Talk:The Sun (newspaper)/Archive 1

message: About as NPOV as The Sun itself. Needs re-writing.
:I gave it a try... :) --Auz 12:34, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Top

message: As the French newspaper Libération is currently being characterized as "militant" in its article I would like to know whether the Sun's picturing of Jacques Chirac as a worm on its frontpage after the threat of a veto against the Iraq war resolution would qualify this newspaper as "militant" as well? Just a rhetorical question... Get-back-world-respect 15:12, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Militant?

message: There's no reason for the article to be so blatantly biased against the Sun. Yes, I don't particularly like the sun either but for heavens sake this is an encyclopedia not the subjectivity wiki.
This is terribly biased.  The article should be changed.
:The article is factual, not POV, and the evidence does not show the newspaper in a good light. Nothing can be done about that, without censoring significant details. BTW, you should have signed your comments wirh four tildes (~). Philip Cross 20:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO this article is terribly biased. It's not a single word about why this newspaper is such a big success. Floyd(Norway) 20:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has been more balanced the last few months, but parts of the article still seems to have been written by someone who really hates "The Sun". The setences in the "Populartity" part starts with "some argue", "other argue", "some believe" which is OK to me. The problem is the Controversy part. It's reasonable that it's larger than the "Popularity" part, because most media is known for controversy. But there are some POV statements there. I personally disagree strongly with The Sun's point of view in most political issues, but their views which is mentioned in the "Controversy" part is also supported by lots of people. If you read this article it seems like everybody is disagreeing with "The Sun", but that is simply not true. Floyd(Norway) 11:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the reason it's so anti-"The Sun" is because you can't be pro-"The Sun" and still be telling the truth. The Sun is the worst crap ever to be spat out by Satan. It's terrible, horrible and disgusting. A disgrace to journalism and to the United Kingdom. --The monkeyhate 10:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias? What bias! 

message: Why is The Sun constantly mentioned as a "Tabloid" paper? I am just curious.--RNJBOND 01:46, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC).
:Because of it's dimensions. There are two sizes of paper, tabloid, which is easier to read, or broadsheet - why not read the Wikipedia article - Tabloid? hehe Dilaudid 20:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tabloid? 

message: Any more headlines, was there a good one after Maradona'a hand of God GoalLazmac 23:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This section was getting long, so I have moved it over to wikiquote. Addition made by Philip Cross 22:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Memorable Headlines

message: I have edited the "Why The Sun is so popular" section as required. It was biased, and sounded like an advertisement rather than an encyclopaedia entry. I hope others will agree with me that such editing was necessary!
I wrote the original and think you have done a good job.  Lazmac 19:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing "Why the Sun is so popular" 

message: Since when has The Sun been right wing; it advised readers to vote labour at the last election and has always held left wing views.--Oli 15:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Right Wing? 

message: "...though some people suggested that the latter was once undermined by a beautiful baby competition (with plenty of photographs of young children) run at the same time which they claimed might attract the attention of unsavoury individuals, and further undermined by their Page 3 girl, who is often a teenager."
Can someone enlighten me as to why running a "beautiful baby competition", or printing nude photographs of teenagers who are 18 and over can be equated with trying to satisfy people who want sex with children? Strikes me as being an incredibly POV paragraph. --taras 03:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Page 3 girls might be over 18 now (I don't know), but in the past I know they featured plenty of under-18 girls.  As for the "beautiful baby" thing, is there really a difference between "I consider X beaitiful" and "I am attracted to X"? 4.89.246.23 12:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Sun could - and did - show topless shots page 3 girls who were 16 yrs oldAlci12 12:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which wasn't against the law at the time, neither is having sex with a 16 year old. So the Sun's criticism of paedophiles is not hypocritical as they by definition will have had sex with an underage girl. 137.138.46.155 15:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: British videos and magazines showing under-18 Page Three Girls are said to have been withheld at the time from overt distribution in the USA and Canada because of their laws. In England and Wales, the Protection of Children Act 1978 forbade making, distributing or advertising indecent photographs of children under 16; the Criminal Justice Act 1988 made merely possessing these illegal; and section 45 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 raised the age bar to 18 years. It is for a jury to decide what is "indecent," defined by Lord Parker in 1965 as "offending against the recognized standards of propriety, indecent being at the lower end of the scale and obscene at the upper end." The Court of Appeal's sentencing guidelines of 2003 imply that possessing a small amount of pictures showing erotic posing by a child with no sexual activity would attract a fine. However, those who instead accept a police "Caution" would not be registered as Sex Offenders unless the subject was under 16. See Stevenson et al, Blackstone's Guide to The Sexual Offences Act 2003 , pp 113 - 119. NRPanikker 00:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paedophilia? 

message: Today's edition of The Sun had a very poorly censored photograph of six naked men. Did anyone else see it? I'll be surprised if someone doesn't get in trouble for that. Sweetie Petie 13:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember in the early seventies seeing a completely uncensored full-frontal nude scene from Oh! Calcutta! in a tabloid  newspaper, either the Mirror or the Sun.  Times have changed a bit and it's possible that such a scene would not be shown uncensored now. --Rose Palmer 18:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full frontal male nudity 

message: I thought The Sun's most famous headline was "Freddie Starr ate my hamster"... is it not? Sweetie Petie 20:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''The Sun'''s most famous headline 

message: The first section is just about adequate, but on the whole, this is shambolic, badly-written, biased nonsense.
In just ONE sentence in the "Controversy" section, the following questions are begged:
"More generally, the Murdoch Sun has been criticised since its launch for its sensationalism" - by whom?
"...which on occasion" - which occasion?
"has led it to publish stories on the most spurious evidence" - when? where? says who? 
That section carries on in the same liberals' laundry-list litany of complaints:
"To this day, the paper's circulation in the old mining areas of Britain remains much smaller than in the country as a whole."  - Really? It's probably a fair guess, but only a fair one, and certainly only a guess. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA: we deal with facts, not idle speculations. If you have statistics that show this, reference them.
The whole "Controversy" section is nonsense - not because these aren't all controversies, but because it is entirely evident that:
a) the author hates The Sun
b) the author has no greater knowledge of the various debates and controversies in The Sun's history than I do.
c) the author has, nevertheless, imparted his un-referenced musings upon the world in the an encyclopedia article.
Personally, I think the article is very fair.  The Sun has a long history of lies and intolerance, so it is only fair that these episodes are detailed.  It could also be argued that the Sun divides communities by having constant "bogeymen" to scare the masses with - but that would be conjecture.  I think everything said in this article is supportable by evidence.
I agree that the article is woeful - as indeed are most of the Wikipedia entries on the British press. The main problem is chumps who have heard a little bit about Chomsky in media studies classes and understand nothing of newspapers (or indeed of history) displaying their ignorance for all to see. A concerted rewrite campaign is urgently necessary.Paulanderson 00:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Woeful article 

message: But how many of them can read?
:8.5 million actually137.138.46.155 15:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Readership of 850 000

message: I've added some info on the paper's former support for the SNP in Scotland. I also removed what I considered to be a somewhat dubious assertion that The Sun in Scotland "...is often conspicuous by its bias toward English news coverage, mainly the England football team".  When I lived in Scotland (admittedly more than two years ago now, but I doubt it can have changed that much since then) there was plenty of Scottish content, and the coverage of Scottish football was at least as comprehensive as the Daily Record's. Unless it's changed markedly  since I left Scotland, I don't see how the statement could be justified. IMHO The Sun in Scotland had a lot more Scottish content and flavour than the Scottish editions of most other UK newspapers, at whatever end of the market (anything from the Daily Telegraph to the Daily Star). -- Jellyman 07:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scottish edition

message: The male feminist Warren Farrell developed in the 80s the term "emotional pornography". He applied it then to books that contain highly emotional stories (love stories mostly). Stories which move people very much.
I have expanded this point of view, and consider the British "Sun" together with the German "Bild" and "Express" as newspapers which have become popular at least partly because of featuring very emotional headlines and articles. To me, this fits my expanded view of this phenomenon called "emotional pornography".
As far as I know, no-one has ever made an attempt to research on that - or to this so-called "emotional pornography" in general. In that respect, my thought remains somewhat uncertain. Alrik Fassbauer 17:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popularity - partly based on so-called "emotional pornography" ? 

message: I have deleted this from "The Sun goes Labour again":
: Some critics have suggested that this is because of some deal between Blair and Murdoch; others say that Murdoch has simply followed his usual opportunist policy of backing "winners."
It's very vague "some say" and the "critics" aren't identified. Rose Palmer 18:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncited and vague "some say" references to critical comments

message: I removed the following which was in the sentence about scientific anomolies in the move the day after tomorrow. 
 including the wave seen consuming Manhattan coming from the east (Queens), and not the open ocean from the south; the closest body of open ocean from Manhattan heading east is 120 miles away at the end of Long Island)) 
who cares about that when they're reading about the Sun... the article to the movie is linked.,.
Briannnnnnnnnnn
--
I have been bold and removed this section. It was extremely biased and one-sided. If it is put back ino the article, I think some major work needs doing on it.
:Good, I would not have been so daring. It does read like an advertisement with references to other Murdoch products. Philip Cross 00:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sun going green

message: As much as I may agree with this statement, isn't it: a) an opinion, b) unproveable, c) slightly libelous?
Jamee999 10:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: British tabloids are infamous abroad for being offensive and tasteless

message: I found a book in a local charity shop:
*Lamb, Larry. (1989) Sunrise: The remarkable rise and rise of the best-selling Soaraway Sun, London, PAPERMAC.  (75p)
I'll see if there's anything useful to add to the article. Secretlondon 21:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Book

message: It's only said that the Sun has the most readers of all english-language newspapers, but nothing is said about multi-language statistics.
Maybe because people only want to see a "highest", "best" or "leading" everywhere? Seems biased to me, because statistics are only about english speaking papers.
On a more relevant note, this article states that the Sun has the highest circulation, while the News of the World is said to be the biggest-selling newspaper in the articles regarding the News of the World, and Newspaper circulation.
129.67.121.122 13:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: statistics

message: since the Sexual Offences Act 2003 it could be illegal to possess topless pictures of these "children" (despite the age of consent in the UK being 16) if a jury considers them to be indecent.
It would be illegal to possess them if a jury considered them to be indecent. That is a big "if". Unless we can cite cases where this has happened, or cite the opinion of legal experts, then this is pure conjecture and doesn't really belong here.
Basically, has there ever been a genuine controversy about under-18 page 3 girls in the Sun (as opposed to page 3 girls in general)? If not, then it shouldn't be mentioned. Bear in mind that these are very mild images showing top/rear nudity only - we aren't exactly talking "Hustler" here.
In recent years (post-2003), the Sun has printed a number of paparazzi shots of sub-18 female celebs sunbathing topless or exposing breasts when drunk, most recently Wayne Rooney's 17-year-old cousin at Rooney's 21st birthday party (note that this image appeared in the Daily Mirror too), so it's highly unlikely that the paper's lawyers consider such images to be indecent.
The actual Page 3 girls are older now - typically over 19 - but that change was made some years ago, long before the sex law was changed. AdorableRuffian 20:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page 3 girls aged 16 and 17 

message: *Support redirect to solar body
#Robin Williams
#Kmccoy
*Support redirect to newspaper
#Agnte
#Floyd(Norway)
#Drini
#Jooler
#Solipsist
#Arktos talk
#The real James Bond
--Arktos talk 20:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion summary