Talk:Daily Mail
Hello - under 'successful libel' - 2019, 2021 the initials AP occur. That's the Associated Press not the Mail's publisher, Associated Newspapers Ltd. I'll correct in a while unless there's some good reason.Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
As The Times is known by the nickname The Thunderer, and The Guardian as The Grauniad, I'm surprised no mention is made of the Mail's popular sobriquet of The Daily Hate; especially as so much criticism of its more objectionable content is listed in voluminous detail.Nuttyskin (talk) 09:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Missing verb in sentence after footnote 62: “ Rothemere argued that it unjust that…” 2001:1970:4E28:4200:0:0:0:1237 (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Unnecessarily, on 2 April 2023, supported the designation "Right-wing" by adding a cite of uco.edu, tagging the edit as minor and adding edit summary = "Adding/improving reference(s)". I reverted with edit summary = "... don't see how the cited source directly supports the text". Unnecessarily, without going to the talk page, re-inserted with edit summary = "Academic source, more reliable than fringe journals. Adding/improving reference(s))". It's false that it's an "academic source", the cited uco.edu (University of Central Oklahoma) page has a label showing the chart is from Ad Fontes Media in 2022. And it's false that Ad Fontes says Daily Mail is right-wing, their 2023 edition does not have Daily Mail in its "skews right" etc. columns. Therefore I believe Unnecessarily's insertion should be removed again. Any other opinions? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Laura Clark has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 5 § Laura Clark until a consensus is reached. ★Trekker (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)