Jump to content

Talk:Daily Star (United Kingdom)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Daily Star (UK))

top

[edit]

First national daily since 1903??... What about 'The Sun' - in the 60s??

The Sun was a renamed Daily Herald. IPC (Mirror) renamed it in the mid-60s and then Murdoch bought the title. Similarly, the Sunday Mirror was called the Sunday Pictoral from 1915 till 1963. Murdoch's Sun bore no relation to the Mirror's Sun or the Daily Herald, an organ of the Labour movement and most people regard the first Murdoch Sun as a brand new paper.

Someone please show a picture of today's front cover that says, "BASTARDS." -Amit

i prefered the headline when Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall announced their engagement "Two Old Farts to Marry". Is it just its own readers who consider it downmarket?

When the Morning Star went to court over the use of "Star" the judge threw the case out, saying "only a moron in a hurry would confuse the two". Someone (I can't remember who but it was mentioned in "Stick It Up Your Punter") remarked that the moron in a hurry was its target demographic. Editor Derek Jameson described its standpoint as "tits, bums, QPR and roll your own fags". Mr Larrington (talk) 12:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irish editions

[edit]

Is there an Irish edition of the Daily Star? I seem to remember an article in Private Eye where they said a particular tabloid newspaper published two separate Irish editions, one of which had a green masthead and adopted a very strong pro-Nationalist stance, but I can't recall if it was the Star they were talking about. 217.155.20.163 19:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I guess they were in fact talking about the Irish Daily Star. That article doesn't mention any differences in content however. 217.155.20.163 19:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lying even when they are asking questions?

[edit]

Is there any truth to what Daily Star publishes? In late March 2007 they published a claimed major "leak" about HP7 Deathly Hallows story. That is Harry will have to abandon all his own magical abilities in order to vanquish Dark Lord Voldemort and save his friends from eternal darkness. This is said to have come from a Bloomsbury Publishing House employee. 82.131.210.162 13:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right wing

[edit]

its got a picture of a semi clad woman on it, doesn't look very right wing to me! AJUK Talk!! 23:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right-wing is a position on the political spectrum. Attitudes towards nudity have nothing to do with being right wing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.203.90.140 (talk) 05:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a socialist paper! Not right-wing in the least. Biofoundationsoflanguage (talk) 10:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Daily Star has any political allegiances, more of a comic than a newspaper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.28.114 (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the tabloids traditionally had political allegiances: The Sun, right wing; The Mirror, left wing; The Star, as a tabloid son of the broadsheet Daily Express, was traditionally right-wing. All these allegiances have become less relevant as the Tories became massively unpopular in the 90s, and as the two main UK parties both moved towards the centre right. At no stage could the Star be mistaken for a socialist paper; Biofoundationsoflanguage above may be confusing it with The Morning Star. 86.44.29.39 (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Star has recently shown support for the English Defence League, which Wikipedia classifies as 'far-right'. Given that most right-wing/Conservative supporting papers publicly denounce the EDL should the Daily Star be reclassified as a 'far-right' paper? --Ebz (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Lawton

[edit]

I'm removing this paragraph from the "Grand Theft Auto Rothbury" section as it is unreferenced and I can't find any proof to back it up anywhere. I have a sneaking suspicion Mr Lawton himself added it...

"It later emerged he was blameless for the error. His original article accurately stated a computer-generated mock up of a game cover posted on the internet was a "spoof". Alterations to the article during the newspaper production process resulted in the apology."

Dominic (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion?

[edit]

"The paper often gives positive coverage to the anti-Islamic English Defence League; "

"Often" is a value judgement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.87.74 (talk) 06:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greenslade is not a reporter

[edit]

"The Guardian media reporter Roy Greenslade noted that their front-page headline and associated stories for 9 February "cannot be read as anything other than a cheer-leading, uncritical piece". "

Greenslade is a blogger/columnist for the Guardian. He is not a reporter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.87.74 (talk) 09:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 April 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move pages to Daily Star (British newspaper) and The Sun (British newspaper) respectively. Unreal7 (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


– The proposed titles are more descriptive and precise. GregKaye 12:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daily Star (British newspaper). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 05:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lettuce "controversy"

[edit]

How is the lettuce thing "controversial"? I've not seen anyone criticising it, and frankly the most shocking aspect is that the Daily Star did something cool 2A00:23C5:1203:CE01:644A:A8C1:7E63:D11F (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I move the lettuce bit out of the "Controversies" section to it own. It is notable (as it has its own article and was covered by many other news outlets), but there's nothing controversial about it. Nobody criticised the stunt, and reception was positive. Cortador (talk) 09:10, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 October 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. per discussion consensus, no WP:PTOPIC (closed by non-admin page mover) — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– It is the primary topic and gets the most page views. Sahaib (talk 07:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  1. Problem

"The Daily Star was originally created in 1978 as part of Express Newspapers to utilise printing presses that had been running under capacity due to falling Daily Express circulation." - The hyperlink to "Express Newspapers" redirects to "Northern & Shell". Northern & Shell didn't purchase Express Newspapers until the year 2000. This tells us nothing about what Express Newspapers was or who it was owned by in 1978.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daily_Star_(United_Kingdom)&oldid=1255992659"