Talk:The Sun (United Kingdom)

Broken Reference, Ref 171.

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)

•  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)

Herald of Free Enterprise Disaster

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)

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)

Discussion at Talk:Hillsborough disaster and The Sun § Information flow

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

Can these additional facts remain or not?

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Mark Zuckenberg lottery promo 72.235.59.62 (talk) 03:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)