Talk:The Sun (United Kingdom)

Hillsborough

There seems to be some confusion here. The Hillsborough football stadium disaster did not occur 'in Liverpool' as the article suggests but happened in Sheffield instead. Hillsbourough is Sheffield Wednesday's home ground and was chosen as a neutral venue for the F.A. cup semi-final match between Liverpool F.C. and Nottingham Forest. Paul26uk 21:18, Dec 1, 2004

I don't think it's confused, just unclear. Perhaps rephrase it to: "The Sun is notorious in Liverpool for its coverage of the 1989 Hillsborough football stadium disaster"?

Speaking of Hillsborough, I note the article implies The Sun printed what it did, and later discovered the news was false. AIUI, The Sun knew the allegations were false and made them anyway?--MarkGallagher 19:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The whole section about the Sun Hillsborough article is unclear. The main point is that it focuses on reactions in Liverpool and elsewhere but the writer does not mention that the news was false or the background to the false allegations being proved as such. Only by visiting this editing talk section I've come to realize that the news was false. Maybe it is implied because it is a well-known story in England but readers of Wikipedia don't need to know. Was the news false? Why did they fabricate that?

The same is true for the Hillsborough disaster Wikipedia entry: emphasis and long explanation on reactions but no explicit mention of its being true or false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.23.138.48 (talk) 08:33, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

---

Well spotted - I've modified the section --Stephen Burnett 09:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

and did you see that he said he was teling the truth he wasnt

Some missing parts

The Sun is also notorious for using "nazi" words in any context, be it Germany-related or not (not to mention the pet names for Germany and Germans, I wonder if they actually know that Germans are called Germans in English). I don't know the British press but IMHO The Sun is the "best selling" paper using such a language. So were there any controversies in the UK society about this frequent (racist) abuse of Nazi related topics? I can't really believe that this is considered "normal journalistic language" in the UK. ;-) So it would be nice if people that know a bit on the topic could add information about that to the article. A bit off-topic: Considering the "nice" front page currently used in the article The Sun I deeply hope for the royal familiy that The Sun never investigates why the Windsors are celebrating Christmas like in Germany in contrary to the rest of their nation... ;-) Arnomane 19:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Where to redirect

The Sun (newspaper) is the widest circulation English newspaper. The Sun is the reason life exists on this planet. I don't even see the basis of a debate on where this should redirect to. Marskell 23:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

And to anticipate one thing: the only reason you'll find more disambigs for the newspaper is because people feel the need to disambig given that it is the lesser known usage. The Sun is referred to as the Sun. It is a proper noun. It takes the definite article. I would guess that, undabbed, "the Sun" appears literally hundreds of thousands of times in the main space. Marskell 23:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If people want to know about our nearest star, they will put "Sun" into the search box. If they want the newspaper, they will put "The Sun" in. How many people, likewise, are going to put in "The Earth" as opposed to "Earth", or "The United States" instead of "United States"? Definite articles only appear in proper names. David | Talk 23:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I put "The Sun" in the search box to search for the star about 40 minutes ago, which is why I'm here (I'm being honest--net people invent stuff, but that's what I did). There is a grammatical issue. "Suns" can refer to stars; "the Sun" (a proper noun) refers to our star. You could even argue that this, somewhat exceptional case, should include the definite article in its title (i.e, our Sun article should be moved to this descriptor).

Anyhow, there is an importance issue at work, as well. The Sun is the Sun. The British newspaper isn't going to outlive it. And the British newspaper is just one parochial example amongst many. Toronto (my POB) has a Sun Newspaper too, but if Toronto were London I wouldn't expect my familiar, vernacular usage of "the Sun" to override the obvious (that the ball of fire we all see everyday is the basic denotation for "the Sun"). Marskell 23:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Being all hot and bothered, I changed it without considering redirects. Apologies. I have self-reverted until I have time to do it properly. Marskell 17:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Sun (disambiguation)

I have redirected the article to Sun (disambiguation) because:

• There are other things specifically called "The Sun"
• If someone searching for the newspaper were to type "The Sun" into the search bar, he would be directed to the dab page where he would find the newspaper. This also applies to wikilinks.

If the newspaper truly is that much more popular than any other "The Sun"s, then the newspaper should occupy this spot without the parenthetical dab and have a top-of-the-page dab to Sun (disambiguation) instead. Axem Titanium 23:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I have re-redirected the article to The Sun (newspaper), because:

• The majority of the articles using the link [[The Sun]] refer to the newspaper.

So if anyone wants this page to point to the disambiguation page, then that person should also please take the trouble of cleaning up the mess and correctly disambiguate all the links pointing to [[The Sun]] as per this article. Thank you very much.

BTW,I agree that the article [[The Sun (newspaper)]] should be moved here to save us all a lot of trouble. ʍαμ$ʏ5043 17:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The Sun (newspaper) moved to The Sun

I was a bit alarmed to discover (by chance) that The Sun (a redirect) had been deleted, but it's pretty apparent from the above discussion that this was to create space for The Sun (newspaper) to be moved here. No one had performed the move, so I've carried it out myself now. Cheers, DWaterson 20:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

I have merged the talk pages of The Sun and The Sun (newspaper) here and archived all discussions that were dated before approx. Jul-2007 and those that were undated/unsigned. ʍαμ$ʏ5043 07:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Vocabulary

I dont know any sources to verify this, but someone else could, I see that the Sunis portrayed in no positive light, and a good thing too not that (Im claming it not NPOV, its just factual), so I dont understand why someone else hasnt dded the well known fact (maybe they have but I couldnt see it) that the Sun has editors which prevent vocabulary other tahn an average 9 year-old would understand being inserted into the paper, this isnt derogotary it is a fact I think, and was reported on, but Im not sure of a 'source', perhaps someone could find one por point me in the direction of one.172.202.188.246 22:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Jingoism

Isn't there another word to replace...whatever this word means? Had to look it up and I still don't really understand it! londonsista | ^Prod 06:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This is because you are an uneducated retard, i.e. typical "The Scum" reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.178.163 (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

dick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.62.71 (talk) 06:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I've always just considered it similar to patriotism, only slightly more exaggerated and extreme. The St Crispin's day speech in Shakespeare's King Henry V being jingoistic. I don't see the need to get aggressive or abusive about it though.86.159.162.27 (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Patriotism and jingoism really aren't that closely related. Jingoism is much more negative and has to do a lot more with supporting wars - my country right or wrong! While you could make the argument that a patriot would not support the actions of the government when its wrong. 65.0.100.187 (talk) 06:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

It has been proposed that the article on the Irish Sun be merged here, as it is really lacks relevant information and is in reality just a local edition of The Sun. -MichiganCharms (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose assuming that the majority of the content and the majority of the staff are different. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 12:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

While you're at it, why not merge the article on the New York Times with one about a Chinese newspaper. They are afterall just local editions of the same outdated boring media. --81.156.46.30 (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Support - there is already the section on the Scottish Edition and the Irish Sun page seems to have far less content than this on it so it can easily be absorbed into the main 'The Sun' page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perry mason (talk • contribs) 18:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

So little content that it's a stub. So I also support a merge. Digifiend (talk) 12:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

I have deleted the section on The Sun calling for the return of the death penalty in Feb 2008 following three high-profile killings. This is not so. The Sun's editorial column specifically ruled it out, though the paper did give voice to the victim's relatives, who did call for the return of capital punishment. The mention of the Tony Martin case is thus irrelevant. Besides, he successfully appealed his murder conviction, so he would never have been executed anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.252.80.100 (talk) 11:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Labour supporting?

The Sun is not really a Labour supporting newspaper, as the infamous 1992 general election front page shows. --CelticCymru (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

what about in the 1997 uk elections where 'The Sun backs Blair'? and apparently again in 2001 according to this link. im not sure about the second example but i know the 1997 one was notable Perry mason (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The mention of The Sun being "Labour-supporting" came in the sentence relating to the 1979 headline VOTE TORY THIS TIME. The Sun had backed Labour since its relaunch as a tabloid in 1969, which is why this headline was significant. It backed the Tories from 1979 until it supported Labour in the 1997, 2001 and 2005 elections. ajp2000 (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Headlines section

A while back, I requested a citation for the headlines section and one was added directing readers to the News International archive. While this presumably would confirm the accuracy of the headlines, it does not provide notability in line with the notability policy or support for the statement that these in particular are "memorable". They should really be cited to secondary sources rather than just being those that the contributors remember. Obviously the most famous ones are mentioned elsewhere in the article, and there are sources fairly easily available for others such as “CRISIS, WHAT CRISIS?” The “De Beers” one is cited as a favourite is this article: [1], but what it doesn’t mention is that it was in fact a repeat (deliberate or otherwise) of one from Private Eye in ’76 [2]. Finally, there’s one candidate at least that was missed – LOONY MP BACKS BOMB GANG (the Birmingham Six). Billwilson5060 (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether a headline is memorable is pretty subjective. You may recall LOONY MP BACKS BOMB GANG, but that doesn't necessarily make it worthy of inclusion in the article (I'm not saying it's unworthy either!). The headlines listed here are those that more often than not The Sun reprints when it has a retrospective of its headlines over the years (which it does on anniversaries of its tabloid debut) or at the end of a year. I suppose the fact that The Sun considers them memorable isn't necessarily a reason to list them either, but I don't know of a better yardstick. The De Beers headline is no less memorable, incidentally, just because it was used as a speech bubble on the front of Private Eye a quarter of a century earlier (I salute your research though!). In fact this one has more claim than most for inclusion since it won the paper a British Press Award for Front Page of the Year. ajp2000 (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be reasonable to leave them in given that no-one disputes that the paper's headlines are notable or that these are real examples, but it's possible that they could be challenged under a tight interpretation of the rules, or that people could end up adding memorable-to-them examples that weren't really significant - the Have I got news for you page used to be like this. Re: Bomb Gang, there are secondary sources that could be found by Googling it in quotes, and I would have added it myself, but I couldn't find a publication date. Billwilson5060 (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It was on Jan 29, 1988 - and I've added it to the list. ajp2000 (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The headlines section is way too long, is classic WP:TRIVIA and is a good example of why the article needs a cleanup. Only a handful of the headlines, such as GOTCHA and FREDDIE STARR ATE MY HAMSTER meet WP:N. Lists should be avoided, as they are not encyclopedic content. This list could be axed without any loss to the article.

Also, the headline about Atlantis, in addition to being pure WP:RECENTISM, was not strictly a Sun exclusive, as the Telegraph gave the exact co-ordinates on the same day.[3][4] This article needs a boot up its nether regions, because it has too many sloppy edits.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree the headlines section is too long but it is wrong to class it as trivia and it would certainly be a loss to the article if it was axed entirely - in an encyclopedia entry about a newspaper famous for headlines there should surely be examples. I agree also that the Atlantis headline is included only because it is recent and should probably go. The objection to it on the grounds that it wasn't an exclusive is neither here nor there, however - half of the Sun's famous headlines have not been on exclusive stories, as that list illustrates.ajp2000 (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Lists as long as this are always discouraged in Wikipedia articles. Some examples, backed up by references in reliable sources are OK, but the current list is bloated and needs a good pruning.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion 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 proposal was move to The Sun (newspaper); redirect The Sun to Sun; I found that Talk:The Sun (newspaper)/Archive 1 had been cut-&-paste moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
The Sun → The Sun (tabloid newspaper) — I know this has been brought up before, but I feel strongly that this tabloid newspaper (only published in two countries; the second of which refers to it as The Irish Sun anyway) is not popular enough to warrant an article namespace at The Sun. Reference to the star at the center of our solar system is often coupled with "the", and is capitalized (which is exampled at the Sun article intro. itself), meaning anyone intending for the star who searches "the Sun" or "The Sun" will end up at the tabloid newspaper's article. If this succeeds I would recommend then redirecting The Sun to Sun (disambiguation). (see below) — ^{\`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`/} (talk • contribs) 10:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. The Sun would never be searched for, or linked as The Sun. Hence this is a solution in search of a problem, and there is no need for the disambiguation. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't find it at all impossible that a reader would type "the sun" to find the Sun, or that an editor would link the Sun and expect it to link to the Sun. Jafeluv (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support The Sun, in common parlance, is not The Sun. I agree with the rationale provided by CrazyInSane. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 17:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Umm... "The Sun, in common parlance, is not 'The Sun'." Didn't you just call it that yourself? How is that not common parlance? Jafeluv (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, per 199.125.109.99. – ukexpat (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support Agree. The Sun is that big yellow hot thing in the sky to most of the planet. beardybloke (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: No, that's Sun, this is The Sun - see the difference?! – ukexpat (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually, grammatically that should be "thats the Sun, this is The Sun". Of course, the Sun and The Sun are the same in Wikipedia due to technical restrictions. Jafeluv (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I pretty much agree here with Jafulev, I refer to Suns (without "the") as the general term for a star. The Sun is what we tend to call the one in our solar system. beardybloke (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, my point to this proposal is that it is impossible to refer to Sun without the indefinite article "the" in common parlance. One never says, "boy, Sun is very bright today". It is very probable that someone searching for "the Sun" is looking for our star. — ^{\`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`/} (talk • contribs) 06:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. I think that if disambiguation is really needed here, it should be The Sun (newspaper). That would redirect to the tabloid anyway as the primary topic. Jafeluv (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually as a modification of the proposition I think this has more merit. beardybloke (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - there's no point in having a redirect to a dab page when there is a hatnote which would get the reader there faster anyway. Someone typing "the Sun" (hoping for the star) would still not be directed to the one they wanted if we did this. There's a hatnote on this article which gives just-as-fast direction to Sun, and direction to the dab page. We shouldn't waste correct titles on redirects, using needless identifiers when the other options are very clear at the top of the page. – Toon 14:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • That is a very good point. Someone looking for Sun is not helped by moving this page (unless of course The Sun is redirected to Sun, which isn't part of the proposal). Jafeluv (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I support the suggested name change, there are some other "the sun" articles that probably need the same sort of name change (like The SUN). There seems to be alot of other newspapers called "the sun", i dont know if there would be a need to point out in the title its a (British tabloid newspaper), but either way.. The Sun should redirect to Sun BritishWatcher (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - WP:THE clears this up. The naming convention rule of thumb: "If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the page name. Otherwise, do not include it at the beginning of the page name." In short, using 'The' for the star in our planetary system = bad. Using 'The' for newspaper that would capitalise in running text = good. It even gives the example of another newspaper (The New York Times). Also: CrazyInSane, this newspaper is the second highest circulation English language newspaper in the world so let's not pretend it's not popular. LunarLander // talk // 03:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think anyone's proposing changing the way the word "The" is used in the article titles. Even if this page is moved, the Sun article will stay where it is. Jafeluv (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Perhaps, but it's just another reason for it to be left as it is. LunarLander // talk // 19:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support The Sun (newspaper) is far more important than some yellow thing flying in the sky several million miles away. Anywhere in the world if people talk about The Sun they mean the newspaper which likes big pictures of knockers, making up stories about Liverpudlians and which makes suprisingly good toilet paper if one runs out. And anyone who disagrees with me is either a looney-leftie, a faggot, an Argie or as bonkers as Bruno. :) --Xania ^talk 23:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Amending proposal: Redirect The Sun to Sun instead of Sun (disambiguation)?

Clearly, the phrase "(T/t)he Sun" in common parlance is exclusively associated with the star in our solar system... not only outside of the UK and Ireland but possibly even in those countries as well. If you go to the Sun article itself, you can note that it introduces as "The Sun", and really, that is always how it's referred to.

I am therefore amending that portion of my proposal, and instead ask that we redirect The Sun to Sun, and add a note to Sun's page indicating: "This article is about the star. For the British tabloid paper, see The Sun (tabloid newspaper).". — ^{\`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`/} (talk • contribs) 01:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd support redirecting The Sun to Sun, but would be opposed to adding an additional dab line just for the paper. (It is covered under the existing hatnote which points to Sun (disambiguation), and we don't need to clutter the top of the page.) Other than that, the idea of moving the newspaper to a different title is sound. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, I can see how the additional dab line just for the newspaper could overly clutter the lead. Incidentally, would you prefer redirecting The Sun to Sun or Sun (disambiguation)?. — ^{\`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`/} (talk • contribs) 06:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm probably biased by my interest in astronomy, but it would seem that the Sun is the natural choice. I'm well aware of the British paper, of course, even though my first newspaperish thought with regards to "Sun" is with my local paper, but I do think the bright thing in the sky should take priority... --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to having The Sun directly point to Sun (as I can confirm that Sun is indeed known as "The Sun" over here as well (even though we get to see very little of it), but certainly not "exclusively" - context is key). Sun is clearly the primary topic, however, so I would support this title redirecting to the big fireball. – Toon 17:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

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

False consensus

• Sorry people but I really can't see any consensus having been formed here. Contributions to the original proposal were evenly split. And all the contributions to the amended proposal were posted on the same day and then closed two days later. Guidelines say it should be left for at least a week!! — Blue-Haired Lawyer 02:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• To most people 'the Sun' is 'the sun' is primarily the hot bright object in the sky, much more important than a British tabloid newspaper; and 'sun' without 'the' often means 'sunlight'. i.e. "too much sun may make rubber parts of scuba gear perish.". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree The current settlement is fine by me. beardybloke (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Printed in United States same day

There should be a mention in the article that the The Sun is also published in Orlando, Florida and sold the same day in the U.S. (as is the Weekly World News on Sunday and Daily Mail daily). The model on Page 3 is always in a bikini or lingerie, never nude. Is she topless in the UK edition? I've always wondered. Sometimes there are topless pics in news stories, but never Page 3. 5Q5 (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, topless. I hasten to add that I'm an Independent reader, myself. It might be worth a mention that it's published worldwide, although most papers seem to be, especially in areas popular with British tourists; I actually found it quite difficult to get hold of a Portuguese-language newspaper where I stayed in Faro. – Toon 17:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Amending my original description above, sometimes the paper in the U.S. edition will place "censor stars" over the topless Page 3 model's nipples, as they did with the July 31, 2009 paper. 5Q5 (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Should this be here?

There is a paragraph in the middle of the The Scottish Sun section that looks out of place. It begins "In football the newspaper got banned from Heart of Midlothian's football ground Tynecastle for stirring up..." As well as using unencyclopedic language, it is unreferenced and disrupts the flow of the text. I'd remove it, but it's been there a while and I may be missing something... Davidelit (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The Sun

I have a project to do on the sun. I do not know what to put i was wonerding if anyone besides where i am at now can help me. I need a lot of help so plese get back as soon as possible i will be cheking daily. I do know it takes 150 days to get to the sun but if anyone has any iformaiton i need it as soon as possible. I go to martin in east piraie mo

tanks, MaKayla —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.72.29.112 (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

"Spelling errors" section

I made a slight change to the “spelling errors” section relating to the Janes letter. However, I would question whether the section should be there in the first place – out of context it seems more like a single unfortunate mistake, not even relating to the print paper. Perhaps it could be mentioned in the general political section along the lines of this section [[5]] but with more emphasis on the paper’s role. Billwilson5060 (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

The article is tagged as being potentially biased (i.e. neutrality is in question), but I've had a read through, and I can't see much evidence of this. Does anyone have any views to the contrary, or should this issue be removed? Perspeculum (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

History

The history section purports to be a chronological accounts of events but it omits reference to the events in the Controversies section. Surely Gotcha and Hillsborough should be referenced in the history in the correct place. Jonknight73 (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Really, the "controversies" section should be integrated into the article as a whole, rather than existing as a separate entity, in order to give a balanced account of the subject. – Toon 16:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Bot request to relating to this page

See my bot request to fix links that should point to this page about the newspaper. Graham87 00:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion concerning The Sun redirect

A discussion concerning where The Sun redirect should point toward is ongoing at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 26#The Sun. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

General standard of this article

This is a perfect example of a once-coherent, factual and reasonably balanced Wiki article destroyed by endless additions of unsourced material inspired solely by the authors' prejudices against the paper and the deletion of valid SOURCED material. The casual reader might now wonder, from the overtly negative tone this article has towards its subject, just how The Sun rose from virtually nothing to become the biggest-selling daily paper in the UK, a position it has held since the late 1970s. I would spend some time improving it, but since no Wiki editors seem to be policing it, there seems little point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajp2000 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

To put it bluntly, this article is a mess. It is currently written in a sloppy essay style, which is why it is tagged as having multiple issues. It needs a lot of work to come up to a good Wikipedia standard.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well particularly if you're concerned about the deletion of good material, why not post a link to a previous version of the article with that material in it, or even re-add the parts you want? Rd232 ^talk 14:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a long time since this article had a reasonable (although not brilliant) version. It would create a range of problems to revert to a version from six months or more ago. A rewrite is the only realistic option, but this would take time and help from a range of editors.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Not suggesting a revert. But if you can find an old version for comparison, that would be a basis for discussion. You can seek input from others via relevant wikiprojects and noticeboards. Rd232 ^talk 16:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

names of editors and assistant editors?

I am trying to verify that someone claiming to be an editor of the Sun is indeed who he says. He had not given me a name to verify but I suspect he is a scam artist in the UK. His tel is [redacted]. 66.180.120.150 (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. However, it's certainly a scam if they won't give their name. PS The obvious way to check it out would be to call the paper, not post on Wikipedia. Rd232 ^talk 14:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Nostradamus & Prophecies

Sun newspaper not only does main stories on scandals, but mainly Nostradamus & Prophecies cuz i've been getting the newspaper for 2 years and been telling me about prophecies including Nostradumas' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.17.152 (talk) 00:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)