Talk:Daily Express

Diana obsession

From looking through the Mail Watch website, and from glancing over the front pages most days, I get the impression the "35" front page features is during 2006 alone? The Mail Watch website catalogues about 25 (depending on some interpretation, whether it is supposed to be a complete record, and my ability to count). Halsteadk 23:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Price

"...as well as the recent addition of "10 pence cheaper than the Daily Mail - and ten times better" due to recent price cuts."

I don't have a copy of the express with me to verify that it says this, but I know that this is incorrect. The express is 40p, the mail is 45p. So, there's only a 5p difference. Haddock420 21:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• It is. The "10p cheaper" was added when the Diana Express was only 35p. Now it is 40p, only 5p cheaper, and there is now only a small bubble saying "5p cheaper than the Daily Mail", without any mention of "X TIMES BETTER".

Real Values

Under this heading is the paragraph:

For some, the paper has been considered homophobic, which may be because the paper's new advertising tagline is "The paper that stands for real values and gives you real value for money". These "real values" include "traditions, progress, good manners, family fun".

This doesn't make any sense. People don't think the Express is homophobic because the paper's advertising tagline is "the paper that stands for real values" etc, they think it's homophobic because of the content of its articles.

-- Markbrough 22:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Good point. I've altered the text slightly.

• Surely this page needs at the very least, to list examples of articles that some consider homophobic, if it is to make such a claim? Even then I think this is still drifting into a point of view which doesn't really have any place in an encyclopedia. If the Express has been publicly accused of being homophobic there should be a citation.

81.1.110.162 12:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The "Grey Lubyanka"

The article could probably do with some details on the famous buildings the Daily Express has occupied in the past, including the art-deco Fleet Street building [1], Ludgate House on Blackfriars Road, and the current Northern & Shell Building. DWaterson 17:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• I thought it was the "black glass Lubianka" that Private Eye used to call it. Fab building anyway. BTLizard 10:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Picture

Is this an actual scan of a front cover? And if so, does anyone know the date? It just seems too perfect to be true...

It's the Daily Express in a nutshell! NumberJunkie 14:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely genuine, yes. Don't have the actual date to hand, but it's from December 2005. MrBronson 01:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

criticisms

There seems to be more text on criticism than there is text comprising facts about the paper. There must come a point where criticism of something gets out of hand for an encyclopedia. Indeed, it could get into the area of point-of-view, which may belong somewhere on the web but not in an encyclopedia. The Guardian has no section of criticism and the entry on Adolf Hitler doesn't include such a section.

Daily Snack

What is the relationship (if any) between the website dailysnack.com.uk and Daily Express? PeterLinn 20:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Daily Snack is from Dirty Desmond's Northern And Shell outfit. --Oscarthecat 07:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Express1.jpg

Image:Express1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I added a rationale, but'm not quite sure what's expected. Is what I've written OK? Nick8325 19:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV???

I thought articles in wikipedia were supposed to be Neutral Point Of View. This is clearly not. It seems to have been written by either someone working for The Guardian, or some left-wing loser who has a serious chip on his shoulder about the newspaper. The way it is written is totally subjective and from a very biased point of view. It needs a total overhaul.

I agree with the individual above. Very biased and there are alot of "weasel sentences" like "and also its tendency to print a lot of pictures of attractive young women, especially murder victims, and a lot of sex-related "non-news" stories" - who put this in there and where is the source or example? [Pagren 17/07/2007]

I have placed a tag on the article involving neutrality, and this is the offending line: "These front pages are generally not based on a major news story of the day and are often sexed up with spurious headlines with little factual content to follow." This isn't allowed and someone needs to start rewriting it. 81.145.242.10 19:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)