Talk:MailOnline/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Global reach section

I have updated the Com Score figures which were well over a year old (source: http://www.comscoredatamine.com/2012/12/most-read-online-newspapers-in-the-world-mail-online-new-york-times-and-the-guardian/).

I have not updated the note because I do not know how; consequently it is now incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corcyra (talk • contribs) 18:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

CNN example. etc.

[1] shows that the CNN "glitch" for obits of living people survived for hours - not just 90 seconds.

[2] lists some sites which gave the "wrong verdict" on Knox. The Daily Mail, the Guardian, the Sun and Sky News – to name just a few – were all caught out when their hasty attempt to beat the masses lead to some embarrassing online slip-ups and sparked a wave of criticism from readers and journalists alike who expressed outrage and (at times) pure glee at the glaring mistakes. Broadcast media use the term "file story" or "file footage" for such pre-made material.

Collect (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

CNN from TSG [3]. Tell me if it is not "fake" or "fabricated."

CNN "mistranslations" are also an issue [4] In a written statement, CNN said it "apologized on all its platforms which included the translation error, including CNN International, CNNUSA and CNN.com, and also expressed its regrets to the Iranian government and the Iranian ambassador to the U.N."

Even the New York Times -- the Elizabeth Taylor obit was written by a man already dead six years! [5]

Just a few "set and hold" stories -- I trust this shows a bit more how common they really are. Collect (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Anent verdicts: [6] On the McVeigh verdict - ABC managed to run news flashes that he was found guilty and that he was found not guilty. All before the verdict was announced. Collect (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Zombies

This paragraph has some problems:

In January 2012, MailOnline, the BBC, and other news outlets were accused in an article on ComputerAndVideoGames.com of "fabricating" parts of an article saying games such as FIFA 12 are turning children into "living zombies." The website accused the Daily Mail of pursuing an "anti-gaming agenda".[15]

The article cited accused neither the BBC nor the Daily Mail of "fabricating" any articles. The headline of the article said the two outlets "have been accused," but not by the CVG website (headlines, anyway, are not reliable sources). Maybe Hart-Fletcher did the accusing, but he used the word fabricated, not fabricating. Also, the CVG author, Andy Robinson, did not interview Hart-Fletcher, so this is really third-hand information, not very solid material to hang a WP article on. The "anti-gaming agenda" quote comes from a CVG columnist with nothing specific to back it up. Also the "living zombies" quote came only from the Daily Mail although the paragraph stated the BBC said the same thing. And how can the BBC have published an "article." It does voice and video, not articles. Maybe this paragraph can be saved with some more research and editing. GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

(See BBC News Online, and CVG links to the BBC article being discussed.) My question is whether this story should be covered in this article - there's the CVG post and the BeefJack post, and looking around I found a MCV post (MCV), but are articles on game magazine websites enough to qualify this for discussion in the article? If it's significant, shouldn't it have been covered in mainstream or news industry sources as well? Dreamyshade (talk) 08:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The BeefJack site is now identified in the article specifically as a game magazine. I am sure that onission of that likely salient fact was inadvertant. Another claim is sourced for "overhyping: to Salon, a publisher of opinions, and hardly rates mention as an "inaccuracy." Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC) Collect (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

"Overhyped" etc.

If we wish to have a "criticism" section about "Inaccuracies" we shoudl only oinclude actual "inaccuracies" traced to being the fault of Mail OnLine. Saying that a story was "overhyped" by an opinion columnist is not in that category. I note the gaming story now has a different source - but the source can and must be identified as being from a game magazine - which I have now added a ref for. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I will change the Inaccuracies title to Criticism, it is more appropriate. Pscorp19 (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Why did you remove the descriptive material about "BeefJack"? Collect (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

For more, see section below marked "Headers." GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

"Criticism" section

I would like to find out if others also find this to be an unwarranted catch-all which would rapidly hit UNDUE for any publication - specifically that it is a morass including pure "opinions" ("overhyped" as an issue?) and that the revert removed substantive content about a game magazine - absolutely contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Collect (talk) 14:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Pure opinions??? MailOnline not only overhyped about the "Egypt necrophilia" case, but it also lied. Moreover, it was a large scale issue. I can cite from other sources. Do not delete facts. Pscorp19 (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

And "overhyped" is an "opinion". Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It is an opinion supported by clear facts and relevant links. Pscorp19 (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

And I can continue. You wrote that "ad story" not a "fake". You are not right. It is a total fake - I cite from ABC News Radio: "Hey, remember when Ad Age named Rihanna's campaign for Armani the sexiest ad of 2011? So do a lot of people -- but the problem is, it never happened." Again, do not delete facts. Pscorp19 (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You seem to assert that you know more than the reliable sources support. That can be a problem when we are required to abide by WP:NPOV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

What? In the linked source there is mentioned that the story never happened. So it is fake. What do you write about? Pscorp19 (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

And why did you delete the iphone story? Pscorp19 (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

In case you did not realize it - the fake tweet existed, and was not created by MailOnline. The Guardian is a competitor of the Daily Mail and is noted for making "criticism" thereof. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

But this iphone story was here many days, why did you remove it now? You are suspicious. Pscorp19 (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

And what if the fake tweet existed and was not created by MailOnline, it does not change the fact that MailOnline published inaccurate story. You deleted the fact. It is obvious why. Pscorp19 (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you serious? Do you want me to show twenty or more times a newspaper was "taken in" by someone - starting with fake obits etc.? This is UNDUE by a mile at that point. And what the hell do you mean by "it's obvious why"? Collect (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not want to show you anything, and undue is only that you are deleting facts. There are thousands examples of hoaxes, fakes, lies etc in MailOnline, I will add only the most prominent. Pscorp19 (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)— Pscorp19 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

One way to help with due weight could be to agree on a minimum standard for sourcing for each "inaccuracy" we include, such as two articles in strong reliable sources like mainstream newspapers and journalism industry presses. If it's only covered by one secondary source, only covered by weak sources, or only covered by specialist sources, it's probably not significant enough to put weight on it in this article. Dreamyshade (talk) 09:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and I can add that every "inaccuracy" inserted here has more than two strong reliable sources, except the "human hair" story, which has only strong specialist sources, but I think that this is a significant case. Pscorp19 (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Right now we have an editor who seems to think every possible "criticism" he can find belongs in the article. That is not how WP:NPOV works, nor it is proper weight for an article on anyone or anything on Wikipedia. It is up to [[WP:CONSENSUS[[ to determine what is important, and what is unimportant, and I assure you as a person with absolutely no connection whatsoever with the MO that most of this new "stuff" is trivial at best, nugatory and mean-spirited in most cases, and of no value to Wikipedia readers whatsoever in almost all cases. You will note a desire to stress that the 90 seconds was in some way a lie - which, I suggest, shows a desire to add POV to what is required by absolute policy to avoid POV editing. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you joking? Every every possible "criticism"? As I said, there are thousands of criticisms of MO, I will add only most prominent. Strictly according to the WP:NPOV, which says ...(NPOV) means representing fairly, PROPORTIONATELY .... Many negative responses (published by reliable sources) against almost no positive response. Pscorp19 (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Pscorp, if it's not too notable then just stick it in Criticism of the Daily Mail and Mail Online. As long as it's reliably sourced then there's no real bar for inclusion. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

A hypothetical Criticism of the Daily Mail and Mail Online article would also have to consider due weight for each incident - we always have to balance WP:NPOV with WP:V. Pscorp19, here's what I'm seeing for the current sources in this section:

• Hair solar panels: one specialist blog and one self-published source
• Steve Jobs tweet: one reliable source
• Amanda Knox: eight reliable sources
• Rihanna campaign: one reliable source
• Gaming quotes: one specialist blog (potentially including the two additional specialist sources I discussed above at #Zombies)
• Ex-boyfriend teeth: three reliable sources
• Egyptian necrophilia law: one reliable source
• Nicolas Cage: one reliable source

Under my proposed criteria, only the Amanda Knox and ex-boyfriend teeth stories would remain, unless you can find stronger sources for the rest. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't the WP policy require only ONE reliable source? GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

For verifiability, the sources just have to reliably support whatever the sentence says. I'm trying to figure out how to help the article stay balanced as well, since some verifiable negative stories aren't very significant. Dreamyshade (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You could also help out with the DRN incident too when free. It's stagnating and if there's a no consensus i will be forced to take it further to get a solid result. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you not do "forumshopping" when a noticeboard does not produce what you absolutely know to be the "right decision". You do not have consensus on your side for your position, and you should accept that. WP:CONSENSUS applies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

And? You'll have to start actually discussing the issue reasonably. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I discuss policies and facts. Such as the fact that Blogs are not reliable sources except in extremely limited cases. That sources which say they publish everyone's articles are, in fact, a "blog". And that we can not use Blogs as a source for any claim which involves living people. Cheers. That you think policies are not a valid topic is quite unfortunate. Collect (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Pretty sure you don't know what i think there Collect so that doesn't hold much sway. And your assumptions too are not facts. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 17:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Like I said at DRN, I'm kind of stuck on that last tiny issue with the description of the timing - it needs to be a short description to maintain due weight, so there are limited options for compromises. I think we should wait for DRN volunteers to have a chance to help out - no need to take it to a different forum until they decide that dispute resolution has failed. Dreamyshade (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

All i could find out was that the 90 seconds is disputed by the same guy who first blew the whistle on the story and captured screen shots. The sources aren't the best for it...That removes one obstacle, but leaves a wording compromise, and i can't compromise with Collect's POV piece, which congratulates and praises the Mail. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The "praise" is from the damn PCC official report -- do you really think we should remove the official finding just because you dislike the Mail and think we ought not admit that the PCC praised it? My suggestion is WP:NPOV - it uses what the sources state which is how Wikipedia works. We can not say "oh well, we hate this paper so we can not say the word 'praise' in relation to it as a result". Collect (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It's undue weight, you know that policy right? The event has been spun into a positive one for the Mail Online, which is grossly POV. Just because the PCC said it, it doesn't make it notable enough to include, instead of the actual event. That's censorship ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

We use the PCC official report. Thus "undue weight" as an argument would suggest you want it entirely removed. What we can not do is show part of a report and censor the actual findings of the report. If you feel that using the full report is UNDUE, go to WP:NPOV/N and make that interesting claim. Meanwhile, if we use one piece of a report, we have to use the entire report - we can not cherry pick the stuff which says the Mail is evil incarnate and then avoid using the actual gist of the report. Period. Collect (talk) 13:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

That's not true at all. As long as the section in question accurately and neutrally reports on the event with reliable sources, then we're in the green. What you are do, is justifying POV. Especially since you list everything positive the PCC say, but where's the negative they said? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

duplication of claims

Currently:

April 2012: The Christian Science Monitor reported that MailOnline used an opinion article published in the state-owned Al Ahram newspaper. A Hosni Mubarak supporter wrote about a possible legalization of necrophilia, similar to that proposed by a Moroccan cleric several years ago. According to Dan Murphy, "The chances of any such piece of legislation being considered by the Egyptian parliament for a vote is zero."[29] The report of a proposed sex-after-death law have been debunked as false and "complete nonsense" by Egyptian parliamentary officials.[30]

Is in this article.

by a Moroccan cleric several years ago. . MailOnline picked the opinion and reported it as fact. According to Dan Murphy

Shows a proposed insertion. I consider the existing text MailOnline used an opinion article published in the state-owned Al Ahram newspaper. already notes that the MailOnline used an opinion article as a source. "Picked" is a useless insertion, as all newspapers thus "pick" articles, and "reported it as fact" is a "d'oh" comment when an article is published in any journal. I removed that insertion as duplicating what is already in the article, and thus of nil value. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The other editor re-re-re-reverted his addition with the edit summary it is not there, you are blind which I count as his response to this section. [7] Collect (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You are not right. MailOnline not only used that opinion but it made the fact from that opinion - opinion only of one man - columnist was that the parliament could approve the law in future, and MailOnline wrote that parliament is going to approve the law... I will rewrite the story to be more readable. And thank you for your effort to delete facts. Pscorp19 (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Your SPA-ness is clear. The fact is the story was published - and that is in the article already. Adding that the "picked" the story is inane, and then stressing they printed it as fact when that is already established is furtherly odd. I requested a third opinion, and trust you will abide therewith. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Collect, I agree completely with the above. Pscorp19 seems to be trying to insert POV into the article yet again. I have warned them about this several times that sources have to back statements in the article but they keep inserting personal opinions which I have reiterated several times is not appropriate. I also feel their attitude is unhelpful with statments like "you are blind" there is no need for such a tone. Christian1985 (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Collect, and what do you think about last edit?

April 2012: The Christian Science Monitor reported that MailOnline used an opinion published in the Egypt's state-owned Al Ahram newspaper about a possible legalization of necrophilia and "distorted the original claim from a proposal to a done deal: "Egyptian husbands will soon be legally allowed to have sex with their dead wives"".[29] The report of a proposed sex-after-death law have been debunked as false and "complete nonsense" by Egyptian parliamentary officials.[30]

I think it is best, there are mainly citations from sources. Pscorp19 (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It is a major step backwards from the original wording which was stable. By the way "Egypt's state-owned newspaper" implies than one and only one newspaper in Egypt is state-owned - which would require a separate cite. As it is, it hists WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to catenate claims in such a manner, not to mention violative of the absolute policy WP:NPOV. Please consider that your "single purpose" in such edits is noticed by others. Collect (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Original wording was incomplete, whole CSM article is about criticism that MO distorted the original claim from a proposal to a done deal. There was only (false) proposal, and MO wrote that the law will be approved for sure. This is serious difference. The sentence "...distorted the original claim from a proposal to a done deal:..." should be in the text. Pscorp19 (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding WP:SYNTH, which claims are catenated? There are only two claims(sentences), first sentence - MO distorted claim from a proposal to a done deal, and the second sentence - the proposal is false. These are separate claims. And which parts hist WP:OR?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pscorp19 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

In which case you wish to elide "apparently having misunderstood the original Arabiya translation" (direct CSM quote) which seems clearly to state the error was by error and not by deliberate act. You can not reasonably cherry pick the quotes which say "Daily Mail is evil incarnate" when the sources are not that unbalanced. Cheers - the original version here was NPOV and clearly so. Collect (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not want to elide nothing, if you wish I will add your quotes, new version is here:

April 2012: The Christian Science Monitor reported that MailOnline used an opinion mentioned in an English language version of Al-Arabiya about a possible legalization of Egypt' necrophilia law and "distorted the original claim from a proposal to a done deal: "Egyptian husbands will soon be legally allowed to have sex with their dead wives", the tabloid claimed, apparently having misunderstood the original Arabiya translation."[29] The report of a proposed sex-after-death law has been debunked as false and "complete nonsense" by Egyptian parliamentary officials.[30]

Is it good for you? I think this version is most accurate, but not very good for MO (they misunderstood the English, how embarrassing, where is fact checking?). But if you wish. Pscorp19 (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to say or imply the DM "misunderstood the English" and your sources do not make that claim. [8] purports to give the Al Arabiya language: The appeal came in a message sent by Dr. Mervat al-Talawi, head of the NCW, to the Egyptian People’s Assembly Speaker, Dr. Saad al-Katatni, addressing the woes of Egyptian women, especially after the popular uprising that toppled president Hosni Mubarak in February 2011. She was referring to two laws: one that would legalize the marriage of girls starting from the age of 14 and the other that permits a husband to have sex with his dead wife within the six hours following her death. ... The controversy about a husband having sex with his dead wife came about after a Moroccan cleric spoke about the issue in May 2011. If this is the Al Arabiya language, I suggest that the DM did not "misunderstand English" - the English wording is pretty clear.

The Christian Science Monitor reported that MailOnline used an opinion article published in the state-owned Al Ahram newspaper. A Hosni Mubarak supporter wrote about a possible legalization of necrophilia, similar to that proposed by a Moroccan cleric several years ago. According to Dan Murphy, "The chances of any such piece of legislation being considered by the Egyptian parliament for a vote is zero."[29] The report of a proposed sex-after-death law have been debunked as false and "complete nonsense" by Egyptian parliamentary officials.[30

Properly reflects the CSM article. Anything else you wish added is clearly pushing a POV that the DM deliberately in some fashion fabricated the story - which the CSM does not aver. Talk to your friend Dan Murphy on Wikipediocracy if you wish. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Your version does not properly reflect the CSM article. CSM article clearly states that MO "distorted the original claim from a proposal to a done deal". This is the main point of two CSM articles, article on the salon.com and also other publications. This should be definitely in the text. Without it the text will not properly reflect the CSM and other sources. The reason why MO disturbed the claim is not clear and should not be incorporated, if possible. And are you normal? Dan Murphy is not my friend! Pscorp19 (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

And I believe it does reflect the CSM content. I find your "And are you normal" inanity to be worthless and indicative of a COI editor who has been found out at this point - can you tell us all what "PS Corp" is? "Dan Murphy" is well-known on Wikipedia as a denizen of Wikipediocracy. Cheers -- your snarkiness is quite extraordinary if you are not a COI editor. I can not believe any "new editor" would spend 100% of their edits on a single topic pushing a specific POV without some sort of problem. Collect (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Another joke. Why did you tell me that I am friend of Dan Murphy? I do know him!! And when I respond crossly, you are surprised. I waste my time with you, you are not constructive, but destructive. Therefore I cannot pass to another topic. But when I will finish this topic, I will go further. What do you think about that it is your problem. Pscorp19 (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

What the hell does your post mean? Collect (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree Collect, I have a strong feeling there is COI here. Pscorp19 seems to be almost obsessed with scouring the internet deliberately looking for negative articles and then trying to force them all into this article which is not NPOV. This is an encyclopedic website not a DM hate website. This article is supposed to be neutral but all this negative material is comprimising the neutrality of the article. Thanks Christian1985 (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It means, that you are not constructive, you do not want to improve the text. This article is still not NPOV, because there are thousands and thousands critics of MO versus almost no positive response. But I will do my best to improve it. Pscorp19 (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

(od) WP:NPOV does not say "add thousands of criticisms because you know something is bad" - it says you must edit with due weight only, and inclusion of hundreds of trivial cavils for the sake of having lots of trivial cavils does not comport with that policy. And I suggest that making an article more "correct" for your own POV is not, in fact, how Wikipedia functions. Collect (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Collect is completely right Pscorp19, you are misinterpreting policy to suit your own personal agenda which is not how WP works. I mean I detest the Labour Party for example but I am not trying to smear their article by scouring the net for biased sources and then inserting them in the article saying "thousands hate the Labour Party so this is acceptable". This is YOU with a personal score against the Mail Online and I am getting more and more suspicious of COI myself. You really need to have a good look at Wikipedia policy, that is not a criticism just constructive advice. And please stop hurling accusations and insults at other users, it is childish and uncivil. Thanks Christian1985 (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your advices, but your are completely wrong again. There are thousands of non-trivial and non-biassed criticisms at least of the level of wikipedia's "Fake "dog sentenced to stoning" story". I see that I will have to add many of them to convince you. It will be hard to process such extensive material but I will do it for you and for wikipedia. Of course strictly according to the WP:NPOV and others. Pscorp19 (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Why not stick the less notable criticisms in the Criticism article i started Pscorp? the article/section will get too big otherwise. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 17:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. Pscorp19 (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I made some editorial changes to the section, not knowing that it had been discussed here. My edits were made in good faith after I checked the sources, and I hope they gain consensus and everybody moves on to something else — like maybe finding something good to say about Mail Online. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

If you manage to find anything good about them feel free to add it. It's rare to see any attribution in other media that isn't negative towards them. There's a lot of accusations against the Mail Online and they really donn't help themselves, often getting caught for really stupid things. Thanks and good luck ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Making progress beyond edit warring

I was looking at the recent edit history and started to wonder about WP:3RR, but then I found that this had already been covered on the edit warring noticeboard: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Pscorp19 reported by User:Collect .28Result: Both warned.29. I thought this was an interesting suggestion to consider from the answering admin, User:EdJohnston: "An option that might avoid some of the drama is to write the article in a more high-level way and let the reader follow reference links to see who said what precisely." What do interested editors think of that suggestion? What might this look like? Any proposed revisions? Dreamyshade (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd like that as long as no reference to the Mail Online is included, but the wording might still be an issue as it has been up until now. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain a little more what you mean by "as long as no reference to the Mail Online is included"? I don't understand, sorry. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

We use reliable sources and not the Mail Online since they'd be biased and a WP:Primary source. I doubt they're needed anyway with all the sources we already have. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I believe everyone else agrees on using secondary sources. Dreamyshade (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

MO is a valid RS for the original stories, of course, and for such things as corrections etc. as neither is "self-serving" in this matter, which would be the main reason not to use it as a source about itself. Collect (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

"Illegal images"

It is not appropriate to make accusations that the Mail Online is showing "illegal" images. Also I have stated and another editor has stated the source is not reliable by Wikipedia standards. If you wish to challenge this I am happy to consult a 3rd opinion but please do not revert my edit without prior discussion. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian1985 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Please be made aware that editor accepted the comment after it was revised. This is not an accusation, the reference provides plenty of evidence to back it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.166.8 (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Please sign your contributions here by striking the tilde key four times. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Headers

Use of several different sections with their own headlines helps focus the contents of this article. I changed "Criticism" back to "Inaccuracies" because the "Criticism" title is pretty vague, since it can involve all kinds of critical opinion. Also, a good critic considers both favorable and unfavorable aspects of the thing he/she is criticising. If a given fact about Mail Online can't fit into an existing category (is it truly inaccurate or not?), then perhaps it should be slotted into another category. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the "Criticism" section title wasn't great. There's also the option of renaming it something like "Responses to articles" so that it can include multiple kinds of problems along with any notable positive responses (if we can find any). Dreamyshade (talk) 10:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I amended the header to "Claimed inaccuracies." I hope this is acceptable. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

"some kind of rubbish idea that goes against everything Wikipedia stands for and should be ignored by everyone" Account1000000 (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I demur. The topic is "inaccuracies" and not the blanket "controversy" and I think you will find 'most articles deprecate that as a title. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Improving this Article

Whatever.

Account1000000 (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Your current edit history shows a total of 12 edits. I daresay that this is not something which a new editor might reasonably undertake. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Also your desire to link to "soft core pornography" multiple times in this article does not pass the smell test. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

(note: The editor Account1000000 redacted/removed essentially everything he wrote here and in the article, making my response to a missing post a tad interesting) Collect (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Name?

Is it MailOnline or Mail Online? The page title and article text do no agree with each other. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 07:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Both. See [9]. Found with and without a space. Collect (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Criticism

A few days ago I made a small change in this paragraph:

April 2012: The Christian Science Monitor reported that MailOnline had misused an opinion piece published in Egypt's Al-Ahram newspaper and translated into English by Al Arabiya. The original article claimed "Egypt's parliament was considering a piece of legislation sponsored by Islamists to allow men to have sex with their wives after their death." The Daily Mail, according to Monitor staff writer Dan Murphy, "distorted the original claim from a proposal to a done deal: 'Egyptian husbands will soon be legally allowed to have sex with their dead wives', the tabloid claimed, apparently having misunderstood the original Al Arabiya translation."[46]

This reads as if the only thing incorrect here is the change from "proposal" to "done deal". However, although the original article does indeed talk about a piece of legislation that allows men to have sex with their dead wifes, such legislation was never introduced nor discussed in the Egyptian parliament. As it is now, the text suggests that that claim is true and that the Egyptian parliament indeed discussed whether screwing dead wifes is ok. I therefore suggested to write "The original article erroneously claimed...", which was promply reverted. Why? 78.50.142.134 (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Because you need to provide a source that shows that parliament never considered such legislation. Lard Almighty (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

You can find it in the third paragraph of the given source (Christian Science Monitor [46]):

"The problem is that there was never any such proposal, at any stage of consideration, in the Egyptian parliament. Ms. Tallawy issued a statement today that says she's concerned about legislation that may harm the position of women in Egypt, but that there was never any "sex :: after death law" under consideration, let alone one she complained about. Arabiya followed up as well, quoting Parliament Secretary Sami Mahran as saying no such piece of legislation ever existed."

It strikes me as odd that somebody would even consider this to be the truth and not read any further in the article.

77.179.133.60 (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)