Talk:The Sun (United Kingdom)/Archive 1

Hillsborough

There seems to be some confusion here. The Hillsborough football stadium disaster did not occur 'in Liverpool' as the article suggests but happened in Sheffield instead. Hillsbourough is Sheffield Wednesday's home ground and was chosen as a neutral venue for the F.A. cup semi-final match between Liverpool F.C. and Nottingham Forest. Paul26uk 21:18, Dec 1, 2004

I don't think it's confused, just unclear. Perhaps rephrase it to: "The Sun is notorious in Liverpool for its coverage of the 1989 Hillsborough football stadium disaster"?

Speaking of Hillsborough, I note the article implies The Sun printed what it did, and later discovered the news was false. AIUI, The Sun knew the allegations were false and made them anyway?--MarkGallagher 19:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The whole section about the Sun Hillsborough article is unclear. The main point is that it focuses on reactions in Liverpool and elsewhere but the writer does not mention that the news was false or the background to the false allegations being proved as such. Only by visiting this editing talk section I've come to realize that the news was false. Maybe it is implied because it is a well-known story in England but readers of Wikipedia don't need to know. Was the news false? Why did they fabricate that?

Some missing parts

The Sun is also notorious for using "nazi" words in any context, be it Germany-related or not (not to mention the pet names for Germany and Germans, I wonder if they actually know that Germans are called Germans in English). I don't know the British press but IMHO The Sun is the "best selling" paper using such a language. So were there any controversies in the UK society about this frequent (racist) abuse of Nazi related topics? I can't really believe that this is considered "normal journalistic language" in the UK. ;-) So it would be nice if people that know a bit on the topic could add information about that to the article. A bit off-topic: Considering the "nice" front page currently used in the article The Sun I deeply hope for the royal familiy that The Sun never investigates why the Windsors are celebrating Christmas like in Germany in contrary to the rest of their nation... ;-) Arnomane 19:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Where to redirect

The Sun (newspaper) is the widest circulation English newspaper. The Sun is the reason life exists on this planet. I don't even see the basis of a debate on where this should redirect to. Marskell 23:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

And to anticipate one thing: the only reason you'll find more disambigs for the newspaper is because people feel the need to disambig given that it is the lesser known usage. The Sun is referred to as the Sun. It is a proper noun. It takes the definite article. I would guess that, undabbed, "the Sun" appears literally hundreds of thousands of times in the main space. Marskell 23:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If people want to know about our nearest star, they will put "Sun" into the search box. If they want the newspaper, they will put "The Sun" in. How many people, likewise, are going to put in "The Earth" as opposed to "Earth", or "The United States" instead of "United States"? Definite articles only appear in proper names. David | Talk 23:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I put "The Sun" in the search box to search for the star about 40 minutes ago, which is why I'm here (I'm being honest--net people invent stuff, but that's what I did). There is a grammatical issue. "Suns" can refer to stars; "the Sun" (a proper noun) refers to our star. You could even argue that this, somewhat exceptional case, should include the definite article in its title (i.e, our Sun article should be moved to this descriptor).

Anyhow, there is an importance issue at work, as well. The Sun is the Sun. The British newspaper isn't going to outlive it. And the British newspaper is just one parochial example amongst many. Toronto (my POB) has a Sun Newspaper too, but if Toronto were London I wouldn't expect my familiar, vernacular usage of "the Sun" to override the obvious (that the ball of fire we all see everyday is the basic denotation for "the Sun"). Marskell 23:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Being all hot and bothered, I changed it without considering redirects. Apologies. I have self-reverted until I have time to do it properly. Marskell 17:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Sun (disambiguation)

I have redirected the article to Sun (disambiguation) because:

• There are other things specifically called "The Sun"
• If someone searching for the newspaper were to type "The Sun" into the search bar, he would be directed to the dab page where he would find the newspaper. This also applies to wikilinks.

If the newspaper truly is that much more popular than any other "The Sun"s, then the newspaper should occupy this spot without the parenthetical dab and have a top-of-the-page dab to Sun (disambiguation) instead. Axem Titanium 23:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I have re-redirected the article to The Sun (newspaper), because:

• The majority of the articles using the link [[The Sun]] refer to the newspaper.

So if anyone wants this page to point to the disambiguation page, then that person should also please take the trouble of cleaning up the mess and correctly disambiguate all the links pointing to [[The Sun]] as per this article. Thank you very much.

BTW,I agree that the article [[The Sun (newspaper)]] should be moved here to save us all a lot of trouble. ʍαμ$ʏ5043 17:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The Sun (newspaper) moved to The Sun

I was a bit alarmed to discover (by chance) that The Sun (a redirect) had been deleted, but it's pretty apparent from the above discussion that this was to create space for The Sun (newspaper) to be moved here. No one had performed the move, so I've carried it out myself now. Cheers, DWaterson 20:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

I have merged the talk pages of The Sun and The Sun (newspaper) here and archived all discussions that were dated before approx. Jul-2007 and those that were undated/unsigned. ʍαμ$ʏ5043 07:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Vocabulary

I dont know any sources to verify this, but someone else could, I see that the Sunis portrayed in no positive light, and a good thing too not that (Im claming it not NPOV, its just factual), so I dont understand why someone else hasnt dded the well known fact (maybe they have but I couldnt see it) that the Sun has editors which prevent vocabulary other tahn an average 9 year-old would understand being inserted into the paper, this isnt derogotary it is a fact I think, and was reported on, but Im not sure of a 'source', perhaps someone could find one por point me in the direction of one.172.202.188.246 22:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Jingoism

Isn't there another word to replace...whatever this word means? Had to look it up and I still don't really understand it! londonsista | ^Prod 06:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've always just considered it similar to patriotism, only slightly more exaggerated and extreme. The St Crispin's day speech in Shakespeare's King Henry V being jingoistic.86.159.162.27 (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Patriotism and jingoism really aren't that closely related. Jingoism is much more negative and has to do a lot more with supporting wars - my country right or wrong! While you could make the argument that a patriot would not support the actions of the government when its wrong. 65.0.100.187 (talk) 06:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's right to use the word Jingoism, as it was the buzz word often used in criticisms of the Scum after the Falklands war. Perhaps it should be in quotes, with explanation? My perceived definition differs slightly to that of 65.0.100.187: I believe it to mean the use of truisms for propoganda (British boys are bravest, Italian cowards, French surrender monkeys, randy Americans, etc.). I'll wait for comments before making changes. Pollythewasp (talk) 10:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

It has been proposed that the article on the Irish Sun be merged here, as it is really lacks relevant information and is in reality just a local edition of The Sun. -MichiganCharms (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose assuming that the majority of the content and the majority of the staff are different. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 12:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

While you're at it, why not merge the article on the New York Times with one about a Chinese newspaper. They are afterall just local editions of the same outdated boring media. --81.156.46.30 (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Support - there is already the section on the Scottish Edition and the Irish Sun page seems to have far less content than this on it so it can easily be absorbed into the main 'The Sun' page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perry mason (talk • contribs) 18:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

So little content that it's a stub. So I also support a merge. Digifiend (talk) 12:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Support - There are different content and staff on the northern and London editions of many papers, but it doesn't make them worth separate articles. Pollythewasp (talk) 10:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Controversy

I have deleted the section on The Sun calling for the return of the death penalty in Feb 2008 following three high-profile killings. This is not so. The Sun's editorial column specifically ruled it out, though the paper did give voice to the victim's relatives, who did call for the return of capital punishment. The mention of the Tony Martin case is thus irrelevant. Besides, he successfully appealed his murder conviction, so he would never have been executed anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.252.80.100 (talk) 11:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Labour supporting?

The Sun is not really a Labour supporting newspaper, as the infamous 1992 general election front page shows. --CelticCymru (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

what about in the 1997 uk elections where 'The Sun backs Blair'? and apparently again in 2001 according to this link. im not sure about the second example but i know the 1997 one was notable Perry mason (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The mention of The Sun being "Labour-supporting" came in the sentence relating to the 1979 headline VOTE TORY THIS TIME. The Sun had backed Labour since its relaunch as a tabloid in 1969, which is why this headline was significant. It backed the Tories from 1979 until it supported Labour in the 1997, 2001 and 2005 elections. ajp2000 (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Headlines section

A while back, I requested a citation for the headlines section and one was added directing readers to the News International archive. While this presumably would confirm the accuracy of the headlines, it does not provide notability in line with the notability policy or support for the statement that these in particular are "memorable". They should really be cited to secondary sources rather than just being those that the contributors remember. Obviously the most famous ones are mentioned elsewhere in the article, and there are sources fairly easily available for others such as “CRISIS, WHAT CRISIS?” The “De Beers” one is cited as a favourite is this article: [1], but what it doesn’t mention is that it was in fact a repeat (deliberate or otherwise) of one from Private Eye in ’76 [2]. Finally, there’s one candidate at least that was missed – LOONY MP BACKS BOMB GANG (the Birmingham Six). Billwilson5060 (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether a headline is memorable is pretty subjective. You may recall LOONY MP BACKS BOMB GANG, but that doesn't necessarily make it worthy of inclusion in the article (I'm not saying it's unworthy either!). The headlines listed here are those that more often than not The Sun reprints when it has a retrospective of its headlines over the years (which it does on anniversaries of its tabloid debut) or at the end of a year. I suppose the fact that The Sun considers them memorable isn't necessarily a reason to list them either, but I don't know of a better yardstick. The De Beers headline is no less memorable, incidentally, just because it was used as a speech bubble on the front of Private Eye a quarter of a century earlier (I salute your research though!). In fact this one has more claim than most for inclusion since it won the paper a British Press Award for Front Page of the Year. ajp2000 (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be reasonable to leave them in given that no-one disputes that the paper's headlines are notable or that these are real examples, but it's possible that they could be challenged under a tight interpretation of the rules, or that people could end up adding memorable-to-them examples that weren't really significant - the Have I got news for you page used to be like this. Re: Bomb Gang, there are secondary sources that could be found by Googling it in quotes, and I would have added it myself, but I couldn't find a publication date. Billwilson5060 (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It was on Jan 29, 1988 - and I've added it to the list. ajp2000 (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The headlines section is way too long, is classic WP:TRIVIA and is a good example of why the article needs a cleanup. Only a handful of the headlines, such as GOTCHA and FREDDIE STARR ATE MY HAMSTER meet WP:N. Lists should be avoided, as they are not encyclopedic content. This list could be axed without any loss to the article.

Also, the headline about Atlantis, in addition to being pure WP:RECENTISM, was not strictly a Sun exclusive, as the Telegraph gave the exact co-ordinates on the same day.[3][4] This article needs a boot up its nether regions, because it has too many sloppy edits.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree the headlines section is too long but it is wrong to class it as trivia and it would certainly be a loss to the article if it was axed entirely - in an encyclopedia entry about a newspaper famous for headlines there should surely be examples. I agree also that the Atlantis headline is included only because it is recent and should probably go. The objection to it on the grounds that it wasn't an exclusive is neither here nor there, however - half of the Sun's famous headlines have not been on exclusive stories, as that list illustrates.ajp2000 (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Lists as long as this are always discouraged in Wikipedia articles. Some examples, backed up by references in reliable sources are OK, but the current list is bloated and needs a good pruning.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to The Sun (newspaper); redirect The Sun to Sun; I found that Talk:The Sun (newspaper)/Archive 1 had been cut-&-paste moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
The Sun → The Sun (tabloid newspaper) — I know this has been brought up before, but I feel strongly that this tabloid newspaper (only published in two countries; the second of which refers to it as The Irish Sun anyway) is not popular enough to warrant an article namespace at The Sun. Reference to the star at the center of our solar system is often coupled with "the", and is capitalized (which is exampled at the Sun article intro. itself), meaning anyone intending for the star who searches "the Sun" or "The Sun" will end up at the tabloid newspaper's article. If this succeeds I would recommend then redirecting The Sun to Sun (disambiguation). (see below) — ^{\`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`/} (talk • contribs) 10:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. The Sun would never be searched for, or linked as The Sun. Hence this is a solution in search of a problem, and there is no need for the disambiguation. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't find it at all impossible that a reader would type "the sun" to find the Sun, or that an editor would link the Sun and expect it to link to the Sun. Jafeluv (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support The Sun, in common parlance, is not The Sun. I agree with the rationale provided by CrazyInSane. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 17:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Umm... "The Sun, in common parlance, is not 'The Sun'." Didn't you just call it that yourself? How is that not common parlance? Jafeluv (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, per 199.125.109.99. – ukexpat (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support Agree. The Sun is that big yellow hot thing in the sky to most of the planet. beardybloke (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: No, that's Sun, this is The Sun - see the difference?! – ukexpat (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually, grammatically that should be "thats the Sun, this is The Sun". Of course, the Sun and The Sun are the same in Wikipedia due to technical restrictions. Jafeluv (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I pretty much agree here with Jafulev, I refer to Suns (without "the") as the general term for a star. The Sun is what we tend to call the one in our solar system. beardybloke (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, my point to this proposal is that it is impossible to refer to Sun without the indefinite article "the" in common parlance. One never says, "boy, Sun is very bright today". It is very probable that someone searching for "the Sun" is looking for our star. — ^{\`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`/} (talk • contribs) 06:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. I think that if disambiguation is really needed here, it should be The Sun (newspaper). That would redirect to the tabloid anyway as the primary topic. Jafeluv (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually as a modification of the proposition I think this has more merit. beardybloke (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - there's no point in having a redirect to a dab page when there is a hatnote which would get the reader there faster anyway. Someone typing "the Sun" (hoping for the star) would still not be directed to the one they wanted if we did this. There's a hatnote on this article which gives just-as-fast direction to Sun, and direction to the dab page. We shouldn't waste correct titles on redirects, using needless identifiers when the other options are very clear at the top of the page. – Toon 14:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • That is a very good point. Someone looking for Sun is not helped by moving this page (unless of course The Sun is redirected to Sun, which isn't part of the proposal). Jafeluv (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I support the suggested name change, there are some other "the sun" articles that probably need the same sort of name change (like The SUN). There seems to be alot of other newspapers called "the sun", i dont know if there would be a need to point out in the title its a (British tabloid newspaper), but either way.. The Sun should redirect to Sun BritishWatcher (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - WP:THE clears this up. The naming convention rule of thumb: "If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the page name. Otherwise, do not include it at the beginning of the page name." In short, using 'The' for the star in our planetary system = bad. Using 'The' for newspaper that would capitalise in running text = good. It even gives the example of another newspaper (The New York Times). Also: CrazyInSane, this newspaper is the second highest circulation English language newspaper in the world so let's not pretend it's not popular. LunarLander // talk // 03:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think anyone's proposing changing the way the word "The" is used in the article titles. Even if this page is moved, the Sun article will stay where it is. Jafeluv (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Perhaps, but it's just another reason for it to be left as it is. LunarLander // talk // 19:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support The Sun (newspaper) is far more important than some yellow thing flying in the sky several million miles away. Anywhere in the world if people talk about The Sun they mean the newspaper which likes big pictures of knockers, making up stories about Liverpudlians and which makes suprisingly good toilet paper if one runs out. And anyone who disagrees with me is either a looney-leftie, a faggot, an Argie or as bonkers as Bruno. :) --Xania ^talk 23:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Amending proposal: Redirect The Sun to Sun instead of Sun (disambiguation)?

Clearly, the phrase "(T/t)he Sun" in common parlance is exclusively associated with the star in our solar system... not only outside of the UK and Ireland but possibly even in those countries as well. If you go to the Sun article itself, you can note that it introduces as "The Sun", and really, that is always how it's referred to.

I am therefore amending that portion of my proposal, and instead ask that we redirect The Sun to Sun, and add a note to Sun's page indicating: "This article is about the star. For the British tabloid paper, see The Sun (tabloid newspaper).". — ^{\`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`/} (talk • contribs) 01:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd support redirecting The Sun to Sun, but would be opposed to adding an additional dab line just for the paper. (It is covered under the existing hatnote which points to Sun (disambiguation), and we don't need to clutter the top of the page.) Other than that, the idea of moving the newspaper to a different title is sound. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, I can see how the additional dab line just for the newspaper could overly clutter the lead. Incidentally, would you prefer redirecting The Sun to Sun or Sun (disambiguation)?. — ^{\`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`/} (talk • contribs) 06:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm probably biased by my interest in astronomy, but it would seem that the Sun is the natural choice. I'm well aware of the British paper, of course, even though my first newspaperish thought with regards to "Sun" is with my local paper, but I do think the bright thing in the sky should take priority... --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to having The Sun directly point to Sun (as I can confirm that Sun is indeed known as "The Sun" over here as well (even though we get to see very little of it), but certainly not "exclusively" - context is key). Sun is clearly the primary topic, however, so I would support this title redirecting to the big fireball. – Toon 17:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

False consensus

• Sorry people but I really can't see any consensus having been formed here. Contributions to the original proposal were evenly split. And all the contributions to the amended proposal were posted on the same day and then closed two days later. Guidelines say it should be left for at least a week!! — Blue-Haired Lawyer 02:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• To most people 'the Sun' is 'the sun' is primarily the hot bright object in the sky, much more important than a British tabloid newspaper; and 'sun' without 'the' often means 'sunlight'. i.e. "too much sun may make rubber parts of scuba gear perish.". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree The current settlement is fine by me. beardybloke (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• The actual article is strangely edifying but it seems to reflect the general love-hate relationship inherent in any disagreement. Let it roll is my vote Artizmm (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Should this be here?

There is a paragraph in the middle of the The Scottish Sun section that looks out of place. It begins "In football the newspaper got banned from Heart of Midlothian's football ground Tynecastle for stirring up..." As well as using unencyclopedic language, it is unreferenced and disrupts the flow of the text. I'd remove it, but it's been there a while and I may be missing something... Davidelit (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The Sun

I have a project to do on the sun. I do not know what to put i was wonerding if anyone besides where i am at now can help me. I need a lot of help so plese get back as soon as possible i will be cheking daily. I do know it takes 150 days to get to the sun but if anyone has any iformaiton i need it as soon as possible. I go to martin in east piraie mo

tanks, MaKayla —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.72.29.112 (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

"Spelling errors" section

I made a slight change to the “spelling errors” section relating to the Janes letter. However, I would question whether the section should be there in the first place – out of context it seems more like a single unfortunate mistake, not even relating to the print paper. Perhaps it could be mentioned in the general political section along the lines of this section [[5]] but with more emphasis on the paper’s role. Billwilson5060 (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

History

The history section purports to be a chronological accounts of events but it omits reference to the events in the Controversies section. Surely Gotcha and Hillsborough should be referenced in the history in the correct place. Jonknight73 (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Really, the "controversies" section should be integrated into the article as a whole, rather than existing as a separate entity, in order to give a balanced account of the subject. – Toon 16:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Bot request to relating to this page

See my bot request to fix links that should point to this page about the newspaper. Graham87 00:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion concerning The Sun redirect

A discussion concerning where The Sun redirect should point toward is ongoing at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 26#The Sun. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

names of editors and assistant editors?

I am trying to verify that someone claiming to be an editor of the Sun is indeed who he says. He had not given me a name to verify but I suspect he is a scam artist in the UK. His tel is [redacted]. 66.180.120.150 (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. However, it's certainly a scam if they won't give their name. PS The obvious way to check it out would be to call the paper, not post on Wikipedia. Rd232 ^talk 14:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

General standard of this article

This is a perfect example of a once-coherent, factual and reasonably balanced Wiki article destroyed by endless additions of unsourced material inspired solely by the authors' prejudices against the paper and the deletion of valid SOURCED material. The casual reader might now wonder, from the overtly negative tone this article has towards its subject, just how The Sun rose from virtually nothing to become the biggest-selling daily paper in the UK, a position it has held since the late 1970s. I would spend some time improving it, but since no Wiki editors seem to be policing it, there seems little point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajp2000 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

To put it bluntly, this article is a mess. It is currently written in a sloppy essay style, which is why it is tagged as having multiple issues. It needs a lot of work to come up to a good Wikipedia standard.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well particularly if you're concerned about the deletion of good material, why not post a link to a previous version of the article with that material in it, or even re-add the parts you want? Rd232 ^talk 14:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a long time since this article had a reasonable (although not brilliant) version. It would create a range of problems to revert to a version from six months or more ago. A rewrite is the only realistic option, but this would take time and help from a range of editors.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Not suggesting a revert. But if you can find an old version for comparison, that would be a basis for discussion. You can seek input from others via relevant wikiprojects and noticeboards. Rd232 ^talk 16:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Nostradamus & Prophecies

Sun newspaper not only does main stories on scandals, but mainly Nostradamus & Prophecies cuz i've been getting the newspaper for 2 years and been telling me about prophecies including Nostradumas' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.17.152 (talk) 00:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Renamed because it's no claim on the main link

Per

• The Sun (Rangoon)
• The Sun (Hong Kong)
• The Sun (Malaysia)
• The Sun (Lowell)
• The Sun (New York)
• The Sun (Sheridan)

Theres no reason this one was entitled or had right to be The Sun (newspaper). Truth And Relative Dissention In Space (talk) 03:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Picture in infobox

Whilst the image of Prince Harry in the infobox at present is one of its many memorable front pages, i am not so sure that it is the most deserving for the infobox, especially as it only gets one mention in the list of headlines section. I think it would be more appropriate to use the "Its the Sun Wot Won It" image. This is far more notable, it highlights the papers role in politics and it is mentioned in the history section of the article, it is also the only headline that has its own article as far as im aware, picture is shown on that article. If there are no objections, i will make the change later. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The Sun in the seventies

As the article stood the history section jumped about a decade. Looking through the article history 'the early Murdoch years' section appears to have been repeatedly blanked in early March 2010 by a blocked user with the IP of 82.109.64.81 and not restored. Philip Cross (talk) 09:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Scotland to Seperate from England

If Scotland wants it's independance from England, let them seperate but don't ask the English Government to help you out finacially. Go it alone, but on your own and see how you get on. E.Nash —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.58.84 (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Please take a quick look at the policies here, being especially careful to note the following: "Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses". We're here to build an encyclopedia, not offer a commentary! ῤerspeκὖlὖm ^{in ænigmate ( talk )} 02:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Reorganisation of 12 February 2011

The article was very disorganised and the chronology skipped over the decades on multiple occasions. Sections on the Hillsborough tragedy and the "Gotcha" headline did not appear in a logical place where users might reasonably expect to find them. I have tried to rectify this problem.

Some sections which users might wish to read have been broken up, but for the most obvious of these (Page Three) I have assumed the relatively early first wikilink will direct interested readers to the main article without the need for the feature's forty year history to be included here in one place. The former 'Accusations of Homophobia' and 'AIDs' sections might have been what readers are looking for, and their appears to be article on the 'Representation of LGBT people in the UK media' yet. I hope someone creates such an article soon. Philip Cross (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

'Headlines' section

A miscellaneous section which is largely duplicated over at the sister Wikiquote website. I propose moving any absent headlines over to the other site (including any in the body of this article rather than the section) and deleting the section here. I will add the Wikiquote template in the usual place. Philip Cross (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

"Agnostic" about Labour in 1974

In this edit I found fault with an earlier edit made by myself, obviously the page reference was inadvertantly omitted. I have looked into this again and found that Greenslade does make this claim on p.252 of Press Gang (the index is unsatisfactory but an online source is sufficiently complete to resolve the mystery), but the James Thomas source is obviously more precise for our purposes that I don't propose restoring a citation to Greenslade's book. Philip Cross (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Archiving

I have moved debates more than a year old to an archive page. An exception was a discusion on incorporating the Irish Sun into this article. As that has been settled, it did not seem worth making an exception. Philip Cross (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Other link

http://m.thesun.co.uk

Posted so web.archive.org will archive it WhisperToMe (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Deleted Paragraph

I have removed a paragraph in the 1990s section as the references are unverifiable. I cannot trace the references and therefore cannot judge how reliable the references are. I feel there is a chance this could be OR/SYNTH, where people have simply read and interpreted the articles to read how they want. I have removed the paragraph until proper traceable references can be provided. Simply posting 'The Sun 1994' is not acceptable, how can the source be verified? Please discuss Christian1985 (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Usual practice on the Redwood/Major/Portillo passage would be to insert a citation needed tag, and only delete if no one provides the requested evidence. Your second edit did not have exclusively vague references, so I reverted it. Philip Cross (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Used the verify source template to resolve the problem you have pointed out. Philip Cross (talk) 08:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the opening paragraph in this section because it is not properly referenced. Most of the paragraph is SYNTH/POV and does not even have a reference and the Kirby Times article no longer exists which means it is not verifiable. But even then I hardly think an article titled 'History of the Scum newspaper' is a fair and balanced article, it sounds very biased and partisan to me. Christian1985 (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Also through further research there is no such site as the Kirkby Times, I could not access the link and a google search returned nothing. Christian1985 (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Phillip Cross, you cannot simply palm this off as a 'minor flaw'. The so-called reference 'Kirkby Times' doesn't even exist. Through a google search I found one mention of it as 'Kirkby Times- working class with no spin' sounds like a left-wing blog to me not a credible source, plus as mentioned the source doesn't even exist. Most of the paragraph doesn't even have any references which means it is simply SYNTH/OR. Please do not repost it unless credible and verifiable references are found, thank you. Christian1985 (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Christian, you will note I removed the reference to the Kirkby Times having found the citation dubious too. The current lack of citations in this passage does not prove assertions are wrong though or that editors have acted in bad faith. As the article has deviated from British politics for several paragraphs at this point readers really need a recap or resolution of the newspaper's coverage of the later Thatcher/early Major years. Philip Cross (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The cited headlines from Roy Greenslade's book should clear up any possible doubt over interpretation. Philip Cross (talk) 14:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The Sun 1849?

hello, i read an article in the german newspaper "Frankfurter Zeitung" from 1849 where an english newspaper named "Sun" was quoted. i'm pretty sure the sun was shining 150 years ago, but what kind of publication was the SUN of 19th century? Maximilian (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The only other Sun with an entry in Griffiths' fairly exhaustive Encyclopedia of the British Press is a London evening paper that lasted from 1893-1906. The reference might have been to an obscure local paper that didn't warrant an entry, I guess. What was the quote? Barnabypage (talk) 13:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

i translate roughly from german to english: "The wellknown Frederike Bremer from Sweden, who has enriched so many readers with her morally flawless family novels of presidents, their daughters and neighbours, has just arrived in London. She's on her way to the United States in order to (according to the Sun) perform new studies of the president because the swedish ones have been exhausted." great, isn't it? from october 1, 1849. the Frankfurter Zeitung was a wellknown daily paper read all over europe. Maximilian (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Could there be any other translation of Sun? Could it be a Swedish or German newspaper? I have a feeling there was a New York Sun at one point too. Barnabypage (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

There were a great many newspapers in Britain called 'The Sun' before the IPC set up the present one in 1964. The one mentioned in 1849 was almost certainly the newspaper founded on 19 January 1793 and which published its last issue under that title on 25 February 1871. It then became "The Sun and Central Press" (26 February 1871 to 30 September 1873) and then "The Central Press" (1 October 1873 to 29 June 1874). It's in the British Library Newspaper collection. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Printed in United States same day

There should be a mention in the article that the The Sun is also published in Orlando, Florida and sold the same day in the U.S. (as is the Weekly World News on Sunday and Daily Mail daily). The model on Page 3 is always in a bikini or lingerie, never nude. Is she topless in the UK edition? I've always wondered. Sometimes there are topless pics in news stories, but never Page 3. 5Q5 (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, topless. I hasten to add that I'm an Independent reader, myself. It might be worth a mention that it's published worldwide, although most papers seem to be, especially in areas popular with British tourists; I actually found it quite difficult to get hold of a Portuguese-language newspaper where I stayed in Faro. – Toon 17:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Amending my original description above, sometimes the paper in the U.S. edition will place "censor stars" over the topless Page 3 model's nipples, as they did with the July 31, 2009 paper. 5Q5 (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

this is STUPID — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.187.102 (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Image request

I firmly support the addition of an image of the front cover of the 19 April 1989 issue of the Sun to this article, but the quality of the current image is borderline. It would be great if someone could add a higher quality image of the cover of that issue. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Need for a new image IMMEDIATELY!

We need a new front page image of the paper. One of the stories are the police charging Rebecca Leighton over the 2011 Stepping Hill Hospital poisoning incident. These charges were later dismissed, although Leighton was (apparently) dismissed form her job. We can hardly have a free to use image on the net which has a later dismissed story within it. I have hence removed it from the article - Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Printed in Spain and Turkey?

I have removed the following:

"The British paper is also printed locally in Spain (also covering Gibraltar and the Canary Islands) and Turkey, allowing British tourists and expats to read the same edition on the day of publication rather than waiting for copies to be transported out."

Now this may all be true, but I cannot find sources online which confirm the claim that The Sun is printed in Spain or Turkey. There is an El Sun published in the Canary Islands but, apart from imitating the British newspaper's masthead, looks to be unrelated. For instance, it claims to be an "independent" newspaper.. Philip Cross (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

2014 World Cup edition

Any chance we can get an image for the World Cup souvenir edition? This is Paul (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It is here but copyrighted, so inclusion in the article would need to meet WP:NFCC requirements. I'm not sure if it has enough long term notability to meet NFCC#8.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it probably would. It's very rare for a publication to produce so many free copies for nationwide distribution – the AIDS leaflets of the 1980s and the Millennium bug booklet spring to mind – and for a newspaper it's probably unheard of. This is Paul (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Why is this news? The print run was just a desperate advertising campaign for a failing product. Wikipedia shouldn't be wasting time on advertising. I get plenty of other junk mail through my letter box, I don't see that being talked about in Wikipedia.86.10.167.123 (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

If the special edition was wholly news, it would not merit inclusion. As it is, whatever one thinks of The Sun itself, the issue achieves notability:

1. On the basis of it being the first time a British national newspaper has turned itself into a free sheet.

2. The controversy over Ed Miliband's role in the publicity.

3. The unusual treatment of postal workers in Merseyside and surrounding areas who have an (understandable) grievance against The Sun. Philip Cross (talk) 13:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Is a mention of this edition notable enough for the article? Yes. Is an image of the cover necessary per WP:NFCC#8? Perhaps not. The free issue was not delivered in the L postcode area due to the sensitivities involved, and set off controversy in Skelmersdale.[6]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality

The article is tagged as being potentially biased (i.e. neutrality is in question), but I've had a read through, and I can't see much evidence of this. Does anyone have any views to the contrary, or should this issue be removed? Perspeculum (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality is based on the perspective of the reader. It is seen as a possible meeting point for people on opposite sides of an argument to reach mutual agreement. This article has, somehow, managed to reach that. (I must state that I, personally hate the Sun and it's coverage of the Hillsborough Disaster and believe that anyone who, actively, reads it is, of below par intelligence. This is only an opinion and not a belief system - I have met many Sun readers who are quite nice people and could challenge Fermi in a game of 'Spot the Weasel' (like chess mixed with cryptic crosswords, sudoku and darts).Where is WikiResearch? (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is absurdly biased, as any fool can see. It concentrates almost entirely on the errors and controversies perpetrated by the paper over 40 years, plainly written by people with an axe to grind. Taken at face value, the casual observer would wonder why the paper hadn't been closed by public demand, as opposed to still selling 2.7m copies a day and being read by upwards of 8m people. The fact that the commenter above believes "neutrality" has been achieved betrays their own antipathy towards the paper, which is then confirmed by them stating that they hate the Sun and its 8m "below par intelligence" readers. Most critics of the Sun haven't actually read the paper in 15 years. The article is beyond help without a total rewrite, which such idiots would then destroy. It is a disgrace to wikipedia, frankly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.101.23 (talk) 10:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hear hear — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.162.160 (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I notice that on the web-site used to reference the ninth largest circulation in the world, The Sun is also ranked 14th Worst News Media in the world in terms of quality. [[7]] shouldn't this be given equal prominance in the intro? Mighty Antar (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Sex and "bonking"

According to another editor "having skimmed through the source I don't think what was there was justified." He was objecting to the following:

"Sex was used as an important element in marketing the paper from the start, which Lamb believed was the most important part of his readers' lives."

The relevant passage in The Daily Telegraph obituary of Sir Larry Lamb from May 2000 reads as follows:

"Lamb believed that the most important thing in his readers' lives, with one exception, was television and so determined to give it extensive coverage. The exception, of course, was what subsequently came to be known as "bonking". From these principles the Sun began to take shape. In the first issue under Lamb's editorship, on November 7 1969, there was a centre spread featuring a naked blonde at the feet of the Rolling Stones."

In other the writer is asserting that sex is the most important thing for Sun readers (ahead of television) and notes that arousing images were included "from the start" of the Murdoch Sun's existence. As ought to be clear from the source, "bonking" is a British colloquial term used to describe sexual activity. Philip Cross (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I am the "another editor" and I missed out "The exception" sentence when skimming through; I used the find tool searching for "sex", "boobs" and "breasts", but nothing came up. (I wouldn't have understood "bonking" anyway - I'm British, but I've never heard it used.) I'm not entirely convinced the source was being genuinely serious —- is this paraphrasing of something Lamb said? It would sound more like vague satire to me if it weren't for the context. But you can add the sentence back in if you want. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 22:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: Okay, the sentence has already been added back. Seems like everything's resolved. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 22:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Daily Star (United Kingdom) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Daily Star (British newspaper) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Circulation figures

The reference is outdated, and needs updating, with a static or archive link. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Sun (United Kingdom). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080905013642/http://www.holymoly.co.uk/news/28/the-sun-online-catches-the-jade-goody-bug-1134.html to http://www.holymoly.co.uk/news/28/the-sun-online-catches-the-jade-goody-bug-1134.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Sun (United Kingdom). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071201082014/http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/us.doc to http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/us.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041209064340/http://www.nmauk.co.uk:80/nma/do/live/factsAndFigures?newspaperID=17 to http://www.nmauk.co.uk/nma/do/live/factsAndFigures?newspaperID=17

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Bias

This article is written like a smear story. I suggest an end to the obvious dislike for this newspaper from whomever wrote/adjusted this article to its current state. One can hardly refrain from laughing when reading this drivel (thinly) disguised as neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.162.160 (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

While I appreciate your attempts to help, I think that (a) fixing the article yourself or (b) highlighting specific issues would be more beneficial than spouting insults at the authors/article. I have added a neutrality tag and done very small bits of cleanup; please feel free to give the article a thorough copyedit yourself. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 21:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

"One can hardly refrain from laughing when reading this drivel (thinly) disguised as a newspaper". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Seemingly revealing your own bias? ALL red top tabloids are, shall we say, less than reputable? Wikipedia should be otherwise. Why devote your negativity to this one only? Or is it because of events beginning 15 April 1989?

Would it do any good? Seriously? Looking through this article's history, consensus seems to be to keep radiated bias and excuses found to silence those who protest. Thanks for adding the neutrality tag, I suppose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.162.160 (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps not. But it would do less harm that the approach currently adopted. By all means list here all the material which you feel exhibits "bias". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Very well. The word which comes to my mind would be volume. The article (perhaps with the exception of most of the lede) steers the reader through a myriad of negativity and controversy. Not to mention weight devoted to negativity. I doubt many viewers fail to see the overall collective mindset of the authors. Perhaps trimming the controversies to what we see on the Daily Star Wikipedia page would be a good start. Also replace infobox image with the logo of the paper.

No, I meant specific examples in terms of sentences and paragraphs. Maybe there's lots of positive stuff that has been left out and could be added to balance all the negative stuff? By all means show us that. Is there some kind of upper limit on the number of controversies with which a newspaper can be involved? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

To choose just one chapter as an example of saturated bias and negativity. The Falklands section could begin thus:

The Sun became an ardent supporter of the Falklands War. One of the paper's best known front pages, published on 4 May 1982, appeared to celebrate the news of the torpedoing of the Argentine ship the General Belgrano by running the story under the headline "GOTCHA".

... do we need inclusions in the section like:

1) "but was also "xenophobic, bloody-minded, ruthless, often reckless, black-humoured and ultimately triumphalist." "

2) "Sunday Times reporter John Shirley witnessed copies of this edition of The Sun being thrown overboard by sailors and marines on HMS Fearless."

3) "The Sun claimed to have 'sponsored' a British missile. Under the headline "Stick This Up Your Junta: A Sun missile for Galtieri’s gauchos", the newspaper published a photograph of a missile. actually a Polaris missile stock shot from the Ministry of Defence"

4) "Despite this, it went not well received by the troops and copies of The Sun were soon burnt."

5) "After HMS Sheffield was wrecked by an Argentinian attack, The Sun was heavily criticised and even mocked for its coverage of the war in The Daily Mirror and The Guardian, and the wider media queried the veracity of official information and worried about the number of casualties, The Sun gave its response. "There are traitors in our midst","

6) "The satirical magazine Private Eye mocked and lampooned what they regarded as the paper's jingoistic coverage, most memorably with the mock-Sun headline "KILL AN ARGIE, WIN A METRO!", to which MacKenzie is said to have jokingly responded, "Why didn't we think of that?" " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.162.160 (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it does need those details, the first of which is a description of the editorial stance by one of the papers' editors at the time - hardly some partisan "smear" of the coverage. It would be extremely biased to omit notable features of the Sun's coverage of the war and its reception simply because they cast the paper's editorial stance in a bad light. The reason why any attempt at writing about the editorial history of the Sun will inevitably tend to resemble a smear story itself is because the Sun's editorial itself is notable only for smearing and controversies caused. (And backing election winners: also extensively covered. I suppose you could say a bit more about headline puns). It's not a violation of neutrality if no other mainstream sources have anything positive to say about the Sun other than its success in selling newspapers Dtellett (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

This 'rationale-cum-justification' is nothing short of ridiculous. You're all collectively incapable of portraying a newspaper in a negative light. You have proven it in your own bizarre justification for the ridiculously skewed and biased tosh smattering this article currently proffers as somehow being collectively neutral and integral. As another editor rightly stated: This article is a disgrace to Wikipedia, frankly. I won't repeat his/her overview as this is sadly falling on INTENTIONALLY deaf ears. (The lack of a reply to my specific points made earlier also speaks volumes.)

Still, the casual reader can see this for what it (sadly) is. (because the Sun's editorial itself is notable only for smearing and controversies caused.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.162.160 (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm removing the neutrality tag as there doesn't seem to be any justified dispute. The material is well sourced and does not contain original research; the tabloid itself is well known for being highly controversial in its editorial content; while the one complainant on here has the opportunity to add any well sourced positive stories to the article that he/she sees fit.Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 01:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

"Right-Wing Leaning" doesn't make sense. Either the paper is "Right-wing" (wing being a specific degree to which one is to the right or left) or "Right leaning" or it could be more descriptive and say that it's "Right-of-center, and at times bordering on Right-wing". I have read articles in the paper that scandalize behavior of those on the Right, though maybe not as often as those on the Left, but that wouldn't seem "Right-wing" in my estimation. However, I don't live in the UK or read this paper frequently enough to determine which would be ideal, but the current wording is confusing to those who understand the term meanings on the political scale.

Removed the disputed description for reasons I state in th edit summary. After a gap of three years, it would have been better to begin a new section below. Philip Cross (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Brexit Section

On 20 Sept. 2018 The Sun printed a headline "EU DIRTY RATS The Sun Says we can’t wait to free ourselves of the two-bit mobsters who run the European Union" see here and this was critized by the European commission "The European commission will call for a more responsible approach by the media in the wake of the Sun’s headline last week in which it described Europe’s leaders as “EU Dirty Rats”." as it is said here in The Guardian, perhaps someone can integrate it in the Brexit section of the article. ArchibaldWagner (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

somehow there is no explanation why The Sun newspaper was named after the Sun in the sky

? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.191.127 (talk) 11:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Apparently newspaper names like 'Sun', 'Star', 'Beacon' etc... are linked to the idea that newspapers provide enlightenment. Loweredtone (talk) 9:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

No article on the boycotts in merseyside?

That's strange. I thought that there would be one right now... They have been going on for over 30 years, and there has been no real opposition. An article needs to be created on this. LockyHimself (talk) 09:20, 18 May 2020 (BST)

I guess a source would be useful. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

According to this source, " With several newsagents refusing to stock the Sun, it is estimated that sales fell by more than 40,000 a day and never recovered." It is often said that The Sun cooked its goose on Merseyside with its coverage of the Hillsborough disaster, and it probably the most controversial incident during Kelvin MacKenzie's time as editor. He apologised in April 2016.[8] It is covered extensively in the article here, but doesn't need a separate article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes. And here's a similar piece, based on Foos and Bischof, from Tony Evans in The Independent: [9]. Here's the original paper. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Boycott opposition? Anti The sun protests? TotalEclipseOfTheS*n?

I've seen them happen on youtube videos, And there is a lack of opposition, but I think it's there. The group known as TotalEclipseOfTheS*n has called for it's ban. I'm surprised there isn't an article on this yet, and it should be created soon. LockyHimself (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Needs reliable sourcing. See also the section above. There is plenty of evidence that sales slumped on Merseyside after the Hillsborough disaster, but a group on YouTube calling for a ban isn't really notable. I couldn't find TotalEclipseOfTheS*n with the YouTube search box, could you give a link?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

They do have a twitter known as @totaleclipse96, so I guess that counts. Searching the sun boycotts on youtube can bring up videos on the sun boycotts. LockyHimself (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

It's here on Twitter and they also have a Facebook page here and a website here. However, the lack of secondary coverage in news stories is a worry, because it leads to a problem with WP:SPS. The article here does take an extensive look at the demise of the Sun on Merseyside following Hillsborough.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for shoehorning in an opinion, but I hate how there isn't really any opposition to the boycotts so far.LockyHimself (talk) 10:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Anti The Sun Protests?

It's not been coverned a ton in this article. And that's kind of a shame. <https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2017/04/dont-buy-sun-campaign-gathers-momentum/> LockyHimself (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 6 June 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus ~ Amkgp 💬 17:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

---

The Sun (United Kingdom) → The Sun (UK and Ireland) – The Sun circulates in both the United Kingdom (The Scottish Sun and the edition titled just The Sun) and in Ireland (The Irish Sun). The article covers both the British and Irish circulations of the newspaper (as opposed to, say, only covering the England-Wales-NI edition titled just The Sun). Its title should reflect its scope. I cannot make this move as it has been locked so only admins can do so — I assume this is because The Sun is a contentious paper and the article has been moved to offensive titles in the past? Kilopylae (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. buidhe 01:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Converted to RM for discussion. (permalink). – Ammarpad (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes there has been a few bad moves and dispute over primacy but I'd agree that this is an important enough topic (level 5 vital article) for this to be plenty controversial enough for a full RM. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Whatever the reason it's move protected, it's not likely uncontroversial at this point. Dicklyon (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support: The Sun has its own edition in the Republic of Ireland, the text of the article makes this clear.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's overwhelmingly known as a British newspaper. But even if it is renamed it should be The Sun (United Kingdom and Ireland). We usually avoid abbreviating United Kingdom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessarily complicated disambiguation. But support the creation of redirects at the two redlink suggestions above. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Text restored per WP:RTP which LockyHimself removed but I have struck the "Support". Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC). We could then use this page to show boycotting of the sun around, and that would be great. Even though I don't support these boycotts, But i've always wanted a Wikipedia article on these boycotts as this is something unique to merseyside and other councils. </https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2017/04/dont-buy-sun-campaign-gathers-momentum/> LockyHimself (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • What exactly has this got to do with renaming the article? -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • We are moving the article, aren't we? LockyHimself (talk) 08:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Even if we do, what has your comment got to do with moving the article? You've presented no reason for supporting the move to a new title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Not sure how you can have The Irish Sun as a redirect for this page and assume that the current title is somehow correct. The paper is not simply distributed in Ireland, it has it's own edition there, and last time I checked Ireland didn't have a redirect to the United Kingdom page. Mighty Antar (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom, the current title is misleading.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Weak support given as noted it does cover Ireland to even if mainly known in GB. No objection to the alternative suggestion of not abbreviating United Kingdom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support and comment Rename it rather to The Sun (United Kingdom and Ireland). Mikus (talk) 04:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.