Talk:Dagens Nyheter

Independently liberal
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)

Logotype
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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Dagens Nyheter. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add 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 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 ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

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