The Daily Mail is not now nor has it ever been a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
So why did even the people banning it, claim otherwise? Editors are
use meant to use common sense when considering a historical Daily Mail source. Even though this fuckwit contradicts the findings of the original consensus, his view will be added to the pile that says that consensus is valid.
No it's gutter tripe, and should be closed down. If anything, we should be looking to do this kind of thing more often, disallowing utter shite sources which purport to have some level of gravitas just because they've been around a bit. Nonsense source, usually hysterical and always motivated by POV, not an iota of neutrality, kill it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
A classic example of the sort of comment that should be ignored because it blatantly ignores existing Wikipedia policy - bias is considered irrelevant when assessing reliability. A point that had already been made in the debate, and was happily ignored by his idiot. But this is Wikipedia, people openly foaming at the mouth like this, with zero evidence they have even read the debate,
will win the day. They banned the Mail, because that's what their animal brains told them they wanted to do. Then they went hunting for food, and had sex with their cousin, and then set upon an outsider (a distant cousin). The very idea these people are capable of intellectual discussion, is an insult to civilisation.
Also, I suggest a speedy close of this and future discussions on the topic unless they have some indication that things have changed, either externally (in the world or the Daily Mail itself) or internally (within Wikipedia, its practices, or policies). The whole point of the massive, extensively-covered, carefully-closed WP:RFC last time was that the Daily Mail was a point of constant contention that needed to be firmly settled once and for all........-Aquillion (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Amazing how insistent he is, isn't it? Absolutely no recognition here that it is meant to be basic Wikipedia policy that nothing is ever "settled once and for all", and that one of the mains reasons why that is, is mistakes are often made. Literally every word of this pompous ass' view, and that if his or or post where he misremembers who initiated the ban debate and why, can be contradicted with facts and widely held opinions. For weeks afterwards, even a sizeable number of Wikipedians were loudly protesting that this RfC had not been widely advertised, certainly not consumate with its perceived importance as a massive media attention grabbing precedent. So why is he lying? The disturbing reality is, he probably doesn't even know he is lying. He probably thinks his false recollections are the truth. Then again, he may also be deliberately lying. This is the beauty of Wikipedia - for this sort of person, lying, or making statements you haven't verified, is a no penalty activity. His view will be added to the pile, as perfectly valid. That was the problem with the original decision, that is why the close was faulty.
I see nothing that was raised in the prior RFC that has changed. There is no worthwhile story the Daily Mail has ever covered that another, more reliable source hasn't covered without the taint of the awful problems. If it's only in the Daily Mail, and nowhere else, I wouldn't trust it being worthwhile to cover. --Jayron32 18:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
And even if if appears to be worthwhile to cover, if it is only in the Daily Mail and nowhere else the odds are extremely high that The Daily Mail plagiarized it, added a few lies to make it more clickbaity, then posted it under their byline as if it was their work. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
They still can't even get their story straight. Either there is nothing exclusive to the Mail that you would want in their encyclopedia , or there isn't. This is a basic, yes, no, question. Even if yes is considered a small number, then "no" is still obviously a lie. And Guy Macon has in fact changed his story - he used to proclaim there was nothing in the Mail that Wikipedia would ever want to use (and not because of his defamatory claims about its publishing practices).
As you might expect for a Wikipedia debate, the first comment was made even after someone had already given an example of the sort instance where the Mail does have exclusivity over content deemed encyclopedic. Their preferred solution here is, as you might have guessed, remove it from Wikipedia on the basis it is not encyclopedic and was only added by someone who doesn't know what an encyclopedia is (usually contradicted by a review of their edit history). A decision they would not take, if they didn't know it was only sourceable to the Mail.
Let's not forget, they haven't even finished (barely even started) the process of removing the Mail as a source. The very last to go, will be the ones where they really want the information, but can't find what they deem to be reliable source. We have already seen their preferred approach in such cases - remove the citation, but keep the material, not even bothering to add a {citation-needed} or even {better-source-needed} tag.
That's the problem with these people. They think the rest of the world are idiots. They think we don't know anything about what happens on Wikipedia, and have no abilty to match up what they say with what they do, or remember their past to inform the present.
REALITY CHECK YOU 'TARDS. EVERYTHING TO SAY AND DO IS PUBLIC.
You are liars, and you are idiots.