Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
// request.cf · coarse context
A page that knows where it met you.
Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When editing this article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve it, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, use the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
At present the article jumps straight from a section about 1930 - 1939 to the post-war period. Has someone deleted the section covering the Daily Mail's contortions during the second world war? NRPanikker (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 months ago9 comments5 people in discussion
The article contains "There have been accusations of racism against the Daily Mail." sourced solely to an opinion article in The Guardian by Ellie Mae O'Hagan who says a Daily Mail article contained "thinly disguised racism". But I didn't see that The Guardian article quoted anyone else saying that, so changed with edit summary = Changed "There have been accusations of racism" to "A Guardian writer made an accusation of racism" per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Five minutes later Nomoskedasticityreverted with edit summary = Reverted 1 edit by Peter Gulutzan (talk): But it's not just that writer -- as becomes crystal clear later in the very same paragraph. My claim is: no, it is not crystal clear in the first paragraph or later. I am asking for other opinions. If I cannot see consensus to follow the guideline, I believe an alternative is to remove the sentence. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Right in the same paragraph is another accusation of racism, one not sourced to the Guardian. It's not just the Guardian, and it is inaccurate to edit our article to suggest that it is. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
The complete paragraph is Shortly after the Olympics opening ceremony, the Daily Mail published a great steaming turd of an article by a "journalist" called Rick Dewsbury. I won't reproduce the whole sorry thing here, but suffice to say it was an unpleasant mix of contempt, misanthropy and thinly disguised racism. As he complained bitterly of the ceremony's "politically driven multiculturalism", Dewsbury observed: "This was supposed to be a representation of modern life in England but it is likely to be a challenge for the organisers to find an educated white middle-aged mother and black father living together with a happy family in such a set-up." Does anyone agree with Nomoskedasticity that a "crystal clear" statement "right in the same paragraph" is another accusation by someone other than Ellie Mae O'Hagan? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
How tiresome -- playing games... The paragraph in question is of course the paragraph in our article, which reads: There have been accusations of racism against the Daily Mail. In 2012, in an article for The New Yorker, former Mail reporter Brendan Montague criticised the Mail's content and culture, stating: "None of the front-line reporters I worked with were racist, but there's institutional racism [at the Daily Mail]". Two sources, one the Guardian, the other the New Yorker. So, as I said, not just the Guardian. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I thought that the paragraph you were talking about was in the cited article. Anyway, I asked for other opinions, and will see whether anyone else understands me. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Peter Gulutzan's edit correctly reflects the singularity of the racism accusation. To support how the sentence is currently written requires the addition of at least one further citation immediately after the sentence. Rupples (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Well, that might fix a WP:V problem but what concerned me was WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution." WP:NEWSOPED points to it too. Unfortunately I see that three different editors seem to think that is solved by pointing at non-Guardian items elsewhere instead of doing what WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV says, so I have failed to state the case in a way that people can understand. Okay I give up. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Blythwood on 30 December 2021, with edit summary = "Racism accusations: Add this incredible claim", added In 2021, IPSO ruled that the Daily Mail dishonestly published a headline falsely claiming to report on "British towns that are no-go areas for white people".[265] The town showcased was the wealthy Manchester suburb of Didsbury, which it had described the previous month as "posh and leafy" and a "property hotspot".[266] The cited source for the first sentence (IPSO) nowhere says dishonestly or falsely, and acknowledges that the Daily Mail changed the headline after being made aware of complaints. So I propose removing the first sentence, and without the first sentence the second sentence (from The Guardian) is pointless, so should also be removed. Any other opinions? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
How is this necessary, is there a need to list every sources that mentioned it? If not why add a controversial source. Using the least controversial source for a statement is the best way to not waste editors time.-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°16:39, 27 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
My initial objection was that the WP:BILD excuse was bad, and nobody has replied to defend it. As for whether the cite is necessary: that's just opinion, perhaps the closest actual PAG is WP:DUE, and lots of stuff is in this article because somebody's opinion about dueness prevailed, whether or not there was controversy. In this case, as Collect hasn't been active recently, there's not enough current support to restore but I'll continue to hope. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
The redirect Richard Caccappolo has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 16 § Richard Caccappolo until a consensus is reached. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2025 (UTC)