Talk:The Sun (United Kingdom)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Sun (United Kingdom) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United Kingdom Mid‑importance 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 articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. London Mid‑importance 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 articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Journalism High‑importance 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 articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Newspapers High‑importance 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 articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Media Mid‑importance 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 articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Mackay Radio Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite NPOV : Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments

This page is not a forum for general discussion about The Sun (United Kingdom). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about The Sun (United Kingdom) at the Reference desk.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

The following link, given as reference 171., seems to be broken.

http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Second-Witness-Statement-of-Dominic-Mohan1.pdf

When followed it seems to redirect user to unrelated content (a payday loan company in my case) - similar in style to adware operating on a browser. I'm confident that my browser is malicious adware free, I ran a scan when I discovered this link was broken and my adware software couldn't find any adware currently. I have further checked on a separate device and was redirected to the same site as described above.

It may be that this domain has been resold and repurposed to direct users to a payday loan site.

I'm new to editing on wikipedia so I'm unsure how to remove a reference correctly - i.e how to add one of those 'link broken' references or 'verification needed' notes.

Lairy hogg (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done: You're quite right, it was redirecting to some weird nonsense about loans. Wayback Machine to the rescue, there is an archived link here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the Sun's role in this and its derogatory offer of compensation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.248.79.119 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This would need a source. MS Herald of Free Enterprise says "Many of those on board had taken advantage of a promotion in The Sun newspaper offering cheap trips to the continent".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Hillsborough disaster and The Sun § Information flow. — Bilorv (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case someone looks here...

These couple of sentences keep being reverted, and I just don't get why... it's more contextual information about the incident and paper overall... why is that supposed to be a negative? Are all articles on this site just lists of data with no context linking them? And since when is a reliable source not eligible to be used just because it's some competitor? If all newspapers' articles had that logic then there would be none, as primary sources can't be used and competitors can't either... 92.21.87.105 (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with the argument given by DeFacto, i.e. that this is unreliable purely because it was published in "the competition". As you correctly state, this argument taken to its logical conclusion would mean we would never use newspapers as sources for any WP article on rival newspapers.

However, the article used to back up this claim is an opinion piece. To me, the comparison seems undue weight to include in this or any other article relating to the controversy. If others think this is to be included, then it would need to be cited as Arwa Mahdawi's opinion, not The Guardian's as a whole. GnocchiFan (talk) 05:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what sourcing would please DeFacto over the Huw Edwards suspension. The Edwards saga does contain an element of claim and counterclaim by various media sources, but implying that they are acting in bad faith would require a lot of evidence rather than personal opinion.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ianmacm, the problem is the using of just one source - and not using, attributing, and contrasting a cross-section of sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially biased and conflicted sources need to be treated carefully. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be an element of "The BBC and The Guardian don't like The Sun, so they cannot be used as sources here." The Sun doesn't like the BBC or The Guardian much either. The Edwards saga has set off a mini war in the UK media with predictable battle lines being drawn. It is unfair to imply that the BBC and The Guardian are biased because they pointed out that The Sun clearly backtracked on its original story (or "subtly shifted" as the BBC put it [1]). As others have pointed out, it would be difficult to cite any news source if they were described as "the competition".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC and Guardian are usable sources but I like attribution in prose even where we would not normally for sources of such high quality because they do have competing financial interests, and I don't think the BBC's news department can be said to be fully independent on this particular story about the BBC's news department.

On the responses of S*n hypocrisy, I think there's some balance to be had between genuinely relevant facts and the contextualisation of why the S*n is unreliable that is brought up at every controversy. There's an argument of relevance that the S*n published "Page 3" content that is now illegal to possess under child pornography laws (as a strict liability offense). But perhaps that is more relevant on a section on Page 3 or the article on Page 3. — Bilorv (talk) 08:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NEWSORG, Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis.

Per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, The very same source may be reliable for one fact and not for another. Evaluation of reliability of a source considers the fact for which the source is cited, the context of the fact and cite in the article, incentives of the source to be reliable, [...] Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]