Talk:The Sun (newspaper)/Archive 1

Top

About as NPOV as The Sun itself. Needs re-writing.

I gave it a try... :) --Auz 12:34, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Sun newspaper 1794 publication

There doesn't seem to be an entry for prvious British newspapers named "The Sun". Check this article for stub info. http://www.lutontoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=541&ArticleID=909707

Pal

Another silly affectation of the Sun is to label everyone a "pal" rather than a friend. Presumably this is the way the working classes talk in Sun World.

I'm Working Class, and NO ONE i have ever met talks like that ALL THE TIME (except the common sods on benefits) all newspapers that are more concerned with celebrities and other such non-news should be shut down and the editors pelted with Black Puddings ECKY-THUMP!!!!

Wayne Rooney

To the best of my knowledge the Sun is the only publication to use the nickname "Roo" for Wayne Rooney. The fans don't say it, and other papers don't say it. This absurd nickname is then used to excruciating effect in lame puns.

Militant?

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)

Bias? What bias!

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)

Could you provide references for the evidence you use to support this assertion? Thanks Haddocky 14:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Anyone who thinks that use of the word "hack" to describe a sun journalist is NPOV is developmentally disabled 88.110.53.224 14:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC) This article is full of personal opinion, as a matter of fact, the introduction refers to the sun exclusively as the SCUM.I was researching about newspapers when I found this article.It should be revised, and the first paragraph completely deleted. 201.160.175.177 00:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC) Juan Carlos Ramirez

"Sun What Won It" and "schrizophenia"

I just have two little bones to pick with this excellent item.

Firstly, I think you'll find that the "Sun What Won It" headline was not used after Labour's win in 1997. It was used in 1992, when Labour were suprisingly defeated by Major's Tories.

Secondly, I find your description of the newspaper having an element of "schizophrenia" approach to Labour a little sloppy. The use of schizophrenia in this way is slangy and wrong, even though many do so. I would most certainly not expect to encounter it in an encyclopaedia. I would suggest changing this to something a little more appropriate, such as "self-contradictory", "confused", "inconsistent"..

Faulenzer 20:55, 28 Nov 2004

I have now modified the article accordingly.

Faulenzer 00:58, 05 Dec 2004

Tabloid?

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)

...because it is a tabloid?

To find out precisely what a tabloid is, take a look at the Wikipedia article entitled tabloid. Faulenzer 23:04, Dec 2, 2004

paedophiles

"story themes include ... paedophiles ... once undermined by a beautiful baby competition". Does anyone know year and issue? -- 172.176.250.16 10:07, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

It was under Wade, either this year or last. I think Private Eye had something on if I can dig out the issue.

Page 3

Why is there no mention of Page 3 in The Sun page?I found Page 3's info in another page...i think the Page 3 article should be inside The Sun page.Ceecookie 12:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Page 3 deserves its own section, IMHO. It's about as famous as tea and crumpets.

I agree that Page 3 deserves its own section, but IMO this article isn't NPOV.

The daily readership is just under 8,500,000 and it has more than twice as many readers in the ABC1 demographic than its upmarket stablemate The Times. This is most likely due to Page 3 Is there any source for this?

Englishmen I know is buying The Sun because it's an easy and entertaining way getting updated. I understand why many people doesn't like The Sun, but this article still needs to be balanced. Floyd(Norway) 04:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Biased

This article does not have the proper neutrality for an encyclopedia entry.

Article moved

I've moved the article from just The Sun to The Sun (newspaper), because most people typing in The Sun will expect to find an article on the star at the center of our solar system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin Williams (talk • contribs)

This article was moved without consensus and should be moved back. Jooler 22:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think people who want the big yellow one, will type Sun, while paper searchers will type The Sun Lazmac 23:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but I still think there are different people out there. Some is searching the big yellow one, and some is searching the red top. I think The Sun should redirect to Sun (disambiguation). Floyd(Norway) 03:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I've set it back to Sun (disambiguation). The previous redirect was broken. [1] Agnte 09:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The Sun (newspaper) should now be moved back to The Sun to restore the status quo as it was before Robin Williams's vandalism, and then if people want to move the page it can be discussed properly. Jooler 07:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

That's process fetishism, which is a Bad Thing. And moving an article to what you think is the appropriate title without first asking for another user's permission isn't "vandalism", it's "using the software in the manner it was intended". Please familiarise yourself with the actual meaning of "vandalism" (both on Wikipedia and elsewhere), before you throw that word around again. Unwarranted accusations of this nature are disruptive personal attacks, and nobody wants that, do we? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at User_talk:Robin_Williams Specifically the paragraph that begins with - You've been blocked for pagemove vandalism. Because of Robin Williams's actions it is impossible to move this page back without cutting and pasting or the intervention of an Admin. Jooler 03:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

<looks> Heh, okay, fair enough. I was rash, and wrong. I just don't want to see any more edit summaries along the lines of "rv vandalism against consensus" ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Uhh, please don't change what you've said after a reply. It makes the other fellow look strange, because he's replying to text that's different to what he replied to, sort of thing. Anyway, administrator intervention isn't hard to arrange. I mean, I'm an administrator, and I intervene all the time (sometimes foolishly). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Please don't preach. I got an edit conflict when I went in to correct my spelling mistakes and added an extra sentence which didn't make you look any more foolish than you did already. If you're an admin, then why don't you restore the status quo, as suggested, instead of berating others without justification. Jooler 03:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No. As far as I can tell, the move was a useful one, and the only real objection you've offered is that User:Robin Williams is the one who performed it. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That is not the view of the majority of people who have expressed an opinion. This page (which has a very large number of links pointing to The Sun (unqualified)) was moved without ANY discussion whatsoever. Are you saying that after a move by a known vandal that it would NOT be prudent to restore the status quo before discussion, or are we to accept the move as a fait accompli. Is that how we should operate on Wikipedia is it? Let vandals moved things willy nilly and then discuss whether we should undo their work? Jooler

Frankly, yes. "Vandalism" refers to the act of vandalising; it's not vandalism merely because the actor is a vandal. A useful page move is, therefore, not vandalism, even if you don't like its orchestrator. As for "moved without ANY discussion whatsoever", well, so what? We do have WP:BOLD for a good reason. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You may class it as a useful move, I classify it as an unhelpful move. The reason why it was at The Sun without qualification in the first place is because of [primary topic disambiguation]. Jooler 07:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

BEsides, the point is moot, as I?m fixing all the "broken" links to the new name. The new title suits better, and with piped links, it makes no difference (linking articles STILL show link as "The Sun") -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Please don't use the word "moot" - see moot Jooler 07:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yay! Lets leave it like this :) Agnte 09:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Extra bonus: while doing the list, I've discovered a few wrong wikilinks (the sun while referring to the astronomical object) which indeed, I've fixed as well. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Memorable Headlines

Any more headlines, was there a good one after Maradona'a hand of God GoalLazmac 23:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the Nail the Bastard was first used after the body of Sarah Payne was found, sort of superimposed on a field where the body was found, and then possibly used again in the plural form later, but was not particularly significant at that point, as the sun had used swear words for several years, but I might have remembered wrong.Lazmac 22:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

thanks to brossow for not letting lazmac delete memorable headlines which I added from the german version (yes it was messy, but there was important info) m3b

Probably a Good Call tbh, I left this one „Are we being run by a gay mafia?“: 9. November 1989, as im fairly sure the Dates wrong Lazmac 14:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This section was getting long, so I have moved it over to wikiquote. Addition made by Philip Cross 22:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I dont like that you moved it to wikiquote. What does "long" mean in a digital context. Its ridiculous. And who is being quoted? A newspaper headline is not a quote because no body said it. I think headlines are intimately linked to the paper and should be in the paper article. m3b. Go on move it back.

Editing "Why the Sun is so popular"

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)

Cheers Lazmac!

Right Wing?

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)

Not so, it supported Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s, and only endorsed New Labour just before the 1997 election. It's attitudes, as opposed to the nominal party it supports, would still put it on the right. Philip Cross 21:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that The Sun should be labelled right wing in this article. I think it is absurd to suggest that just because The Sun's readers vote Labour [where is the proof of this alleged political demographic?] and that The Sun supported New Labour in the 2005 General Election that it is Left Wing! Anyone who has read The Sun will know how abundantly Right Wing, Eurosceptic, Populist and Nationalist it is. Rightly or wrongly this is the newspaper's political stance. And these certainly aren't the hallmarks of a left wing newspaper!

It is Eurosceptic because it is consistently critical of the European Union and what it would call barmy new EU laws, etc. It is Populist because it consistently highlights what it perceives to be new threats to the average working man, be they paedophiles, stealth taxes, illegal immigrants, Islamic terrorists, and the new affronts presented by a metropolitan liberal elite - the list is endless. It is Nationalist because it is unashamed to use national stereotypes, and to evoke nationalistic, or even joingoistic imagery of Britain's traditional enemies, the French and the Germans. It calls Jacque Chirac "Le Worm" for example, and it's coverage of international football is notorious. And finally, it is Right Wing not only because all of the above, but because its consistently hardline view on Law and Order, Immigration, abuse of the Welfare State, the state of regulation and government intervention, the Human Rights Act, and much much more.

Therefore, I would contend that The Sun's political allegiance is not "ambiguous" merely because it supports parties which aren't traditionally alligned to this sort of outlook. I have altered the political allignment to "Right Wing, Populist, Nationalist"

I invite any other comments on this alteration and apologise for the length of this contribution!--Jason Hughes 16:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Paedophilia?

"...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)

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)

The Sun could - and did - show topless shots page 3 girls who were 16 yrs oldAlci12 12:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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 ISBN 0-19-927000-7, pp 113 - 119. NRPanikker 00:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I would be in favour of removing the comment, it sounds very like something from Private Eye, and I don't believe that it is a link that most people would make. Lazmac 11:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the sun once run a 'Countdown to Charlotte Church is legal' graphic serialisation? Much thanks if anyone has any details HenvY 18:59 GMT 01/09/2006

Full frontal male nudity

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)

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)

The Sun's most famous headline

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)

I agree 86.144.123.26 18:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Woeful article

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)

Readership of 850 000

But how many of them can read?

8.5 million actually137.138.46.155 15:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Scottish edition

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)

I came back from Scotland after a week's visit on Wednesday and can say without a doubt that the paper is very heavily centered on Scottish news, as opposed to British or even International news. Even thought I read it everyday I came back feeling I hadn't got a clue what had happened in the world(particuarly England) for the past week. You are right about Scottish football also.HenvY 18:59 GMT 01/09/2006

Popularity - partly based on so-called "emotional pornography" ?

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)

Uncited and vague "some say" references to critical comments

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)

Sun going green

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)) [2]

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)

Well, why not work on it, so it doesn't "read like an advertisment"?. I apologise if it had that affect. I just added a piece about how execs of The Sun (which is part of News Corp) attended the News Corp Pebble Beach Conference where on the agenda was the issue of global warming. And how, not long after that conference, The Sun "goes green". As for the biased charge, I did include that the choice of venue itself, The Pebble Beach Golf Resort, was, and still is, the centre of simmering dispute between environmentalists and land developers. I would think the least boldest thing to do would be to erase a whole section that (for the sake of posterity) would attempt to record facts relating to The Sun on a wikipedia page dedicated to The Sun, not that I'm saying that it is for me and you alone to decide what words and articles qualify in that respect. Thats why wiki have these here talk pages where we can all bang our heads together. (metaphorically speaking).--Dean1970 05:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

British tabloids are infamous abroad for being offensive and tasteless

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)

Book

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. ISBN 0-333-51070-4 (75p)

I'll see if there's anything useful to add to the article. Secretlondon 21:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

statistics

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)

Page 3 girls aged 16 and 17

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)

Redirect

Will someone quit redirecting this to Sun (disambiguation). Most people typing in the Sun will be looking for information about the star at the center of our solar system, so it should redirect to sun. Sun (disambiguation) is mentioned in the sun article. -- User:Robin Williams 23:12, 3 February 2006

I dispute your assertion, and ask for some evidence to back it up. "The sun" is used to describe enough items/products (as evidenced by the length of the disambig page) on wikipedia the redirect should be pointing to the disambiguation page. Also - "The Sun (newspaper)" is the largest english-language newspaper in the world [3], so i image there would be a few people looking for it on wikipedia. Agnte 13:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Most of those items/products have only "sun" in their titles, not "the sun". Anyway, as I've said, Sun (disambiguation) is already mentioned in the sun article anyway. -- User:Robin Williams 15:30, 4 February 2006

Ok, but you've failed to answer my question or provide any evidence or references for your assertion. I would suggesting continueing to use the disambigutation to provide direct links to the various newspapers using "The Sun" or peoples names, until we know better. (also theres a link to sun at the very top of the disambig page... its not like anyone will be confused) Agnte 14:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Agnte is right. Floyd(Norway) 16:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually we already have plenty of evidence as to which item is most commonly used in the 'What links here'. We don't place articles based on searches that people might try, but rather at the places where editors try to link to them. Most of the links look like they are intended for the UK newspaper. To do a thorough job you need to also check all the links to other items on the disambig page and see which of those have been disambiged rather than naturally linked. This isn't the first page move with which User:Robin Williams has caused trouble. -- Solipsist 14:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I've redirected The Sun back to The Sun (newspaper), and put a small notice on the top of the latter article. It's a big page move and there doesnt appear to be any concensus for it. Agnte 14:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

There are many astronomy articles where the Sun links the the star in the center of the solar system. If it doesn't redirect to sun, then it should redirect to Sun (disambiguation).-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin Williams (talk • contribs) 23:40, 8 February 2006

Note, User:Robin Williams has now been permanently blocked. -- Solipsist 07:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The Sun (newspaper) should now be moved back to The Sun to restore the status quo as it was before Robin Williams's vandalism, and then if people want ot move the page it can be discussed properly. Jooler 07:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the vandal (heh!) I see that he's caused problems with other moves, but in this case I think he was correct in his actions. The Sun should redir to the disambiguation page. kmccoy (talk) 04:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixed

I went through the 370 links to The Sun in order to fix them, and let me tell you, less than a dozen were about the astronomical object, most people looking about Sun will type Sun. A good outcome of all of this is that there were a few links about the star poinitng to the paper. Those were also fixed. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Also ther are many "the sun" newspapers, I believe this page should disambiguate the dfferent newspapers, but that's anothr discussion.

Hmmm well. Thanks for doing that, but sorry to say, if you checked 370 links and changed some 350 of them from [[The Sun]] to [[The Sun (newspaper)|The Sun]] then it was the wrong thing to do. That suggests the UK newspaper should be at just 'The Sun' which is where it originally was. It would have been the right thing to do if there were a significant number of links to The Sun (Malaysia) or The Sun (band), but at the moment they only have five links each. The trouble is, all future editors are now going to have to disambiguate [[The Sun (newspaper)|The Sun]] when it is clear it was already being quite naturally linked. -- Solipsist 08:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion summary

• Support redirect to solar body

1. Robin Williams
2. Kmccoy

• Support redirect to newspaper

1. Agnte
2. Floyd(Norway)
3. Drini
4. Jooler
5. Solipsist
6. Arktos ^talk
7. The real James Bond

--Arktos ^talk 20:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)