bits from your reverted edits, since there was a source in there. Dicklyon (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

":Printing facts is not nearly as important as sticking to actual wikipedia policies, like WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV, which your edits didn't do a very good job of. "

The complaint was taken to wikipedia (as in claims that I was vandalising the page with my edits.....?) and was quickly bebuffed. IN fact, they felt that there were definite "ownership" issues, regarding the editing of this page. As in a group of people, moulding the page in the image they wish.

I accept your points on POV, but I don't feel that putting up the fact that the paper has printed some controversial stories breaks that. It's fact. On the basis that they have been forced to apologise for most of them by the PCC.

Can I ask what rules this breaks? And isn't it more an "ownership" issue. As in, people only wanting the page in the image that they agree with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.223.67 (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

censorship

Latest comment: 15 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

i agree something has to be done about this contributor (christian) he will not accept any editing that even hints at any controversy regarding the DM even when provided by relaible sources, and if you try he calls you a guardian reading communist and repeatedly vanalises the page. i believe it is highly likely is a daily mail employee. can anyone tell me how i remove him from this page because he is single handedly dictating its tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.198.184 (talk • contribs)

Christian1985 has not done any recent edits, so this complaint seems quite spurious. Dicklyon (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't you dare insult me like that, there is no need for such abrupt comments. I am NOT dictating anything and I am NOT vandalising the page. I am simply following the rules. I am not censoring the page and I am not a DM employee, if you keep making such libellous accusations I will making complaints. I will not be 'removed' from here because I have as much right as anyone to comment. I am not being bullied by people like you. Christian1985 (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Your previous edits were not sourced fact they were your opinions and unreliable sources like Daily Mail website comment threads and blogs which didn't prove anything about the claims you were making. According to WP guidelines sources have to reputable and reliable. Urban Dictionary, blogs and website comments are not reliable sources. Christian1985 (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This section appears to be an attack from a unnamed person -- hence is not even worth responding to. WP requires reliable sources, and material which does not meet that threshhold rightly does not belong on WP. Collect (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well said Collect; I know exactly who wrote it it is an IP user who has made several vandalism edits to the Daily Mail article. They are just upset at the fact I have removed their unsourced edits so they are bullying me with such attacks. Do you know who I could complain to about such abuse, because the administrators refuse to act. Christian1985 (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, all the nuisance libel awards and settlements should go -- a cursory examination finds almost exactly as many with the Guardian -- with its settlemnts ranging in the 100K range or higher -- not the 3K to 30K ones found in this article. The Guardian had to pay real money to Zuma, Berezovsky, and a host of others as a result of its articles -- totalling well over the total of the listed cases for the Daily Mail. This article is now a rubbish heap for anything remotely defamatory, it appears. That a claim for 3,000 pounds on the Daily Mail is listed is absurd. And with legal bills for a trial easily reaching a million pounds, one can see why a 3,000 popund settlement is not much to note. Collect (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Defamation damages awarded in English courts tend to be small unless the victim has suffered financial loss. Celebrities generally sue newpapers in order to obtain a decision that the published account was untrue, rather than to recover substantial damages. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Can that explain why the Guardian has had to pay out so much more than the Mail? BTW, the term "Conservative" without the word "Party" does not mean "Conservative Party" which makes the edit summary wherein you deleted "Conservative" a tad hard to explain. Collect (talk) 13:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Zuma settled for an undisclosed amount. Berezovsky was awarded GBP20,000. Compare that with the Mail: Alan Sugar and Elton John, GBP100,000 each. But defamation awards do not reflect the seriousness of the defamation, but the hurt suffered by the victim. And yes, Conservative does refer to the Conservative and Unionist Party just as Democrat and Republican refer to those parties in the US. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The term was linked to Conservative, an article that made it clear what the intended reference was. Dicklyon (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Readers should not have to click on links to understand what terms mean. Even if patient readers go to the article's section on the United Kingdom they will read about the Conservative and Unionist Party and find that it represents a diversity of opinions. Furthermore there is no source. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

politicl leaning source

Latest comment: 14 years ago55 comments6 people in discussion

[1] is a reliable source. It states: "Circulation: 2,171,686 Political allegiance: Right-leaning with traditionally conservative values, it backed the Tories in 2005 and was highly critical of Tony Blair. However, before that it had often supported him and his New Labour project, including at the 2001 election. The Daily Mail appears more likely than not to back David Cameron at the next election, although it has welcomed some of Mr Brown's policies - rethinking 24-hour drinking and super casinos, for instance. " I submit "right-leaning with traditionally conservative values" ascribes "conservative" to the Daily Mail and does not ascribe allegiance to the Conservative Party in so doing. I trust this settles the issue. Collect (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If the BBC had intended to say that the Mail was "Conservative" they would have clearly said that. Journalists no longer get paid by the word. Also, are they saying this to imply reporting bias or general editorial stance? I note they backed New Labour in 2001. So perhaps their "Political" section should say "Conservative/Socialist". It seems that their political stance is too complex to summarize briefly. There was a time when newspapers were tied to political parties, but it is wrong to imply they still are. It would be better to include the information in the body of the article, but probably best to find a better source, e.g., academic writing on English journalism.

Incidentally do you think that it would be fair to describe the Conservative Party as "Right-leaning with traditionally conservative values"? Cameron is not right-leaning and Thatcher ignored traditionally conservative values. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say The Mail was 'socialist', it has never backed Labour not in any election. It might have agreed with some things under Tony Blair but it has never formally backed the Labour party or socialism. I wouldn't read it if it did. Christian1985 (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It back New Labour in 2001. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have read the Mail since the late 1990s and its the first i've heard of it. The Mail has always despised the Labour Party as much I do. The reason I read it is because I am a solid Conservative. Christian1985 (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The BBC article says: "Right-leaning with traditionally conservative values, it backed the Tories in 2005 and was highly critical of Tony Blair. However, before that it had often supported him and his New Labour project, including at the 2001 election."[2] Other RS say the same. Of course they could be wrong - I have not been able to find anything that contradicts this. Who knows they may back UKIP in the next election. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok fair enough, if there are reputable sources I guess I can't argue. Thank you. Christian1985 (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) "Traditional conservative" would appear to cover it, no? Collect (talk) 12:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think there should be anything there? All of these descriptions are ambiguous and it is unclear whether the designation refers to editorial policy or reporting bias. Much better to cover in the body of the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Your stated reason for deleting "Conservative" was that you thought it had to mean "Conservative Party," If your position was that no position should be given for any media, why not say that ab initio? The place to argue that is likely at the template stage with notification on all pages using the template. The version proffered is clearly well-sourced, and should not cause you any problems. Collect (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections for Conservative publications being called "Conservative". No problems with this website called Conservative[3] but problems with this website: [4]. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You have me at a loss -- British Columbia has absolutely nothing to do with the Daily Mail. Collect (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Just illustrating that there can be confusion between the name of a party and the name of an ideology. The Mail is not tied to the Conservative Party and may back UKIP in the next election. UKIP may meet your definition of a conservative party but the saying the Mail is Conservative would be confusing. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

And how would "traditional conservative values" remotely tie the paper to the Conservative party? Collect (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The term is "traditional conservative" is ambiguous. They certainly do not support traditional conservatism.[5] The Four Deuces (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) The source which is accepted as RS says "traditionally conservative values." Why do you dispute the wording of a reliable source? Our task is to use the words of reliable sources, not to make assertions as to what we think about their use of words. Collect (talk) 00:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I know I have said this before but unlike some of the people who come on here just to slag The DM off I actually read it and it clearly is a Conservative paper, by that I mean it supports the Conservative Party and it depsises Labour, it also contrary to some of the libellous claims pushed on Wikipedia despises and condemns the BNP Christian1985 (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Traditional conservatism refers to One Nation Toryism, which does not appear to be supported by the Mail. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you give a reliable source for that claim? I never heard of such a claim before. If it is only your opinion, it does not count. WP uses Reliable Sources only. Collect (talk) 01:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I provided a reference for it. By the way I do not have my own opinions on what words mean, although I may be mistaken sometimes.[6] The Four Deuces (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) Other than the fact that your source does not equate "traditionally conservative values" with "One Nation Toryism" -- what source do you have for that claim? Citing something which says nothing close to your assertion, fails. Collect (talk) 11:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

See: page 79: "Traditional conservatism, or 'one nation' conservatism as it was more often called...."[7] The Four Deuces (talk) 11:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) aside from the fact that the other six hundred googlebook hits say no such thing, your source does Not equate "traditionally conservative values" with "one nation Toryism" at all (as you specifically claimed above), hence is a gross misuse of a cite. Try [8], or [9] which specifically links the DM with traditional conservatism. And please try to find cites which actually support the claims made. Collect (talk) 12:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Your first source says "[traditional conservatism] evolved into what was later called 'one-nation conservatism'.... A totally different form of conservatism.... dominated the Reagan administrations... and also the Thatcher governments...." Even your second source Racism, culture, markets calls the ideology of the Mail "a peculiar mix of neo-liberal economic policies and traditional conservatism". By the way, if you want to know what traditional conservatism means don't google "Daily Mail"+""traditional conservatism". Get a book about conservatism in the UK. Also sorry for saying Toryism when the article said conservatism, but the two words are interchangeable. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The source I provided Ideology and politics in Britain today is a good source for understanding British politics. Note too another reference to Thatcher being against tradtional conservatism on p. 99[10] and a journalist from the Mail defends her. I certainly remember the Mail as being Thatcherite not traditional conservative. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) You specifically cited "one nation Toryism" above. Now you seem to elide your claim, though the sources still tend to say "traditionally conservative values" are not the same as "printed by the Conservative Party" by a few hundred miles. And "conservatism" is not the same as "Toryism" nor does "conservative values" have an iota to do with a claim about it being an agency of the Conservative Party. Which was, of course, your initial claim. Collect (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As your discussion points out, the issues are too complex to narrow down to a single phrase. Best to discuss more fully in the body of the article. I have no idea what you think conservative means. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that it means they are not in favour of major changes in how things get done -- that os what "traditional conservative values" would appear to mean on its face. Certainly your claim that it means "Conservative Party" is by the boards, and, as wtih all newspapers, it refers to editorial position, not to any "bias" in reportage. Collect (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

"Centre-right" has no conceivable objections. Clearly the cite given at the top makes the word "Right" absolutely reasonable, and there is no "Centre-Right Party" to claim confusion with. That the DM once supported Blair at a time when he was an avowed centrist does not negate the use of this term. Collect (talk) 11:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Centre-right may refer to a coalition between liberal and conservative parties. For example see this article from the Financial Times: "Germany set for centre-right coalition" where it refers to a "conservative-liberal alliance".[11] As far as I know the Mail is not calling for any such coalition in the UK. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) Centre-right and Centre-left are WP articles. Collect (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Casually contributing to this argument, it seems irrefutable and plain to me that the Daily Mail is an ideologically conservative/right-wing newspaper, perhaps the most ideologically right-wing newspaper in the UK. Any attempt by to pick small anomalies in the past ("they vaguely supported labour for a couple of minutes in 2001") would seem like a direct effort to protect the image of the paper in the publication's wiki article.--Tomsega (talk) 12:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Although some editors appear to be negative to the DM. I have no idea why the multiple sources that its readership is Conservative, and that it historically is conservative in view have been fudged out. Collect (talk) 15:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

We should be very careful before accusing newspapers of political bias. Could you please provide a source for this assertion. In the meantime I will reverse this entry. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

"Generally Conservative" is an accusation of "political bias"?? We have had eight sources in the past for its support of the Conservative Party, four sources for its readership being conservative, and the BBC to boot! How many are needed? I request that you make an RfC on this (Is "generally conservative" an accusation of political bias?) , and revert in the meantime. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Collect a request for comment would be a sensible move to hopefully end this dispute. But as a Conservative Party supporter and Mail reader I will say as far as I am concerned it is clearly a Conservative newspaper. It does NOT support or endorse the BNP or far-right groups as some Mail haters try and post on the article. As Collect has also pointed out the vast majority of Mail readers are Conservative voters/supporters as shown by solid evidence. Christian1985 (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that the Daily Mail provides news coverage that is biased in favor of the Conservative Party or do you think that it is unbiased? The Four Deuces (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The news coverage as such is not biased, nor does saying it editorially had a traditional conservative oulook have anything at all to do with biased news coverage at all. Straw man argument there. Collect (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

As we discussed it did not have a traditional conservative editorial stance because it supported Margaret Thatcher and New Labour, not Ted Heath and Ken Clarke. But that stance is not hard and fast anyway. It is certainly capable of criticizing the Conservative Party, which a Conservative publication would not do. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because it actually has the guts to criticise the party it backs doesn't mean it is against them. I am glad it speaks it mind on issues not like for example the Daily Mirror which just loyally backs Labour whatever they do. At least the DM has a mind of its own. I am a strong Conservative supporter but I don't agree with everything on every issue doesn't mean I am suddenly a Labour supporter because I criticised them on a few issues. Christian1985 (talk) 11:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Copnsensus rules -- and it says "traditional conservative." Please so edit the page. Collect (talk) 12:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I have seen "generally Conservative", "Centre-right", "Conservative", "right-wing", even "Middle England" and other descriptions put in, so there is obviously no consensus. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

They were all proposed by me and others in order to please you. The consensus is for "traditional conservative" as it clear that no other compromise will suit. Saying that because I sought a compromise that therefore it can not be consensus is errant. Collect (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not see any consensus for "traditional conservative" and you have provided no evidence that the Mail supported that particular brand of conservatism which is associated with the Tory Reform Group. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

(out) It has a reliable source. Which is what counts. Collect (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not it is a reliable source, it does not back up your labeling of this newspaper. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"Political allegiance: Right-leaning with traditionally conservative values" is insufficiently clear? Collect (talk) 11:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That is a pretty long description to put into an infobox. It would have to qualified anyway. Political allegiance means allegiance to a political party, not an ideology, calling anyone except the BNP right-wing is POV, and "traditionally conservative" could be confused with "traditional conservatism" which the Mail appears to oppose. If you add all these qualitications to the infobox it would be too long. Then there is the issue of whether you are referring to the paper's reporting or its editorial policy. And of course the Mail does not claim to have any sort of bias at all. Much better to explain all this in the body of the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Having read the above, I find it difficult to work out what the substance of the dispute is. However, it seems to me that describing the Daily Mail as "right-leaning with traditionally conservative values" is one of the most uncontroverisal statements about it I can think of. At present, the infobox says "Right of centre", which is perfectly fine. and "Conservative", which is almost fine, but the c should be changed to lower-case. I can see no reason at all to change it other than that.

I don't agree, however, with using the phrase "generally conservative". The Daily Mail is, most definitely consistently conservative (it has been for over a century) and there does not appear to be a source that justifies the qualification "generally".

Am I missing something, because this whole dispute seems to be over nothing. --FormerIP (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Talk:Daily Mail. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Wherein only one editor on NPOV/N has asserted anything which would imply "bias." BTW, "generally" was used because that editor said that the DM was inconsistent, whilst it appears the DM Collect (talk) 12:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Well only one other editor has responded since you posted to RSN two days ago. Could you please provide details of all the previous times you have taken this issue to RSN and other noticeboards so that we can read what the discussion was? The Four Deuces (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

TFD, I can see from the link to the NPOV board discussion that you take the view that the field should only be used for "official" support for a political party. There might be an aguable case for this, but the articles on all other UK daily newspapers seems to have a reference in this field along the lines of "right of centre", "liberal" etc. If there's a reason for the Daily Mail box to be different, it is not clear what it is. If you want to dicuss how the infobox is used generally, then I'd suggest starting an RfC. --FormerIP (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly obvious to most that the paper is a supporter of the conservative party. In quite an open way. It's also a critic of the party when it wants to be, but at the same time, it's pretty obvious in it's support.

The only time it has wavered in the last 30 years was when it thought Tony Blair was OK for about 2 months. It didn't revert from it's traditional tory backing in any election though.

I think you could go even further and suggest that it actually campaigns for the conservative party. Rather like The Sun used to, with Thatcher. Most of it's editorial content, you could argue (speculative articles on immigration, debt, asylum, EU) are simply written to back up tory policy on the same subjects

Cjmooney9 (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

May I please ask why abusive personal comments about me were not removed this morning. Other editors have been on this morning since the abusive was posted but did not remove it. I have just discovered them myself now and have removed them. Christian1985 (talk) 11:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I am on EST and found it about the same time as you did -- I would have removed it. The vandal struck at 1 a.m. my time. I had an EC on adding the BBC source. Collect (talk) 12:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Collect Christian1985 (talk) 12:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Christian. Just to let you know I didn't remove it because I didn't notice it. I hope it goes without saying that I also don't approve of it. --FormerIP (talk) 12:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem I don't mean to blame other editors, I was just extremely furious when I found what that vandal had written. Thanks anyway Christian1985 (talk) 12:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Latest comment: 14 years ago31 comments6 people in discussion

I think this page possibly has ownership problems. Far too many reverts of acceptable edits. Unfair claims of page "vandalism".

The page is in limnbo, because of constant edit reverts and deletions. An almost impossible page to improve or change.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Why not make edits and discuss them on this page? Collect (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Input/advice from the wider community on the page would be beneficial. Cjmooney9 (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

A number of editors have insisted on inserting a line in the description for "political alignment", despite the fact that the newspaper is not aligned with any political party and has supported both of Britain's major parties in the recent past. Their descriptions include "Right of centre conservative", "Right of Cente Conservative", "Generally Conservative", "Centre-Right", "Conservative", "Right wing", "Fascist", "Fascist, BNP", "Conservative, Nationalist", "Middle England/Conservative", "Middle England", "British National Party", "BNP (Far right)", "Middle England", "ultra right-wing", "right-wing", and "nazi/right-wing". Mostly, these descriptions have been entered and defended by User:Collect who has secretly canvassed in support of his position. No sources are provided for this allegation of bias. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Please remove the personal attack and accusations. Collect (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The normal procedure is for you to make edits and see how they are received in a discussion. Absent any edits at all from you on the article, I am puzzled why you opened this RfC. Collect (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

More input on the subject is needed from experienced editors with no involvement,so we can get a clear judgement on whether this page is operating fairly. The results of people trying to make edits, and discuss changes on here, are available for everyone to see above if they wish to. That method has obviously been done to death with little to show from it.

People should be be able to make fair edits on this page, without discussion with you and Christian anyway. This perceived ownership is probably the crux of the problem.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this the same editor above using an IP address? Wikichecker shows the most active editors on this article. I account for under 3% of total actual edits, and Christian at about 2%. That means 95% of edits have nothing to do with us. Or are you simply saying you do not with us to use the article talk page? See WP:Consensus. Thanks. Collect (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I was more concerned about page ownership between a cliq of editors. To quote Christian's Talk Page under the heading "Daily Mail"

"Warden has hit again. Gwen Gale has barred me from politics reverts for a while, so I am tied. GL!" Collect

"Colonel has hit again. In Daily Mail, of course. He has also chimed in at WP:Requests for comment/Collect now in league with others -- asserting that I am editwarring on that article. Thabks! Collect

"Keep the overt reverts to a minimum (ideally do only 1 or 2 reverts per day), and no admin should censure" Collect

I really don't know how you expect me not to be cynical. As in, what is meant by "overt reverts". I'm assuming you are referring to named reverts? Cjmooney9 (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

If this is about the "political alignment issue", I'd simply point out that all the other articles on major UK daily newspapers have such a category. Possibly, some previous edits have been inappropriate, but the idea that it shouldn't have one at all and the idea that editors "insisting on inserting" such material are behaving badly does not seem reasonable to me. I also think the accusation that Collect has been canvassing should be either stood up or withdrawn.

On the other hand, if its about another issue, then ignore that. --FormerIP (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Accusations make for bad posts. Are you accusing him of anonymous reverts? (prior post had stated "Bearing in mind there are huge amounts of annonymous reverts can you see my cynicism? ") You had elsewhere accused me of having edit war advice on my user page -- sorry that you can not find any such thing. And with me accounting for such a very small percentage of edits (3 out of the last 200 is not a huge number) , seems that your iterated smear of "collusion" is a false one. BTW, the canvassing charge is scurrilous, false, and contrary to WP:NPA. Thanks! Collect (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The editor above has repeatedly altered his post without re-signing for a new time stamp. Anyone wishing to see what was there when I replied has to go through the talk page history now, as he has several times altered his post. Collect (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I realize your a very experienced campaigner in both creating and deflecting disputes, but let's stick to discussion. The untimed edits you speak of is me writing something, realizing I should tone it down a bit to keep it civil, and going back to change it. I donn't wish to descend into petty games.

have posted the quotes I was referring to above. I suggest we just let people use those, the history, and the discussion page to let people make their own decision, and input.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Collect, I cross-posted with Cjmooney9 above, and didn't see the quotes from conversations you've been having. They don't look at all good. Are they genuine? --FormerIP (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Try reading the appropriate noticeboards concerning WP policies and guidelines. And remember this page is for discussing this article, not any personal attacks. Try also reading all the last year;s discussions concerning the policies and guidelines. I trust you will learn a great deal. Thanks. Collect (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

As real as the claim that I called the Daily Mail "Nazi" <g>. I wrote absolutely nothing improper on Christian's user talk page. On my own, read the context where Christian was being templated for edit war -- and I pointed out that admins generally will not censure those who stay well below the 3RR bright-line. Which was true, and remains true. Honi soit qui mal y pense. When taking things out of context, frequently the context is lost <g>. Collect (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

]The quotes I used are on Christians talk page. Just direct copy and paste, under the heading Daily Mail. In fact, that's them in their entirity. Although, you can just go and judge yourself I guess.

The revert quote is on his own. Again, please read yourself. My take on the context was that Christian had received a potential complaint about too many reverts, and collect was telling him how many he could make without being reported to admin .When the entire problem is too many reverts, I think it's pretty relevant. Either way, that wasn't actually my worry. I put it up as you obviously refer to "overt reverts". As in opposed to annonymous ones?

Anyway, I don't have too much to add. I just wanted to know whether there is actually an issue with ownership,or I'm losing my mind. I'll let other editors decide that. Hence the discussion. I may not be right. That's why I put it on here. I'll happily stand by any consensus. But if you look at the number of complaints on the history page, by numerous users, it's something to debate.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

FormerIP, "Canvassing is sending messages to Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion.... [M]essages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive." Cjmooney has provided clear examples of this.

Collect, at time of posting you have made more contributions to this article than any other editor (72 edits) while Christian 1985 is 5th at 46 edits. Neither Cjmooney nor I make the list of "Frequent users".[12] You are also first on the talk page (72 edits), while Christian1985 ties for second (31 edits).[13]

The Four Deuces (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You likely elide the edits (well over twenty) which reverted clear vandalism and the like. Of the last 200 edits on the article - I made 3. Total. You account for 5 out of the last 50 edits. Collect (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I question whether this is the right forum to discuss this issue. It seems that it should be on the administrators noticeboard. I suggest that Cjmooney9 close and archive this RfC and re-open on ANI. If you need assistance in this I am willing to help you. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The political label which appears in the infobox seems to be a constant bone of contention but that is a small detail and infoboxes seem to provoke such conflict by their nature: it seems more a systemic problem than a fault of particular editors. In other respects, the article seems quite amenable to improvement and I have added numerous passages without any significant opposition. What we need is here is more such activity which focusses upon the paper's rich history across the full range of its reportage. I shall now add another example. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not remove any 'factual' content or legitimate edits. Anything I removed was unsourced POV or edits sourced from dubious unreliable sites like Urban Dictionary. One editor even tried to use a Daily Mail comment forum as a source which is not acceptable and the comments did not even prove what he was trying to say. I was also targeted by IP users threatening me with claims they were gathering internet campaigns to report me on mass when I had done nothing wrong. I am not claiming ownership of the article I was simply following WP policy and protecting it from abusive material. Christian1985 (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I have an example of you deleting factual content and legitimate edits. And it's a good example of my general complaint. Misapproriating wikipedia rules, to delete content that you don't personally like. Editors claiming they are only "protecting a page", and labelling decent edits as "vandlism" is actually in wikipedia's own section on "article ownership".

On 22 August (please see history yourself) someone attempted to put a small section on the Mail's stance on immigration, in the editorial section. This is it.

"Immigration

The Mail argues in favour of managed migration[33][34] while criticising what it calls Labour's "open door" immigration policy. Some opponents (including ex-Mayor of London Ken Livingstone) call the Mail's treatment of issues, such as asylum seekers, racism.[35]

The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) criticised the Mail for what the ACPO says is misquoting information about immigration in order to support the newspaper's anti-mass-immigration position and warned that media campaigns against immigrants could lead to a risk of "significant public disorder".[36]

The Federation of Poles in Great Britain "reluctantly" filed a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission, citing the paper's defamation of the UK's Polish residents. In its letter of complaint to the PCC the federation accused the Daily Mail of solely printing articles that gave rise to "negative emotions and tensions between the new EU immigrants and local communities". The Mail denied the claim, as it has also posted many positive articles on Polish immigrants in the past. The PCC stated that it was unable to assess the complaint and asked the federation for more information.[37]"

The page was fully cited. With all the sources blue chip, and water tight. Christian deleted/reverted the section on the same day with the reason being:

"POV vandalism. This is just your opinion".

Deleted and labelled "POV vandalism" when it is quite obviously neither. It's the fully cited opinion of the Mayor of London at the time, The Association of chief police officers, the press complaints commission and the federation of Poles in Great Britain, to make a very valid update to the article.

I fully support the idea that this page, and it's edits goes before wikipedia admin. Both for editor canvassing on new edits, and missapropriating wikipedia rules to delete new edits. I think it's gone beyond the stage that we can put much trust in the discussion system. I don't know how to do this myself, so I would appreciate if someone else could organize this.

thanks

Cjmooney9 (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I have checked the August 22 edits and I did not remove any of what you claim. I simply removed this unsoured POV material

In 2009 The Daily Mail received widespread criticism for biased questioning within its online reader polls. Questions such as 'Should the NHS allow gypsies to jump the queue?' and 'Should the public fund a trans-gender police support group?' were hijacked by psychologists and users of the social network Twitter who helped to generate poll results of 93% in favour and 73% in favour respectively. Twitter users have vowed to launch a concerted campaign against such biased questioning on the Daily Mail Online website which has already led to a number of reader polls being removed or suspended. Angered Twitter users, led by Twitter user @Polljack, have now vowed to take their campaign to all of the Daily Mail’s online polls, taking the opposite stance to the response expected of their readership of largely fascists.

Posted by 92.237.153.188 who ignored several messages asking them not to post this material. They also put silly statements throughout the article such as 'The Mail is surprisingly the second biggest selling paper' and many others which is POV vandalism. Christian1985 (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You made 5 reverts to edits made on that day. You are only referring to one of them above. Your stance on a "controversy" section (I believe you deleted it with a reason like "this doesn't belong here") is another common complaint on ownership issues.

Anyway, I suggest we simply refer the entire edit history, and discussion process above, to admin, as suggested above by "four deuces". I'll happily stand by their opinion on whether you are editing the page in the spirit of wikipedia rules.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The 5 reverts I made on August 22 were all the same material. I told the user not to repost that material and they ignored it several times. That was pure POV material and some of it was sourced from a blog which is not acceptable. That user has been blocked twice for posting such material and ignoring orders not to repost it. Colonel Warden deleted the section you are claiming I deleted on August 22 on the 28th August. Christian1985 (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the smartest thing to do, as stated, is to just put the whole edit history, and discussion page history to wikipedia admin, as suggested by Four Deuces. I'm not stating that I am right, and you are wrong by the way. This is why I've tried to include more people in the debate with this discussion.

I also do not support any of the vandalism or personal attacks you have received on the page. I do understand that much of your edits are actually to do with stupid updates and actual vandalism. And the page, in truth, actually is pretty good.

However, they may well just be a by product of what many people see as page protectionism and ownership. So it's even more reason to get a solid position from admin on what's going on with the page.

I should state that much of the silliness, it seems to me, is based on your unwillingness to allow a "controversy" section on the article, like any other tabloid. You do seem to have a "liberal vs. conservative" view point on the motives of this request. I note above that you state that you "will put a controversy section on the guardian page, if people keep trying to put one on here". This is not a helpful position I feel. We are talking about an encyclopedic article about the factual history of a (at times) controversial newspaper. A request for a controversy section to represent this element of the papers history (just like all tabloid newspaper articles have) is not the liberal conspiracy you seem to think it is, I feel. Just trying to improve the accuracy of the article.

I do feel that the addition of this section is a happy medium. And is in truth, probably the reason for much of the vandalism, name calling and silliness that appears to be going on. It's OK arguing about POV infringments, but in not allowing this section on, you could argue that your own (and a couple of others) POV is dictating the tone of the article.

In truth, you have to find compromise on these sort of things. Not just promote the will of a few editors. As you will get accusations of ownership and censorship. I think it's perfectly acceptable to have a controversy section on the page of a tabloid newspaper (by definition all tabloids are involved in their fair share of controversy).

I hope you appreciate my efforts to discuss the matter, and try to find compromise. I really don't actually want to involve admin. But at the same time, I think it best purely on the premise that there does seem to be a lot of disagreement on what the wikipedia editing rules actually are.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that seems fair enough get a neutral opinion. I would have no objection to a controversy section as long as it fair, balanced and properly sourced with no Urban Dictionary, personal blogs and other dubious sources and no namecalling as previously seen on here like 'DM readers are well known for being racist and intolerant people'. A neutral properly sourced section I would have no problem with. Christian1985 (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I think a fair, well sourced controversy section would end a lot of the silliness, vandalism and problems this page regularly gets. Tabloids by definition tend to print their fair share of controversy. I agree fully with avoiding such speculative POV claims as "bigots" and "nazis" and would support immediate deletion of this sort of terminology, should language like that start to creep into it. You simply want to be detailing stories that factually caused controversy. As other tabloid articles do. Not casting personal aspersions on the newspaper.

I'm happy that discussion, and compromise has found some middle ground on the subject. I have no wish to single out individuals. I was merely looking at who was most active on the page. I do also note that you have spent a lot of time trying to keep "Colonel" from deleting the "conservative" political allegiance bit, on some sort of technicality he has found - even though the paper has openly supported the tories in every single election since 1964! So I realize that it's not all one way, and you have been editing to stop bad edits from both sides.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Precisely, this is what was needed all along a reasonable civilised discussion, I am glad to see that we have come to some consensus on the article. Christian1985 (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

IP Users

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There has recently been 2 IP users who have been changing the political slant of the Mail to 'far right' which is incorrect. Another user posted a dubious unreliable reference of a book review. I have reverted the edits and told the user to come on the talk page. Christian1985 (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC) I have reported the IP user to the administrators as they are clearly refusing to listen to any of my warnings and talk page requests hopefully this will resolve the situation or I may apply for page protection. Christian1985 (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposing a section on the stereotypical "Daily Mail reader"

Latest comment: 14 years ago38 comments8 people in discussion

I'm sure that a few years ago, just such a section did exist in this article, but it has since disappeared. The term "Daily Mail reader" is frequently bandied about in the world of British newspaper journalism and turns up a fair few results in a Google Book or Scholar search. I began a whole new section on this subject but my edit was reverted under the rationale that "[the] article does not need soapbox status for one critic". Guy Cook's comment seemed a good addition to the article for me since really all it does is sum up most of the other opinions that I was able to find, of which practically all perpetuated a similar view of the Daily Mail's readership.

I find it odd that there is not a single mention of the phrase "Daily Mail reader" in the whole of the text of the article given its widespread use. Simply type the words into a search engine, or any related phrase (e.g. "man in the street") and a whole host of results appear. There is a precedent for stereotyping readers of certain UK newspapers on Wikipedia - the article on The Guardian includes a mention of the label "Guardian reader": "The newspaper's reputation as a platform for liberal and left-wing opinions has led to the use of the phrase "Guardian reader" as a label for people holding such opinions."

The "Daily Mail reader" phenomenon is well-known and notable, and should at the very least receive a mention in the article, if not a separate section all to itself. If I expand on my original edit with other sources, I would expect not to be reverted again. SuperMarioMan (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not notable enough to deserve a separate section. If you want to add it you should create a section for readership demographics or popular conceptions of the newspaper and include the "Daily Mail reader" as a single sentence. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The section as presented already gives UNDUE weight to a single critic, presents very contentious sentiments as though they are fact, makes no allowance in its title for contrary opinions for NPOV, and shows no noteworthiness of the critic in the first place. See the WP policies thereon. Collect (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually think such a section would be a good addition, provided it were properly sourced and neutrally presented. Academic or quasi-academic sources would be best. There is some good material on this by the philosopher Julian Baggini, comparing the Sun reader to the Mail reader, which I don't have to hand right now but I have the book in my house somewhere. Disagree with TFD a bit, because "Mail reader" is a commonly-used stereotype in the UK and is also used to categorise people in market research and polling. The point could be breifly explored in the article, although it should not be laboured.

Collect is also right though - a single critic, particularly when it is not clear how notable or representative the comments are, is not enough from which to construct such a section IMO. --FormerIP (talk) 11:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The key word is stereotype. Since the article states that DM readers voted 53% Conservative, 21% Labour, and 17% Liberal Democrat, the stereotype can only apply to a minority of Mail readers. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the responses. Yes, for the "Daily Mail reader" content to be re-incorporated it would be better to start a section specifically devoted to readership, pertinent information for which currently makes up part of the "Overview" section. One sentence, however, would play down the significance of the term, which is considerable. I'm confused by the comment about demographics above - we are talking here about perceptions of the Daily Mail readership, which are just as encyclopedic as demographics as long as they are properly sourced (and the notability of this term cannot be denied). In any case, the percentages quoted above are over five years old, and a rather weak defence for opposing the inclusion of this information. Furthermore, Cook comments on general political attitudes, making no specific mention of any political party, so trying to tie down his views to party politics is spurious. And as to the notability of the commentator, Cook is not just any old "critic", but a university linguistics academic. SuperMarioMan (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is about the newspaper. "Perceptions" such as the ones proffered before of not of encyclopedic value in the current article.

The Daily Mail's middle-market, conservative editorial stance has encouraged negative stereotyping of the average "Daily Mail reader", as Guy Cook notes while discussing the newspaper's opposition to GM products.^[1] Cook states that the Daily Mail "has long been synonymous with the most conservative, middle-brow mind-set: reactionary, anti-intellectual, anti-European, xenophobic, assertive of the 'common-sense' values of middle England. The phrase "Daily Mail reader" has become a byword for such attitudes."^[1]

Is not, in esse, a neutral point of view section - it is a screed. It makes no attempt to discuss demographics. All it does is say DM readers are pretty much extreme right-wing fanatics who hate foreigners. Collect (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct, this article is indeed about the newspaper - and the widely-used term "Daily Mail reader" is inextricably associated with the newspaper, justifying a presence in the article. I have not stated that I will restore the original edit without modification or expansion to include less strongly-worded opinions, so there is no need to post it here as if to suggest that I will not seek to include other views. I am aware of the faults of that edit, and will aim to reinstate elements of the edit to complement existing content, rather than isolating it in a separate section. Unfortunately, this is not one of those phrases for which one wears the rose-tinted spectacles, since it is borne out of the manner in which Daily Mail readers are often negatively perceived. External parties virtually never speak about "Daily Mail Readers" (capital "r") in a positive light, so a desire for a perfect NPOV balance between positive and negative is unrealistic here. Yet, the term is so often heard and used that the comprehensiveness of the article is affected unless it features in the article in some shape or form. Information on this phrase may be considered part of the critical response to this newspaper: if the controversies section charts response to newspaper content, then the phrase charts response to the newspaper readers.

On Cook's comment, saying that "DM readers are pretty much extreme right-wing fanatics who hate foreigners" is hardly "all it does" - this summary ignores the final sentence, in which Cook makes the specific connection to attitudes, rather than simply lambasting readers. The subject of the first sentence is also "the Daily Mail" - if the second second sentence were omitted, the critique would come across as being directed at the newspaper itself, not its readership. I also would have thought it obvious that the words "negative stereotyping" before the quoted text act as a caveat, showing that the article is not itself vouching for what Cook is saying - one would find that we ourselves are not saying that readers of the DM are (definitively, 100%) "extreme right-wing fanatics who hate foreigners", if only one examined the text thoroughly.

As I write above, if I try to improve the original edit with more sources and opinions, I would hope not to be reverted so quickly as I was before. SuperMarioMan (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The content above was properly removed as inappropriate. Wording such as "as Guy Cook notes" is clear violation of WP:NPOV subsection ASF and words to avoid. You can provide drafts on the talk page or create a sandbox version and gain community input on developing an appropriately NPOV version to include.-- The Red Pen of Doom 23:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Revised version

Per Red Pen's above advice, I submit a second attempt which offers an opinion contrasting with that of Cook. Feedback and any further suggestions or comments are welcome. SuperMarioMan (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

In 1995, a national survey ranked over 60%^[2] of the Daily Mail's adult readership in the "ABC1" supergroup of the NRS social grade system (upper- to lower middle-class). A similar survey conducted between January and June 2003 recorded a figure of 66%.^[3] Extended to skilled working class readers ("ABC1C2"), the second figure increases to 86%,^[3] with other manual workers ("D") and lowest-grade workers ("E") making up 14%.^[3]

In British culture, the term "Daily Mail reader" is often used to convey perceptions of the newspaper's readership,^[4] which is viewed as typically being "conservative-minded"^[5] and made up of lower middle-class voters.^[5] Other qualities cited include aspiration, enterprise and concern for family welfare.^[6] Professor Guy Cook of the University of Reading writes that the readership is "assertive of the 'common-sense' values of middle England",^[1] but has also discussed the possible negative connotations of the phrase "Daily Mail reader", arguing that for some it is a byword for attitudes such as reactionism, anti-intellectualism, anti-Europeanism and xenophobia.^[1] In an analysis of cultural elitism, Frank Furedi of the University of Kent puts the term on an equal level with phrases such as "white van man" and "Worcester Woman", asserting that it denounces the intelligence of the person at whom it is directed.^[7]

I think we can lose the word "pre-conceived". Otherwise looks good. Barnabypage (talk) 11:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Which still appears not to be directly and properly in an article on the newspaper proper. Cites are insufficient to connect the comments with the Daily Mail, and as such do not belong in an article on the newspaper. If you wish to start an article on "stereotypes" in general, maybe -- but if the cites do not specifically make comments about this paper, they do not belong in the article on this paper. For example, the Furedi comment is out of context from a paragraph where he says

"The view that the public is too stupid to grasp the high-minded and sophisticated ideas of American liberals expresses a profound sense of contempt for human beings."

He is not endorsing any nugatory view of the Daily Mail reader - he is expressing a nugatory view of those who have contempt for them. Page 119 of Lindblad does not even have "Daily Mail" in its body. The cite is for a footnote which calls the DM a 'rightwing tabloid newspaper" with the specific note that the Laboutr Party needs the support of its readers. Since the chapter is on "Spin" it is clear that the cite is fully out-of-context -- the context is that Labour needed support from DM readers. Again - using a cite wrenched from context via Google does not work if this is to be a real article. Collect (talk) 12:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Well then, if this article is to be dedicated solely to "the newspaper proper", its history, its stories and its supplements, then what is the sentence on demographics doing in the "Overview" section? What does that have to do with "the newspaper proper", justifying its inclusion in the article, that the above proposed content does not? Why do you bemoan contributions which make "no attempt to discuss demographics" and then, when demographic information is offered by reliable, published, third-party, academic publications, reject it? I trust, therefore, that the party division statistics in the article will be duly removed forthwith, since, as you say, the article is supposed to be about "the newspaper proper". If you could direct me to a relevant policy page which vetoes reliable, published, third-party, academic information on popular views of newspaper readerships, I would be very grateful. Perhaps then we could think about persuading the editors of the Guardian article to remove that page's information on the typical "Guardian reader", since, after all, that isn't really about "the newspaper proper", is it? I pointed out Wikipedia's precedent for including popular views of readerships in my opening comment, but that has conveniently either been forgotten or ignored.

How is the phrase "Daily Mail reader" "nugatory" when a simple search attracts this many results in the singular, and over double that number in the plural? I am aware, also, that the Furedi comment is about people who have a negative preconception of Mail readers - that may just possibly be why I went out of my way to say explicitly that Furedi regards the term as insulting to the target's intelligence. In the final sentence of the chapter he clearly says that he is writing about "what today's cultural elite really thinks of people."

Why is it an offence for Lindblad and Popkewitz to call the Daily Mail "right wing" when our own current article sources its political allegiance as exactly that? Why the irrelevance about Labour? I am well aware that the citation is to a footnote, and the purpose of a footnote (in this case) is to provide background information for the benefit of a reader who may be unfamiliar with a term that is being used. Since the lead section of the article itself uses the term "middle-market", I fail to see how citing a third-party source which uses the (non-provocative) terms "conservative-minded" and "lower middle-class voters" is such a crime. However, I'm altering the "page" parameter of that particular reference to include the source page for the footnote, so as not to confuse readers.

This will not cease to be a "real article" if this information is included. It can never become a "real article" until this information on such a commonly-used, well-documented, associated phrase is included. SuperMarioMan (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the editorial. Your proposal ultimately rests on a single critic, and uses material wenched out of contenxt rather forcefully when dealing with others who specifically find the use of the term to be improper. Specifically "white van man" and the like have absolutely no basis for inclusion here. As for what you call the "irrelevance" about Labour, it is the gist of the footnote on the chapter called "Spin" of all things. It is that part about Labour which actually is the reason for the footnote <g>. So far, the section fails. Thanks. Collect (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Collect, SuperMarioMan has a point. Why do you insist on describing the Daily Mail in the infobox as "right wing" yet consider it biased to call the paper "right-wing" in the article? The Four Deuces (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

My preferred statement was "conservative" if you will recall. I consider statements about "reactionism" "xenophobia" and "white van man" etc. as being inapplicable to the Daily Mail, and inaptly cited (especailly as noted above about material taken out of context where the issue was "spin" and getting DM readers to support Labour!). I would also like to see where on WP similar full demographic studies are presented in full for any publication. I suggest that such might belong in an article Demographics of British newspapers. By the way, the article already has some demographic information in its body - making this duplicative. Collect (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

For full demographics for a publication, hop on over the Sun article's lead section. Beyond your personal opinion, what Wikipedia policy or consensus dictates that demographics should not be included in the article? I have yet to find any. Just what is your honest opinion on such data anyway? Before, you criticised the contribution for making no mention of them, and yet now the addition of information on class divide among the readership is drawing similar flak. The new details hardly "duplicate" the information already available - the stuff already out there is about political parties, while the research that I have done concentrates on social class. Just how are these two very separate affairs synonymous? Are we referring to the dated, age-old stereotype that the only Conservative votes are upper-class, and that Labour voters are invariably lower-class?

You personally may consider labels such as "reactionism" "improper" or "inapplicable", but the popular implications of the term "Daily Mail reader" were clearly sufficiently engrained in the public consciousness to deserve a mention not just anywhere and by anyone, but in a third-party academic work, written by a university linguistics professor. The searches linked to above generate countless results which prove the popularity and notability of this view. As for the footnote, it is from another academic work - are we to question the authority of the writers' extensive research when they state, quite dispassionately, that the Mail is "right-wing" and that its readership is generally "conservative-minded"? Their comments are included here to form part of a section which examines popular, undeniable views on the Daily Mail readership specifically, not any of Labour's attempts to woo such readers.

The point seems to have been missed that Furedi does not promote the terms "Daily Mail reader" and "White Van Man" as part of some covert agenda. They are just two of many examples (I linked to "White Van Man" and "Worcester Woman" because they actually have their own pages on Wikipedia, unlike many of the other terms). The overriding message is one of regret as to how disdainful such terms are, and it offers a counterargument to the preceding reference from Cook.

The above content should not, in my view, be kept off the article just because oversensitive readers of the DM may go berserk at seeing the phrase "White Van Man" alongside "Daily Mail reader" and, without even reading the text properly, assume that the stick is being poked at them. Far from it. While my original contribution was grossly skewed towards the negative, the revised version includes neutral and (in the case of Thomas) complimentary, sourced views on how DM readers are seen in society, forming a worthy addition to the article. SuperMarioMan (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The proposed content seems to miss the target - white van man is more like to read a paper with a page 3 girl like The Sun. The most important aspect of the Mail's readership is that it is predominantly female. I have added a sentence to the lead to emphasise this. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The source does not actually say that "white van man" reads the Mail, but that it "puts the term [Daily Mail reader] on an equal level". Humphrey Appleby said the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Furedi sees a connection between "DM reader" and "White Van Man" - it is his personal view, and of course not everyone will agree, but the point is that he is not endorsing use of these terms. It is all to do with the "denunciation of people's mental capacities" that he perceives inherent in such phrases, which he sees as scornful. SuperMarioMan (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It's been some time since there was any activity on this proposed addition. Would anyone else be willing to offer their views on the current version further up the page, so that consensus can accurately be established? Super Mario Man 20:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Possibly you do not have a consensus for any such section. Collect (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

...Or possibly we should wait a bit longer than two hours before we start being so dismissive. I also no longer favour a separate section for the information, preferring that it be integrated into one of the existing sections. On another note, do you have any response to make to my comments preceding Colonel Warden's above contribution, or do they expose too many holes in your arguments for you to reply convincingly? Also, could you possibly point out the "single author" (as you state above) on whom the proposal rests, since as far as I can tell I have cited seven different sources (a number vastly different from one). Super Mario Man 01:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

From 23 January is a teensy bit more than 2 hours. BTW, try dealing with the discussion and not trying to attack editors. It really works better that way. Thanks. Collect (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion had grown stale and was in need of re-invigorating in a bid to determine the status of the content here, as it stands now, by consensus. From the lack of responses to the various above refutations, I feel that the arguments posed against the content so far have been shown to be flawed. I believe that the content should be added to the article without the threat of a revert because:

It would not form a separate section, but be integrated into an existing section, so that the information would not be given excessive prominence.
It incorporates data and opinions from a variety of independent, third-party publications.
It seeks to give fair prominence to each source, avoiding undue weight to provide a tone that is neutral overall.
The more controversial statements are accurately and reliably sourced, citing facts about opinions, rather than opinions alone.
The "Daily Mail reader" topic is notable, as shown by the Google links above.

FormerIP supports the idea of a contribution that is "properly sourced and neutrally presented." I do not see how the content as it stands fails these two requirements. And even if there is "no consensus" on the content at the moment, that is not a sufficient reason to revert it. Super Mario Man 03:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The Furedi asides about other pejoratives is gratuitous and trivia and unrelated to the Daily Mail. It is worth noting that such pejoratives are not used in other articles describing any newspaper readers at all. And Google-links are not a valid reason to include anything on WP. What we are left with is just pejorative categorization of people without any sound demographic figures about them. Now it is clear that you do not have anything remotely near a consensus to reinsert what you put in before, so I commend you to remember how WP works -- by gaining a consensus and not by unilateral acts. Thanks. Collect (talk) 11:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It is tiresome to repeat in detail what has already been said more than once above. Our term and the others are grouped together by the author, so (using the author's sourced point of view) they are indeed related. The fact that the term may seem pejorative to some is irrelevant - Wikipedia is not censored, and (to quote the relevant policy page) "'being objectionable' is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content'". The content aims for a neutral tone - the Thomas citation is complimentary, while the first quotes from Cook ("conservative-minded" and "assertive of the common-sense values of middle England") could not be seen as controversial given that the political stance in the article itself is described in similar terms. Thus, the content is not completely pejorative. I am also not trying to "reinsert what I put in before" - this is a revised version. Edits above indicate that there is support for this content from some quarters, so I'll wait a bit longer and, if the discussion does not move on, seek an outsider's view on this content dispute. Super Mario Man 15:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The gratuitous examplars are not a part of the author's opinion about the Daily Mail -- and it is the Daily Mail which is the actual topic of the article. And since there are several editors involved - each of whom has pointed out the problems with your push here, the third opinion folks will not enter in <g>. And trying to prolong this when you do not have anyone really behind your edit is not an impressive tactic. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The major contributors to this discussion are far and away you and I, the only users to have edited this section of the page since 23 January, in which case a request for a third opinion may still be appropriate according to the relevant FAQs. Should it be deemed inappropriate, don't despair - I'll think about alternative dispute resolution processes, but won't be drawn into a revert war. It is also not really an "impressive tactic" to generalise about other users' comments to match your opinion - apart from the one vocal opponent of this proposed addition, the only negative reaction to the revised version is that of Colonel Warden, whose point was countered by TFD (and the comment directly below the new text is supportive). It is rather a shame that it is taking such extraordinary effort to try to add sourced, neutrally-worded content to a Wikipedia article (which, forgive me if I'm wrong, is surely the point of the whole project) without the threat of unilateral reverting when there is no clear consensus for removal, if still not any for its inclusion. Whether you personally find "white van man" objectionable doesn't count for much considering that it is the expert who is using the term directly.

I am persisting with this proposal because the text is vastly improved from the first reverted version, and I will not be deterred by the bluster of flawed arguments. You have yet to cite any particular policy with regard to your position (yet I have). One example is demographics, which you erroneously state are absent from other newspaper articles when a brief look at the Sun article's lead section proves otherwise. Please kindly find me a policy page which prohibits such details.

In the meantime, I'll wait for a period of time to see if any more views are offered - a week, say - then try a resolution process. Super Mario Man 23:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In three weeks, you have yet to find anyone supporting your claims. I would think this would be sufficiently clear to most people. The temps would have to go down more than 300 degree C to alter this fact. Collect (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What is "sufficiently clear" here is that the non-response to the valid points in my previous posts is rather telling. On a side note, I have, after much searching, found one supporter of the proposed addition - namely Barnabypage - which balances the single-handed opposition to this proposal. The comment in question is incredibly difficult to find - in other words, immediately below the content itself. I confess that I am no mathematician, but I would have thought it "sufficiently clear" that 1 placed next to another 1 does not give a majority to either side in this argument, meaning that at this time there certainly is not any consensus not to move the content to the article itself. Also, good luck with the search for a sound policy-based reason not to add these two small paragraphs to the article. Super Mario Man 21:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't back the proposal, when I first read the DM article about 2/3 years ago it was absolutely full of left-wing bile. The 'criticisms' section was far from neutral and full of stereotypes and people's personal agenda on the Mail. This would just become an opportunity for Mail haters to rant their personal hatred and then accuse me of 'censoring' with threats and abuse when I legitimately remove their abuse. Christian1985 (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If the previous incarnation of this information left a lot to be desired in terms of sourcing and neutrality, I would hope that the above proposed content is a vast improvement. These sentences would not form a separate, prominent section on their own. Is there any policy-based reason for which it should not be included? After all, consensus on this site is constructed by arguments, not a popular vote. Super Mario Man 21:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Policy? The insertion is not relevant to the opic of the article for one. It is "trivia" for number 2. It introduces gratuitous and judgemental pejoratives for 3. It does not have support of consensus for number 4. How many do you desire? Collect (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The insertion is relevant to this newspaper's readership. If there is to be a voting intention breakdown by party in the article (which currently there is), where exactly is the line drawn between that content and this addition? If this is "trivia", why not the statistics which are already present in the "Overview" section? The only problem with the term "trivia" here is that the information is sourced and neutral, balancing the positive and the negative in the subject at hand. "Gratuitous", "judgemental" and "pejorative" are words of personal opinion: as the NPOV guide says, "A biased statement violates this policy when it is presented as a fact or the truth. It does not violate this policy when it is presented as an identifiable point of view." The more objectionable statements here are attributed to their authors, and not presented as if Wikipedia itself is endorsing them. Furedi himself does not actually use these "pejoratives" aggressively either, mentioning them as indictments against an arrogant cultural elite which callously authors them. Finally, support has been demonstrated further up the page. Super Mario Man 22:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Numbers of readers and actual demographic information are "facts." Comments about "White van man" is gratuitious insertion of material which, at its best, is opinion, and trivial opinion at that. As for terms being "pejorative" suffice it to point out that the terms are described as "pejorative." And no matter how you slice it, you do not have consensus on your side. So perhaps you might try adding this material to the Guardian article instead? Collect (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability is the issue here. We are not interested in what we believe is fact and what is opinion, but whether opinions are verifiable by sources. On consensus, that is liable to change - whether this idea does or does not have consensus right now does not dictate a cut-off date after which all responses or opinions will be invalid. What this lengthy discussion demonstrates most of all, in my view, is that an external voice and opinion are required to sort out a compromise. Super Mario Man 23:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope. WP:V says "verifiability and not truth." WP does separate "fact" from "opinion" and in the case at hand the person says the DM readers are not WVM, and we have a number of WP:V sources that it is a pejorative of no meaningful value -- we might as well have a claim that DM readers are not generally mass-murderers. <g> We can Verify that as well. Nope - the use of pejoratives when they are not even being applied to DM readers is gratuitous use of the pejorative. And the "length" of this discussion seems entirely under your control -- at some point you will realize that persistence in pushing this sort of thing does not work on WP. Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Cook, Guy (2005) [2004]. "Part 1: The Speakers: Journalists". Genetically Modified Language: the Discourse of Arguments for GM Crops and Food (2 ed.). Oxford: Routledge. p. 46. ISBN 0-415-31468-2. Cite error: The named reference "Cook" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
^ Reah, Danuta (2002) [1998]. "Unit Three: Audience". The Language of Newspapers (2 ed.). London: Routledge. p. 36. ISBN 041527804X.
^ ^a ^b ^c Philip Rayner; Peter Wall; Stephen Kruger (2004) [2001]. AS Media Studies: the Essential Introduction. Routledge. p. 225. ISBN 0415329663.
^ Gavins, Joanna (2007). "Participating in Discourse". Text World Theory: an Introduction. Edinburgh University Press. p. 28. ISBN 0748623000.
^ ^a ^b Sharon Gewirtz; Marny Dickson; Sally Power (2004). "5: Governance by Spin: The Case of New Labour and Action Zones in England". In Lindblad, Sverter; Popkewitz, Thomas S. (eds.). Educational Restructuring: International Perspectives on Traveling Policies. Information Age Publishing. p. 119. ISBN 1593111819.
^ James Thomas (2005). "The Popular Press and the Road to 1979". Popular Newspapers, the Labour Party and British Politics. Routledge. p. 69. ISBN 0714653373.
^ Furedi, Frank (2006) [2004]. "Dumbing Down". Where Have all the Intellectuals Gone? Second Edition: Including "A Reply to my Critics" (2 ed.). London: Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 90. ISBN 0-8264-9096-4.

[Cook-1] Cook, Guy (2005) [2004]. "Part 1: The Speakers: Journalists". Genetically Modified Language: the Discourse of Arguments for GM Crops and Food (2 ed.). Oxford: Routledge. p. 46. ISBN 0-415-31468-2. Cite error: The named reference "Cook" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

[Reah-2] Reah, Danuta (2002) [1998]. "Unit Three: Audience". The Language of Newspapers (2 ed.). London: Routledge. p. 36. ISBN 041527804X.

[AS-3] Philip Rayner; Peter Wall; Stephen Kruger (2004) [2001]. AS Media Studies: the Essential Introduction. Routledge. p. 225. ISBN 0415329663.

[Gavins-4] Gavins, Joanna (2007). "Participating in Discourse". Text World Theory: an Introduction. Edinburgh University Press. p. 28. ISBN 0748623000.

[LindbladPopkewitz-5] Sharon Gewirtz; Marny Dickson; Sally Power (2004). "5: Governance by Spin: The Case of New Labour and Action Zones in England". In Lindblad, Sverter; Popkewitz, Thomas S. (eds.). Educational Restructuring: International Perspectives on Traveling Policies. Information Age Publishing. p. 119. ISBN 1593111819.

[Thomas-6] James Thomas (2005). "The Popular Press and the Road to 1979". Popular Newspapers, the Labour Party and British Politics. Routledge. p. 69. ISBN 0714653373.

[Furedi-7] Furedi, Frank (2006) [2004]. "Dumbing Down". Where Have all the Intellectuals Gone? Second Edition: Including "A Reply to my Critics" (2 ed.). London: Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 90. ISBN 0-8264-9096-4.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]