This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Sun (United Kingdom) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page is not a forum for general discussion about The Sun (United Kingdom). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about The Sun (United Kingdom) at the Reference desk. |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
The following link, given as reference 171., seems to be broken.
When followed it seems to redirect user to unrelated content (a payday loan company in my case) - similar in style to adware operating on a browser. I'm confident that my browser is malicious adware free, I ran a scan when I discovered this link was broken and my adware software couldn't find any adware currently. I have further checked on a separate device and was redirected to the same site as described above.
It may be that this domain has been resold and repurposed to direct users to a payday loan site.
I'm new to editing on wikipedia so I'm unsure how to remove a reference correctly - i.e how to add one of those 'link broken' references or 'verification needed' notes.
Lairy hogg ( talk) 19:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
No mention of the Sun's role in this and its derogatory offer of compensation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.248.79.119 ( talk • contribs) 14:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Hillsborough disaster and The Sun § Information flow. — Bilorv ( talk) 20:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Just in case someone looks here...
These couple of sentences keep being reverted, and I just don't get why... it's more contextual information about the incident and paper overall... why is that supposed to be a negative? Are all articles on this site just lists of data with no context linking them? And since when is a reliable source not eligible to be used just because it's some competitor? If all newspapers' articles had that logic then there would be none, as primary sources can't be used and competitors can't either... 92.21.87.105 ( talk) 23:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Sun (United Kingdom) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page is not a forum for general discussion about The Sun (United Kingdom). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about The Sun (United Kingdom) at the Reference desk. |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
The following link, given as reference 171., seems to be broken.
When followed it seems to redirect user to unrelated content (a payday loan company in my case) - similar in style to adware operating on a browser. I'm confident that my browser is malicious adware free, I ran a scan when I discovered this link was broken and my adware software couldn't find any adware currently. I have further checked on a separate device and was redirected to the same site as described above.
It may be that this domain has been resold and repurposed to direct users to a payday loan site.
I'm new to editing on wikipedia so I'm unsure how to remove a reference correctly - i.e how to add one of those 'link broken' references or 'verification needed' notes.
Lairy hogg ( talk) 19:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
No mention of the Sun's role in this and its derogatory offer of compensation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.248.79.119 ( talk • contribs) 14:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Hillsborough disaster and The Sun § Information flow. — Bilorv ( talk) 20:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Just in case someone looks here...
These couple of sentences keep being reverted, and I just don't get why... it's more contextual information about the incident and paper overall... why is that supposed to be a negative? Are all articles on this site just lists of data with no context linking them? And since when is a reliable source not eligible to be used just because it's some competitor? If all newspapers' articles had that logic then there would be none, as primary sources can't be used and competitors can't either... 92.21.87.105 ( talk) 23:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)