Talk:Dagens Nyheter

Newspapers Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sweden Mid‑importance

	Sweden portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-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.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Independently liberal[edit]

Is there a reason for calling Dagens Nyheter "liberal" and not "independently liberal" in the infobox. From my point of view, it ought to be more correct to state the newspapers own description of its edtiorial view. I will go ahead and change that. --Warfvinge 20:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logotype[edit]

The article stated that the logotype font is "DN Bodoni". While DN Bodoni is a typeface used by Dagens Nyheter, it is not the logotype font, see http://pangeadesign.se/case/dn . Apparently the font in the logotype is called "DN Wall", but the website notes that DN Wall is only a "typeface based on DN's well known logotype". My guess is that the logotype itself was designed without a complete font, but I wasn't able to find any sources. 46.239.119.78 (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dagens Nyheter. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.swedenabroad.com/SelectImageX/178411/Swedish_mass_media%5B1%5D.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

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} 06:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism and controversies[edit]

There's a long paragraph focusing on recent articles around immigration. Whereas it is true that there has been debate about how Swedish media, Dagens Nyheter among others, covered immigration in that period, this is not something that has a) centered only on Dagens Nyheter, b) dominated how people in general see the newspaper or c) made a lasting impact on the newspaper. This is along the lines of discussions about media coverage that takes place all the time and I see nothing that sets it apart from hundreds of other similar things in the 150 years since the newspaper was founded. Recentism and undue weight. /Julle (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since a couple of days have passed and no one responded, I'll remove it. /Julle (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

a) Completely irrelevant comment. By that logic no company could ever be critized as they are part of a larger capitalist system. b) also irrelevant. Most people see Apple as the second coming of Christ, yet criticism exist on its page. What is actually true is more important than how some feel about the brand. You also claimed this without source, DN does not have 100 % trust among thr general public c) Valid point, but does not justify removal. Feel free to expand the section for earlier history. See the debate around Solzhenitsyn vs Lagercrantz etc. This is a good start and it hasnt be perfect or nothing, let users continue to develop the page.

In general, don't get too worried about how relevant the text will be 2100, it is a wiki, so we can change it when it does feel relevant again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.231.133.67 (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]