Talk:The New York Sun

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles 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.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Mid‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Newspapers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers 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.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Recent Controversy

I've updated the page with a summary of the recent scandal involving Sun reporter Daniel Johnson, who has been the subject of much scrutiny surrounding his January 2008 article "The Kenyan Connection", which was based on the claims of several fraudulent documents known at the time to have been forgeries. Manyfacts (talk) 01:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Manyfacts[reply]

"The Paper" (movie)

It might be added that the 1994 movie The Paper utilizes the New York Sun name, and even the masthead "It Shines For All"... though this is probably based upon the original Sun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.26.240.128 (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Ð’n^talk 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 {{Fact}} 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 Sun → The 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.

The Sun's Demise

An anonymous user 24.62.26.233 undid recent changes to the page which reflected the fact that the paper had ceased publication. He/she cited a blog posting that says it would keep publishing (http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/09/the-new-york-su.html). However, this blog article was published *before* the actual announcement. The following day the editor quoted in the blog article announced to staff (and on the front page of the paper and its website) that the paper was shutting down. He said: "It is my duty to report today that Ira Stoll and I and our partners have concluded that the Sun will cease publication. Our last number will be the issue dated September 30, the first day of Rosh Hashanah."[2] If you don't believe the Sun's own article, there's the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, or CNN/Fortune. The fact that the New York Sun shut down really isn't dispute. I've reverted the changes. Anson2995 (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Has been called" ???

The article states:

"Its crossword puzzle, edited by Peter Gordon, has been called one of the two best in the United States [4]."

First, let me affirm that a large number of the most crosswordy people I know, including me, do indeed think that Peter Gordon's daily crossword in the (late) New York Sun is one of the very best in the U.S.

But, "has been called" -- even with an ironclad citation -- is scant justification for characterizing something in an encyclopedia. This is precisely the kind of nonsense that leads some people to disparage Wikipedia, alas. Please find a significantly less lame reason to say what a great crossword the Sun's has been under Gordon's editorship -- or delete this item.Daqu (talk) 06:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. To say "Is crossword puzzle is one of the two best in the United States" is to say Wikipedia says it is, which we cannot do, as that would constitute original research. But to report that others have said that is perfectly fine and encyclopedic. To do otherwise would bring more disparagement to Wikipedia than the current, well cited reference ever could. The passive voice is _NOT_ poor grammar. Indeed almost the entire US constitution is written in it.oknazevad (talk) 23:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

paper seems to still exist (in some form) online

at september 16, 2009, nysun.com still seems to have updates. this editor sees on its main page an editorial dated september 10, 2009. however, couldn't find an "about us" link from main page.--98.113.187.11 (talk) 03:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the article to include information on the NY Sun website's renewed activity. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The New York Sun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131230233153/http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/departments/online/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003584849 to http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/departments/online/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003584849

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The New York Sun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]