Jump to content

Talk:The New York Sun: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Owner(s)?
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
== NYT bias and The Sun (edits of Jan. 7) ==
This newspaper was founded, in a large part, because conservatives in New York felt they didn't have a non-tabloid voice. This article absolutely has to mention The New York Times; whether or not the circulations are comparable -- and they're not -- the story of The Sun is irrevocably tied in with The Times' ''perceived'' tilt to the left in recent decades. My addition to this article, today, has been to note the connection with the former smartertimes.com, in "Editorial stance." I think I did this in a non-POV way -- note the word "perceived" -- but if you don't think so, please edit it until it's non-POV, intead of deleting all NYT references. Also, I added a note at the top that this is a five-day, not seven-day, daily; and added some info to the infobox. [[User:Wiki Wistah|Wiki Wistah]] 17:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

== Owner(s)? ==
== Owner(s)? ==
Information on who own(s) this newspaper are missing.
Information on who own(s) this newspaper are missing.

Revision as of 17:40, 7 January 2007

NYT bias and The Sun (edits of Jan. 7)

This newspaper was founded, in a large part, because conservatives in New York felt they didn't have a non-tabloid voice. This article absolutely has to mention The New York Times; whether or not the circulations are comparable -- and they're not -- the story of The Sun is irrevocably tied in with The Times' perceived tilt to the left in recent decades. My addition to this article, today, has been to note the connection with the former smartertimes.com, in "Editorial stance." I think I did this in a non-POV way -- note the word "perceived" -- but if you don't think so, please edit it until it's non-POV, intead of deleting all NYT references. Also, I added a note at the top that this is a five-day, not seven-day, daily; and added some info to the infobox. Wiki Wistah 17:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Owner(s)?

Information on who own(s) this newspaper are missing.

"Right wingers"

There was a comment, "Mostly right wingers," as a sentence by itself, that appeared after the editors' names. As much as I personally dislike the Sun, I felt that the earlier statement that the paper is conservative was enough to make the point without going so far as to make value judgments about the paper. --Jemiller226 17:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"the first general interest broadsheet newspaper to be launched in New York in two generations."

The context of this quote is fuzzy, and it needs to be referenced. Mkaycomputer 22:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"LIBERAL New York Times"

By stating that NYTimes is liberal, the article was showing a POV. If the reader wants to see the politcal stance of the NYTimes, s/he can go the the actual Times article, which discusses this topic.

Didn't the Public Editor of the NYT say "of course" it was a "liberal newspaper"? (PS- Yes [1]. Or it could be something along the lines of "what they saw as the liberal"... Makgraf 23:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Jerusalem Post"

the Sun's editorial opinions resemble those of the Jerusalem Post -- not only is this POV, it's veiled Jew-hatred IMHO. I've removed it for that reason. Comparing a local US paper's editorial to that of a foreign paper, is tanamount to repeating the old diatribe about how <they> are actually running everything. Ðntalk 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It's POV certainly without any source to back up the claim. As the remainder it's pretty poor form to run straight to accusing users of Jew hating because you disagree with an edit. Assume good faith. Alci12 13:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circulation

Can someone add circulation figures for "'The Sun (and other papers). I think it's important to establish that the paper is by far the smallest of the NYC dailies.

Proper sourcing

I have placed a number [citation needed] tags in this article indicating some areas where proper sourcing is lacking. If proper sources are not provided soon that conform to WP:RS and WP:CITE, I intend to remove the tagged material in accordance with WP:V andWP:NOR. Dasondas 15:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quote Found

I've added the the source for the quote. --208.46.38.66 03:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was helpful. Dasondas 03:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was Moved, clearcut. Duja 12:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


New York SunThe New York Sun — per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name) Tobogganoggin 02:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Support -- Seems like a fairly straightforward application of WP:NAME. Note that The New York Times is given as an example in that policy. Dasondas 02:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.