Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre trolled on Wikipedia in backlash for 'Legs-it' front page

Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre has been described as an "English Caveman" in his Wikipedia page after the front page of the British tabloid faced an online backlash and accusations of sexism.

An anonymous troll edited Dacre's Wikipedia page in the early hours of 28 March. For a short time the entry read: "Paul Michael Dacre (/ˈdeɪkər/; born 14 November 1948) is an English Caveman editing British hate promoting paper the Daily Mail".

The newspaper prominently displayed a photo of Prime Minister Theresa May and First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, sitting next to each other. They were at a key bilateral meeting ahead of the Scottish Parliament vote on a second independence referendum and May's triggering Article 50 on 29 March with a letter to EU Council President Donald Tusk. The caption read: "Never mind Brexit, who won Legs-it".

The front page sparked a row on Twitter over sexualising women in power and turning back the clock on what is considered acceptable public discourse. Former Labour leader Ed Miliband commented: "The 1950s called and asked for their headline back".

Even Daily Mail staffers questioned the choice. A Daily Mail insider told IBTimes UK: "It's moronic. Dacre really needs to be pensioned off.

"You'd think as we're the only paper [in the UK] with more women readers, he'd know better. I genuinely just think he's starting to lose touch."

The Daily Mail is not new to controversial headlines, sparking a row in November after publishing a front cover dubbing the Supreme Court judges who ruled that MPs should have a vote on Brexit "Enemies of the people".

Despite the controversies, the Daily Mail was crowned "newspaper of the year" at the 2017 Press Awards, the highest honours in British journalism, for the second year in a row and for the fifth time in 12 years. The judges commended the publication: "It is also never afraid to have a strong opinion. It is the job of a newspaper to hold power to account and to forensically question and probe those who act in our name. The decision of the judges was that it dominated the narrative and produced agenda-setting and stand-out coverage in 2016."