Talk:Daily Mail

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

An amalgam of wikipedias "Beano" entry, daily mail and more own ranting.--Elvis 17:40, 27 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Hang on, when did I cross over to Wikipedia? This article is far too close to the truth... -- 09:25, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this article is disturbingly encylopaedic. Fascists cause much lulz. 16:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Dont be silly. This isint Wikipedia. If it was someone from the Daily mail would have edited it by now ! 08:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


love the typical news story. great work guys :)

"Pictures of David Cameron's lovely children (but not that dead disabled one)" - That made me laugh out loud. Although it is very very tasteless it is also rather funny!


While the bold caps for typical headlines is authentic, I think it makes the section difficult to read. Any objections to me making it Title Case? Phantom Grammar 13:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It was Title Case before and I changed it because not only did they not look like headlines but I felt that they didn't seem to be SHOUTING AT YOU in the way that tabloid headlines generally do and so were losing their impact. It's a matter of taste, I suppose, but I think they look better like that. I'm not the kinge of this article, mind, I just work here... --Zarbag 13:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I think some of the headlines are too long and don't sound like headlines. NEW TERRORIST ASYLUM-SEEKER BREAST CANCER THREAT TO HOUSE PRICES AND THE NHS! for example, doesn't sound anything like a DM headline because it's too long. TIDE OF ASIANS UNSTOPPABLE is a good example, for me, because it's the right length and combines two DM characteristics (xenophobia and hyperbole) in five words. May I suggest trimming or removing any headlines that are more than seven words in length? --Zarbag 15:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Beano/Dandy stuff[edit]

All that Beano and Dandy stuff (Peter "the menace" Hitchens" et al) looks a bit awkward and out-of-place now and was never particularly good anyway. Does anyone mind if I trim it away? --Zarbag 11:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Im inclined to agree 16:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

AOL!!!!111!! It's gone. I've also removed that odd bit that ended with an exclamation mark and trimmed some of the less funny headlines. I think we need to remove more - go ahead and trim any you like. There are also too many quotes and they dilute the opening. Honestly, a joke is usually funnier the fewer words you use. Phantom Grammar 15:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I approve of all of those edits, even the "Frankenstein Food" headline which was mine (and not very good). I tried to save that Oswald Mosley stuff by making it a footnote but it still didn't work, really. --Zarbag 15:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


Lol! one of the best things ive ever read

Things Which cause cancer[edit]

.... not eating, immigrants,.......

What about removing the comma between "not eating" and "immigrants" ? 12:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Daily mail common topics[edit]

Isint this section a bit redundant ? And isint the stuff about AIDS a bit out of date ? The Daily Mail kinda lost interest in AIDS when they realised it only affectes homosexuals Africans ?


This really isn't that funny.

It has the right ideas, but the jokes fall flat. Maybe someone should improve it. -- 22:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, be bold, join up, and MAKE IT FUNNY, DAMN YOU! Phantom Grammar 15:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the best articles I have read on this website, absolutely bloody hilarious.

It's funny if you've ever read or even seen the daily mail headlines on something like GMTV, because it's actually quite accurate, it's just presented in a funny way and with a slight amount of exaggeration in some areas, but retaining the hallmarks of classic DM stuff, such as the catchphrases. An excellent article if I'm any judge. -- 17:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Its one of the funniest articles on Uncyclopedia damnit and its funny because its true. 12:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


Dave Bryant of Cwmbran, Wales was arrested in December 2011 for his inhumane crimes against an obese child.

The BNP quote[edit]

Get the BNP in, only they can sort this mess out.

~ Doris, Yorkshire. A typical Daily Mail reader
Personally, I'm not sure this should be on the main page, especially at the top. It's not much of a joke, and really just more publicity for some racist asshats. IMSO Myocardialinfarction 19:49, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

-Hmm, this was one of my contributions and I suppose it is a little too close to the bone so fair enough. Actually one of the reasons this page is so funny is that it is so accurate. Funny and scary in equal measures! --Guardianreadingliberal 29th Nov 2009

Do you know, on reflection, this actually might be becoming a much better joke. It'll be a great one if the mail starts ranting about the current coalition. Myocardialinfarction 10:44, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

The footnoted Orwell quote[edit]

Is it better the current way? The original quote (from '1984') is "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." The modified version might lack the horrifying property of the direct reference. I could of course be wrong, decide for yourself and modify accordingly. Myocardialinfarction 04:37, July 9, 2010 (UTC)


There's a few things I think would improve this article:

First, the "Common Topics" list needs to be severely cut back and then policed pretty thoroughly. This is a popular page for UK visitors and a lot of first-timers will want to add their own "hilarious" (read: lazy, predictable and probably already done) addition to the list.

Secondly, "Things the Mail Believes are True" is a great parody of the sort of self-pitying and conspiracist worldview the Mail indulges in (and not just because I wrote most of it) but it's too long and too "listy" for the article. I suggest it be moved to a new page: maybe "Top 100 things the Daily Mail believes are true" or summat like that?

Thirdly, I think the article needs to reflect the fact of the Daily Mail rather better than the OTT parody, the former being funny enough in itself. For example, with the exception of the 1930s, the Mail has never been outwardly pro-fascist. What they tend to do is echo far-right positions (particularly on immigration, political correctness and law and order) but then use the get out clause of saying the BNP are "knuckle-dragging thugs" or "scum" in order to place Clear Blue Water between them in a "nothing to do with us, chummy" way. Obviously this is hypocritical but in a way it demonstrates the Mail's middle-class conservative atttiude: ie the problem with Griffin and his chums is that they're too working-class. This is both truer and more ripe for satire than the lazy "Mail readers like to pull on their SS uniform and spend all day pulling Roman salutes in front of the mirror" cliche that the article is full of.

--Zarbag 15:52, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. I sort of disagree with you on the listiness. The Mail being a daily paper necessarily tends to revisit concepts or topics, and it is certainly much more prone to do so in a repetitive and silly manner, which the lists correctly satirise. I'd agree with more policing of them, but I think the severe cutbacks are a bit tory. Yours, Woeful in Surrey. On the fascist elements, it is I think a lot more a meta-satire on the more extreme tendencies of Mail readers at this point, is still actually quite funny, and _you do need to make the balloon-pricking point that this paper really did lend support to fascists_. I agree with you on the point that the 'echoing' element could maybe be done a bit better, but the paper in itself is so random that I think we need some of the randomness reflected here. (ps I don't give a thundering fuck for the real Mail or for Rothermere, but I care about this article.) Myocardialinfarction 11:06, July 21, 2010 (UTC)