Talk:Daily Sport

Pornography Low‑importance

	Erotica and pornography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

NPOV[edit]

Ugh, much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.172.181 (talk • contribs)

Yes, agreed, I've tagged it as not neutral POV, even though the details are essentially correct, it needs neutralising. "In a country full of downmarket tabloids..." and "...by making no attempt to cover serious news..." need work in particular. Budgiekiller 11:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've tried to correct the POV and removed the NPOV header, perhaps could do with more correction still. Article really needs more info though! --Hopex 21:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've done a good job there. Nice work. Budgiekiller 06:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the original article, most of which is incorporated into the current version. I tried to paint a fair and accurate portrait, successfully I think. It is easy to dislike the Daily Sport, and a genuinely "POV" article would be much less flattering. My article was there for long enough for the Sport publisher to raise legal issues if they felt it necessary; such publishers review the internet closely (as well as print and other media), and react to what they find, either by issuing writs or by partisan editing of articles. I think that the absence of any such response warrants the removal of the "POV" tag from the article. Guy (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I have helped improve the NPOV some more and added a bit more information. I think I would need to buy a few copies to make sure that there have not been any other significant changes in style and I have added a couple of references. Pornhistorian (talk) 11:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reporting of news[edit]

As a reader of this publication in 1992 I can confirm that on page 2 they did indeed include a summary of the day's news. This was succinct, well written, objective and comprehensive, which comically made the Daily Sport a superior source of news to many of its competitors. It also outshone them on nipple count, and indeed helped the reader by stating clearly how many were visible within its pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.76.37 (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]