Talk:Herald Sun

"The Herald-Sun", "Herald-Scum", and "The Hun"

I have removed the reference to the newspaper's supposed nickname, which is not a true nickname; if a handful of smart alecs decide to call something by an insulting name, that doesn't make it a nickname, and there's no reason for the wikipedia to join in the chorus. I had never heard that supposed nickname for the paper before I read it in the wikipedia, and ditto the story that the voters threw out the Kirner govt because the Herald Sun told them to. I first heard of that on the wikipedia too, and it's total nonsense; even if it were true (and it isn't), it would belong, not on the Herald Sun page, but on the why-Joan-Kirner-lost-government page, where the 'other' reasons -- the loss of the State Bank, the VEDC collapse, the Tricontinental collapse, the National Safety Council shemozzle, Joan's lack of charisma -- could be appropriately discussed. -- User:Jake B — Preceding undated comment added 04:30, 29 January 2004 (UTC)

"if a handful of smart alecs decide to call something by an insulting name, that doesn't make it a nickname,"

Jake B, thats the dumbest thing i've ever heard. That is *exactly* what a nickname is. The Herald-Scum plays a very potent role in Australian culture, and including information on criticisms and such widespread nicknames is wholly valid. -- User:Dissembly — Preceding undated comment added 03:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Given the prominent comments of the nicknames of various other news publications (eg: Daily Telegraph), I would expect that a note of the common usage of "Herald Scum" and "Hun" would be entirely appropriate. User:NcLean 23 Oct 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.221.208.52 (talk) 07:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You may never have left Melbourne, then. "The Hun" and "The Herald Scum" are in common use to describe the tabloid style of journalism. Rotovia (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

---

The "Herald Scum" was actually a spoof newspaper put out by some students to make fun of the Herald Sun. Xtra 11:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Are there links/documentation/further information (like where, when, who, and who read it)? This sounds like a tidbit that belongs in the article. -- User:Dissembly — Preceding undated comment added 03:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Format of Masthead

The Herald Sun doesn't have a hyphen in its title and this article should be renamed accordingly. Adam 04:15, 29 January 2004 (UTC)

It's the Herald Sun on its masthead, too, not The Herald Sun

-- User:Jake B — Preceding undated comment added 04:32, 29 January 2004 (UTC)

were the words "news pictorial" ever part of The Suns official name? The Hearald Sun has the words "news pictorial" under its header too. Xtra 00:17, 24 October 2004 (UTC)

I've always seen it written as The Sun News-Pictorial - look at [1] PMA 05:13, 24 October 2004 (UTC)

Possible Wiki Links

I am currently testing an automated Wikipedia link suggester. Ran it on this article, here are the results:

• Can link classified advertising: ...lly (although The Age dominates the classified advertising market). It gives little coverage to po...
• Can link radio station: ...transmission towers on the roof for radio station 3DB, that was also housed in the bu...

Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these links may be wrong, some may be right; You can leave positive feedback or negative feedback; Please feel free to delete this section from the talk page. -- Nickj 07:32, 19 October 2004 (UTC)

Done - Aaron Hill 12:12, 19 October, 2004 (UTC)

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 move. —Nightstallion (?) 10:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The Herald Sun → Heraldsun – {Herald Sun is the official name. See [2]. See naming policy on the use of "The".} copied from the entry on the WP:RM page

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support as above. Xtra 23:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support changing it to "Herald Sun". it's just consistent with the naming conventions. User:Dissembly

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.

Controversial March 3rd & March 18th Edits

Several changes have been made and today unmade. [3] Looking forward to a discussion so we can achieve a neutral article on the nation's most popular newspaper. DarrenRay 14:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Several points need to be made about the edits in question. I'll begin with the minor details and move on to the broader things. If anybody considers any other differences between the edits to be relevant points of contention, please feel free to add to the list. Dissembly 06:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Content and Criticisms sections

• The paragraph referring to "The Herald-Scum", "The Hun", and the "primary school reading level" myth is not a 'joke', as claimed under your reason for editing it. All three points are accurate records of the way the newspaper is treated by critics, and are entirely appropriate. They are completely relevant to the article, and do not constitute a POV bias as long as the text of the article does not advocate referring to the Herald-Sun in that manner. Dissembly 06:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

So perhaps we might also add that critics say the newspaper is not fit to wipe your bum with and other says it is a gutter-rag. I don't think so. Which critics say this? References please. DarrenRay 07:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

"Which critics say this?" - i find it very difficult to believe that any Australian in the South-East Coast would be not familiar with at least the nicknames listed, if not the slightly obscure reading-level legend. Your analogy ("we might also add that critics say...") is false: these are not randomn insults flung by critics at something they dislike, these are common cultural terms that have sprung up to specifically relate to The Herald-Sun. You'll never hear anyone refferring to The Age as "The Hun" or "The Herald-Scum", and i've certainly never heard the reading-level story told with regard to any other newspaper. I am adding a reference for "The Hun" now. (As i'm sure you knew when you brought up this nitpick, it's hard to find formal written references for things circulated in pop culture unless a social theorist has produced some specific work on it. I will be keeping an eye out for them.) Dissembly 04:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If you search "The Hun" the first result is the Herald Sun website:

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22the+hun%22&btnG=Search&meta= —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.147.117.202 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

• The line "one-time socialist, now conservative Rupert Murdoch" is not relevant to the Herald-Sun or its history (unless you plan to provide a history of the Herald-Sun in which such a tidbit is relevant - in which case it would be perfectly acceptable - but this has not been done); i would love to just assume good faith, Darren, but a line like that looks remarkably like a pseudo-intellectual tit-for-tat that a hypothetical right-leaner would play with some imaginary left-leaner who the aforementioned hypothetical right-leaner imagines would give a damn about Rupert Murdoch's biography. Dissembly 06:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

If Murdoch's role is relevant that it repeatedly referred to, so should the complicated political views of the man. He is actually not a conservative, he considers himself a libertarian but I thought going into that would be too much hassle. DarrenRay 07:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Murdoch and his politics are not refferred to, Murdoch's corporation "News Ltd." and its politics are referred to. The other news outlets associated with this corpoation are accused of similar right wing bias, and it's relevant to include this. I still fail to see any relevance in throwing in a Murdoch biopic. Dissembly 04:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• The line "The Herald-Sun is often accused of promoting by the Left of right-wing political bias." - is not accurate. It is not seen this way simply by "The Left"; it isn't even really clear what people you are referring to as "The Left". Dissembly 06:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

True, the whole sentence should be deleted, unless we can actually find one of the left-wing critics concerned. DarrenRay 07:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• The line "Compared to Sydney stablemate The Daily Telegraph, it is more restrained in its style of reporting, though it still takes a more populist approach than a typical broadsheet." contains a NPOV qualitative description of the paper's content and writing style, and they place the paper in a larger context. As far as i can see, you did not replace it with anything equally informative. I cannot see how deleting them does anything beyond reducing the amount of relevant information available in the article. Dissembly 06:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree and I think it's just opinion anyway, that's why I deleted it. DarrenRay 07:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The tone of a paper is something that can be described fairly objectively, and "the Herald-Sun takes a more populist approach" is hardly something thats in dispute by any source i've ever encountered. If you think that "diamonds are made of carbon" is an opinion, that's hardly enough to warrant removing references to carbon from the Diamond article. I don't see how this description is so subjective. I need more justification for removing it. Dissembly 04:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

2004 Election section

• I strongly oppose your removal of a massive block of text detailing both the meeting between Senator Brown and McManus and the aftermath of the Press Council Adjudication against the Herald-Sun. I would agree to altering it to remove potential POV bias in the narrative, but the basic list of events is both interesting and relevant to the article, and has never once been contended by either the Herald-Sun or McManus himself. Dissembly 05:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think a reference to this article is appropriate but it is not the biggest event in the history of journalism so I trimmed it and made it a little more balanced. DarrenRay 07:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry? The "2005 Pacific Area Newspapers Publishers Association" is worthy of an account, but an incident that speaks to the basis of journalistic ethics (in an article about a newspaper, no less), with an important relevance to Australian culture and politics (and democracy itself), is not "big enough" to get an accurate summary? It's not as if this article is unduly cluttered (check out the articles on other newspapers - this one is one of the easiest to read). I will be restoring/tightening-up the account in the next few weeks, and adding references to the specific articles involved to avoid potential accusations of biased reading. Dissembly 04:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

DarrenRay, you can't just delete whole blocks of information because they reflect a sequence of events which you happen to find distasteful. The goal of Wikipedia is not to obscure information that we don't like - it is to integrate as much information as possible and formulate it in an accessible, uncluttered way with an NPOV. Because of this, if you have a POV complaint, then the goal is to [integrate and edit] what is there, don't just wipe out blocks of relevant information wholesale. The sequence of events is not in dispute. Dissembly 06:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't find it distasteful. I think if the Greens were falsely slagged for pushing drugs on kindergarten kids or whatever, good for them for pointing it out and challenging it, I have no problem with that at all. I just thought we could trim and make more neutral the discussion of the incident. Thanks for responding in detail, very few are willing to do this to stand up for their position. The biggest area for disagreement I think is the issue of describing what "critics" say when there are none referenced. I'm sure we can find some without looking too hard. DarrenRay 07:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Generally agreed. I'll be looking out for solid tangible references to all claims when i have the time. If anyone out there wants to beat me to it, please feel free to do so. I've been completing an Honours project recently, and haven't had the most time for Wiki-ing. Dissembly 04:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Also in that section, your replacement with the line "the newspaper published what the Greens saw as an unenthusiastic apology." is both inadequate and innacurate; on two points:
  • i am not aware of any official response by the Australian Greens to the Herald-Sun's follow-up articles after the adjudication,
  • to my knowledge, the Herald-Sun did not publish an apology. The original text read "apologetic" - an apologetic is a defense of a position that has come under attack, an apology is a show of remorse. Nobody who had read those articles, least of all the Herald-Sun itself!, would characterise them as an "apology". Dissembly 06:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Have we got a reference on any of these articles, without that it's hard to know what they said and didn't say. DarrenRay 07:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

References will be forthcoming. Researching takes time, and i have had more pressing commitments in the past few months. Dissembly 04:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• The replacement of "Senator Brown brought a complaint" with "the Greens complained" is another loss of information that simply obscures the history and, i believe, obscures the independant nature of Brown's actions and thus the relevance of him as an actor in this particular controversy. Frankly i'm at a loss to figure out why you kept doing it, the information loss seems to offer no particular advantage to anyone. Dissembly 06:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, perhaps Greens Senator Brown covers it. DarrenRay 07:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• the line "written by Gerard McManus which made a number of claims about the Australian Greens" was changed away from "claimed the Australian Greens supported decriminalising various narcotics" because it is an inncaurate reflection of the events; several false claims where made in the McManus article (and they are detailed in the references provided), and a special emphasis on narcotics is not supported by the references. Dissembly 06:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's best when airing false claims to not repeat them if possible but refer to them being made in general. DarrenRay 07:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

(technical)

Something very bad happened there. Please forgive me while I fix the results of an edit conflict and a wrong button being pressed. DarrenRay 07:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully that's everything now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarrenRay (talk • contribs) 07:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Where still slight differences still; have consolidated our conflicting edits and included everything either of us said. Dissembly 04:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Article too biased

Anyone reading this article would think the HS was one of the greatest cultural contributions ever made in Melbourne. What's with this "Acclaim" section? Why is the fact that it sponsors a bike tour mentioned in such prominence? Where is the comparison with its competitors? What's going on here: "The Herald Sun strengths are its clear writing style, relevance to its readership, extensive sports reporting and a general lack of pretension." Can someone get in there and give this the NPOV treatment? Thanks! Stevage 13:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

list of journalists

the list of jounralists section needs to expanded from just a handful of editorial writers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.105.15.241 (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it has already expanded far too far. The list of "Notable" journalist needs to tell me why they are notable. Only one has a citation, and he's dead! OK, those with their own Wikipedia articles can be counted as notable, but someone with no separate references at all is effectively a nobody. HiLo48 (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Corinella refs needed

I am trying not to make this comment biased, but the corinella page in the Saturday edition deserves a mention, if not an article.

I have records of a page from Sep. 1990. -- Punk Boi 8 05:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"The Herald Sun" as a conservative newspaper

Adam Carr has been deleting references to the Herald-Sun as a conservative newspaper; he writes: "What is your evidence that the HS has a formal alliegance to "Conservatism"? Australia doesn't even a Conservative Party. this is purely your opinion, and I will go on reverting it". Dissembly 03:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Firstly, Wikipedia guidelines give a "three-revert" rule of thumb, and state: If you really can't stand something, revert once, with an edit summary something like "(rv) I disagree strongly, I'll explain why in talk." and immediately take it to talk. Your statement that you intend to revert this continuously, and the accompanying lack of a comment from yourself in the talk page, would seem to be a sign that you plan on violating this rule. Dissembly 03:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Secondly, to the claim you made - nobody stated that the Herald-Sun has a "formal allegiance to Conservatism", and nobody stated that Australia has a "Conservative Party". If you followed the links that you deleted, you would have found that conservativism (as the term is used here) is not a specific political party, but a general political outlook. The Herald-Sun has been classified as a conservative newspaper because it reports on populist conservative issues, (such as the "War on Christmas"). This is an entirely appropriate classification, and none of your edit comments have addressed that. So, I have restored the deleted reference to conservativism, and opened up this disucssion section to explain it and invite comment. Dissembly 03:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Weapons section

This section on the Hun's support for gun-control seems to have been accorded a very large space, with an oversized image. I am no blind supporter of the Hun, but criticism of the paper's coverage of this single issue, which is largely uncontroversial outside the small Australian pro-gun lobby is disproportionate. Critiques of general style or allegations of widespread hypocrisy would be different, but surely we can't detail criticisms of each article on which anyone has ever had a grievance. Any ideas anyone?--Spamburgler 09:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Section: Liftouts, sections and features should be deleted

The section titled Liftouts, sections and features is currently tagged for clean-up, but should be deleted. It's just an advertisment for the paper, it's unencyclopaedic, it's endlessly long, and you can get that information from the publisher's website, so it doesn't need to be in Wikipedia. I suggest the entire section be deleted. --Lester2 22:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. In addition to the reasons given by Lester2, I'll note that most papers change these routinely and they are likely to become out-of-date quickly as a result. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably should keep a little write up of major sections and features, and the fact that they routinely produce them. --121.220.78.249 (talk) 10:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

John Pilger's view of Andrew Bolt

I don't see the relevance of John Pilger opinion of Andrew Bolt. Surely if it were of any use it would be on the Andrew Bolt's page and not the newspaper in which he writes for.

"(John Pilger has described Bolt as "the lowest of journalism's low, an extreme right wing and aggressively idiotic member of Murdoch's dominant press group in Australia")

I suggest the comments be deleted.

--121.220.78.249 (talk) 10:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Bolt is a figurehead for the Hun and probably the journalist who is most publicly known for strongly and clearly representing the paper's right wing position on many political issues. He is not a figure in the political centre. It is therefore valuable to have a quote that demonstrates that reality. HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Not very "Notable journalists and columnists"

What's makes such people notable? Are there really 22 "notables" at the one paper? I've lived in Victoria for over 60 years and have never heard of 9 of the people listed. Three of these notables would appear to have earnt that title through nothing more than playing football well. Chances are their columns are ghost written anyway. Only one "notable" has a reference, highlighting the fact that 21 of them don't. Can I remove them?

HiLo48 (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The method through which an individual gains notoriety does not make them any less notable.Theworld2 (talk) 11:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I'm a bit ambivalent about the footballers. They are well known, i.e. notable, in the area where the paper is sold, as footballers. That doesn't make them journalists. That's a job requiring formal training and some talent. (Otherwise I could be described as a notable footballer!) But they are columnists, I guess. My point about probably using ghost writers still stands, but we don't know that for certain.

My greater concern is about those "writers" who have no Wikipedia pages of their own, and for whom no references have been given. I don't think they meet the Wikipedia standards of notability. HiLo48 (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I know that they do not have "ghost writers". If you don't believe just go and look at some of their columns, professional writers have nothing to do with them.

I don't think anybody is claiming that they are journalists, I would however argue that they write columns, therefore are columnists.

Theworld2 (talk) 09:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. They are notable as footballers. They write columns. I'd agree we can leave them in.

The red entries are a bigger concern. They aren't notable enough for Wikipedia articles of their own. A totally personal comment, but I've never heard of any of them, except for Terry McCrann, and I'm surprised there is no Wikipedia article for him yet. I would leave him in. Of those with Wikipedia articles, John Beveridge's is almost certainly not the correct one. The link is to a governor of Illinois who died in 1910. Probably not a Herald Sun journalist. HiLo48 (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest 'contributors' be a better heading

Surely, you've heard of Andrew Bolt and Eddie McGuire

And I wouldn't have any problem saying goodbye to the following:Cameron Adams, Claire Sutherland, Ellen Whinnett, Grantley Bernard, John Beveridge, Peter Dumsday

Theworld2 (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unclear there. My "never heard of any of them" comment was meant to only refer to those whose names are in red, i.e. those without Wikipedia articles of their own. (It excludes McCrann too, of course.) Bolt and McGuire are clearly notable, but they were in blue. I think we're in pretty strong agreement here.

HiLo48 (talk) 06:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Request to add some history to the Herald Sun page

I would like to expand the history section of the Herald Sun page. There is some interesting detail about the founder and the arrival of Keith Murdoch that, I think, gives a better picture of the early years of the paper. I used to work for News Corp but was made redundant in August 2021, so I am no longer being paid by them to write, but I have collected some stories about the paper. They will all be properly footnoted and referenced, but I invite any comment or helpful hints anyone might have. Troyantonius (talk) 02:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)