Talk:The Independent

Censoring the comments section

The Independent has taken to disabling commenting for a certain subset of registered users. If you log in, all the comments and the commenting box totally disappears. For an alleged independent online newspaper, this is disingenuous and dishonest at its worst. Would anyone here care to contacts the editors and ask for an explanation. Yaweller (talk) 07:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The Indie?

I've never heard of it called the Indie...always thought its nickname was "the Indy" e.g.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1813226,00.html

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/article/200406/indys_extra_big_read_takes_on_guardians_diminished_g2

Liberal and European

It is a liberal and European newspaper.

We are all aware that the Indie is a liberal newspaper (although the exact defintion of a liberal is unknown) but a 'European newspaper'? Strictly speaking, all British newspapers are European, as the UK is a European country. Do you mean pro-Europe as in pro-EU? In which case, the Indie is also pro-human-rights, anti-fox-hunting, etc, so why mention this in particular? Or do you mean that is published in mainland Europe?

The readership is predominantly southern, based in and around London.

IS there any concrete evidence for this? Are most of its readership from the South of England or Londoners? Please cite sources. -- Axon Wed Jul 16 15:31:38 GMTDT 2003

I agree I've removed the offending items. Be bold. Mintguy 14:59 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Page move

I moved this from The Independent newspaper to The Independent, firstly because the latter is the title, and secondly because there is no necessity for "newspaper".

Editors

"Brendan Hopkins headed Independent News while Andrew Marr and Rosie Boycott were made editors of both the broadsheet publications (the other being the Belfast Telegraph)"

I have changed the above as it is incorrect. Marr was made edtior of the Independent, Boycott was made editor of the Independent on Sunday. The Belfast Telegraph though now owned by INM (Ireland) was at the time owned by Trinity Newspapers which merged with Mirror Group Newspapers to form Trinity Mirror. jason@eastbelfast.com

Anti-Israel

I have removed the general classification of an Independent reader as "anti-Israel", as although the paper frequently objects to many aspects of Israeli policy in the conflict in that area, referring to readers as "anti-Israel" itself is both an over simplification and inaccurate since few would object to the existence of the state of Israel or condemn every aspect of the country.

Robert Fisk

Arguably Robert Fisk is the best known syndicated controversial journalist to feature in The Independent

Attempted to improve this paragraph, suspect it is still not quite right. AndrewMcQ 20:37, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I know there has been a lot of discussion about the issue of the papers political views, but i really feel that the independent is a left wing newspaper, indeed i would go as far to say that it is a left wing version of the daily mail. By this what i mean is that, like the mail, it will select news stories that reflect its political views. There is nothing wrong with this, but how often does the paper effectively devote a front page to a comment? For me this is the most left wing of british newspapers, not that that makes it left wing on the grand scale of things.

Left-wing?

The info box says the Independent is left-wing. The info box for The Guardian describes it as left of centre. Is the Indie to the left of the Guardian? I think traditionally the Guardian is seen as the most left wing of the broadsheets but has it moved to the centre right like the Labour Party? I don't think it's correct currently but I'm not sure what to change them to. Secretlondon 11:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK they're about the same, except the Gruniad has socialist leanings, the Indie LibDem leanings. The Indie may be slightly more to the left, but I don't think it's left-wing like the Morning Star. Dunc|☺ 19:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

But that would mean that socialism is to the right of the Lib Dems.. The Graun is more Labour, the Indie more Lib Dem. I'm going to change this to left of centre, the same as the Graun. Secretlondon 11:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

To my mind, (speaking as a member of the LibDems) the LibDems are a more radical party, whereas labour is a far more conservative (small "c" obviously) party. that is where the key differences are between them. Also on some issues the LibDems are to the traditional left of Labour (certainly new labour) on others to the right. I think Left and Right are not very accurate terms unless you define them on each use - which makes them rather redundant eg "On the issue of civil liberties, the lib dems are to the left of Labour (where left wing is committed to protect them)" Keep them as both the same and it will probably be alright MrWeeble 19:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the Indie is more Lib Dem, but disagree that that constitutes being "centre left". I would call it "centre" at least in the British political spectrum, but perhaps it would be better to call it "liberal". —Ashley Y 09:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Calling The Independent a liberal newspaper won't work since the term is too large, and even then, if you read The Independent over a long period, it is very possible to see a predominant centre-left stance throughout. It should be classed as a Centre / Centre-left newspaper then, but definitely not a liberal one.--A.szczep 08:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Can I please propose a minimal revisal to the current labelling of "centre left"...? It is obvious that the Indy is far more akin to the Guardian's stance in comparison to The Murdoch Times and The Torygraph, although I am not sure that it would be entirely accurate to have them identically labelled. I agree that "liberal" seems a bit too nondescript for something needing to pin-point some sort of indication such as political stance, in addition to the possibility of inducing (misconstrued) connotations of allegiance to the Lib Dems. However I personally feel that there really ought to be some sort of distinction between the Indy and Guardian's stances, indeed to label the Indy the same as the Guardian seems to understate the latter's traditional leaning to the left. Having intermittently switched between the two papers at similar times throughout the summer, I believe this is still the case with the Guardian and it still differs from the Indy, even if this is slight.

I would therefore like to ask fellow debaters to consider a move, if not to "central" as it may seem overly close to the right, then at least to "broadly central" as an alternative to "liberal" (which is what I would interpret the latter as anyway), thus also indicating occasional erring to the left that is evident on certain issues, whilst not maintaining as consistent a left-leaning stance as the Guardian? 86.135.59.63 21:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

No way is it 'centre' these days. It might have been something like that once but these days it's to the left of The Guardian. Bombot 12:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that 'centre left' is probably the best designation - that seems to be the consensus so I've made the modification. --163.1.176.254 15:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Somehow the page got changed to left-wing again. I've pointed out in the articles edit page to consult the talk, it would be best to read the "Liberal?" section too before editing. Would anybody agree that the Independent on Sunday could do with an alternative political allegiance? Whenever I read the Sunday edition it seems to be a left-wing paper, unlike it's more central daily paper. Even during the general election the daily Indie advocated a hung parliament, whilst the Sindie advocated a small Labour victory. Saiyanora 13:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The Independent made its stance unequivocally clear on May 5th 2010: "There is a strong case for progressively minded voters to lend their support to the Liberal Democrats." They therefore recommended readers to vote for a constituent of the current government and declined an opportunity to form a coalition with Labour. No one would seriously consider the Lib-Con coalition to be 'left-wing' - it simply isn't. Notwithstanding that many Indie readers identify themselves as on the 'left' or 'Liberal left', the paper's leanings are unequivocally Liberal/centre-right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.12.209.215 (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The previous statement's logic is completely off, 5th of May was election day, on which the Liberal Democrats had policies of a Social Liberal, centre left nature; hardly centre right a position they seem to be adopting now. A lot has changed since the election, I have found the Independent to be quite critical of the Coalition policies and have noticed its effective focus on social issues and the effect on society of the governments actions in a revealing manner. What are particularly scathing are the political sketches in fact in the opinion section. In the years that I have read the Independent and recently, it appears to be in no way centre right, but notably centrist and to some extent slightly left leaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.117.236.246 (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Lib Dem support?

"It supports the Liberal Democrat party in Britain, which is in favour of.." - I wasn't aware the Indie or Sindie had come out in support of any party, although I am only an occasional reader to be fair. Is this a mistatement, or have I missed something? Can someone provide a citation? Badgerpatrol 01:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The Independent recently has not directly shown support of any party. During the last General Election the Indie stated it favoured a 'hung parliament'. Although, it does show indirect Lib Dem support, by raising, and agreeing, on similar points. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saiyanora (talk • contribs) 17:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe the whole point of the paper (right down to it's name) is that it is independent of any political party, and a similar position in the political spectrum to the liberal democrats on many issues does not constitute support.137.138.46.155 15:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

New Logo?

Can anyone explain the reason for the red logo with the eagle in parentheses? It's on the front page as of this post. Its location is http://www.independent.co.uk/template/ver/gfx//RED_INDY_LOGO.gif --Wasabe3543 02:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, today Bono is a guest editor with half the proceeds going to Product Red MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 18:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Liberal?

I've just been browsing newspaper articles checking out political allignments. All of them have variations of right and left except this one which just has 'liberal'- eh? Shouldn't that be explained upon somewhat? Liberal hardly matters, liberal can be far right or far left or anywhere in between...--Josquius 15:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

They're liberal in the UK (original?) sense: free speech, civil rights, etc. A position on the left-right spectrum wouldn't communicate much information. EdC 04:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion it would be better defined as a Centre / Centre-left newspaper, since in essence, that's what it is. You cannot call it liberal, since in the original British term liberal, The Independent doesn't qualify -- however I can see where The Independent can be classified if you use the American meaning, which basically means centre / centre-left.--A.szczep 08:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think you could call the Independent a centre/centre-left newspaper: it's a liberal newspaper. The whole left/right-wing dichotomy doesn't work very well when it comes to liberalism; sometimes the Indy epouses "left-wing" values such as international law, the environment, fairer taxation, human rights... other times it seems more "right-wing" when it talks about privatisation of the Post Office or NHS. I think liberal is a more accurate description. User:Chid12 11:14, 16 August 2006.

I have changed "liberal" to "left-wing" in the infobox because it was next to "Political allegiance", and I'm sure most Britons on here would agree that in Britain, the word liberal is not generally used in a political sense - it is normally only used in the social sense, ie, tolerant of other people's different behaviours and beliefs.

If anyone disagrees with the change, then could you please tell me what your exact British political definition of the word liberal is, because even if you use it in the British political sense, I think that it basically means centrist (with my point being that the Indy is left-wing). Whether the Lib Dems are currently in the centre or are centre-left, I believe that in the past, the old Liberal party were in the centre, in between the Conservatives on the Right and Labour on the Left. :-) Ojcookies 19:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because most Britons are more used to the terms "left-wing" and "right-wing" doesn't mean that the Independent falls into one of those categories. At the moment, the Lib Dems do seem to be a "centre-left" party; but they're also the only major party to talk about cutting taxes, privatising the Post Office, and plenty of the Orange Bookers would like to see the NHS part-privatised as well. Those are certainly not left-wing policies. The Independent's editorials broadly follow the Lib Dems' (though not without exception) and to call them a left-wing newspaper is oversimplifying the issue. Though the term "liberal" is often associated with being "left-wing" in the UK, this is an oversimplification which I think wikipedia is beyond. I think the authoritarian/libertarian axis is becoming more and more familar, and so political ideologies such as "liberalism" and "libertarianism" are becoming more and more recognisable and understood. I think using the term liberal is more accurate than left-wing and I think the editorials of the Indy confirm this. User:Chid12 02:29 28 August 2006

Hi Chid12! Firstly, don't worry, I'm not going to change this again, but I just wanted to give a couple more thoughts on the subject.

I don't actually read The Independent regularly, so when I said before that the Indy is left-wing, I was basing that on their front pages (anti-Bush, pro-immigrants, drugs comparison etc). But if their editorials talk about cutting taxes and privatising the Post Office, then that balances things out, and does put them roughly in the Centre. In Britain, I believe that the political definition for liberal does roughly mean centrist. So that's alright in a sense, but I still think that it's a bit fuzzy - as I said before, in Britain, most people don't use the word liberal in its political meaning, and in America, it is clearly used to mean left-wing, so I have two alternatives for you:

(a) Like The Daily Telegraph whose political allegiance is Conservative, and The Daily Mirror's which is Labour, how about putting the political allegiance as the party for which the paper most supports, so for The Independent as Liberal Democrat?

(b) Or, how about putting it as Liberalism, as that's more precise, it's where Liberal redirects anyway, and it would be clear for any Americans looking at it that it wasn't purely left-wing? Ojcookies 20:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the "radical centre" label? The Independent doesn't have any political stance per se ... If the Independent is left wing, we need a new label left of left for the Guardian. Or are "we" using left for non sensationalism or "high brow" and right for straight out sensationalism? Strange systems of measurement here ... --Tene 19:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Marr's redesign

It might be nice to point out that although the 1996 redesign was short lived, the only differnce between it and the 2006 paper is the size. Andrew Marr might have got it wrong, or perhaps was just a decade too early. Djarra 17:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Graphic style

To my mind one of the most distinctive aspects of The Independent has been its approach to the use of illustrations. From the early days its photography was head and shoulders above the other UK newspapers, and more recently it's tried bizarre devices like front page headlines containing pictures instead of words. I feel this ought to be mentioned, but I don't think I'm able to do it justice. Any takers? --Stewart Robertson 12:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please check these changes?

Could someone please check these changes?

• [1]
• [2]

I've been cleaning up after this IP a bit tonight, and the changes look POV to me, but the whole section they're in looks like it could do with some references. Could someone please step up to the plate and look after it? Chovain 12:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Although the editor does have a point - the Independent quite often features editorials on the front page, I don't think the comments referring to Saddam and Hezbullah are justified - especially given the recent headlines condeming Israeli action in Lebanon. I have also removed the line about the paper seeing itself as an edicated tabloid as this is a bit suspect - Both the Times and the Independent are essentially of a broadsheet style in a tabloid size format and as such the title is misleading. michaelCurtis ^talk+ _{contributions} 21:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree the point about editorials on the front page is a good one. It's a very distinctive feature of the paper.--Stewart Robertson 10:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Just edited the passage for style - hopefully it reads a bit more smoothly now Avaya1 17:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it does.Stewart Robertson 10:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Edits by User:Keith-264

I reverted a single, wide-ranging edit by User:Keith-264 which included stylistic, tonal and factual alterations. Some of the changes I agreed with; some I didn't; but making the changes as a single edit gave me no opportunity to review them individually. Also, the edit was incorrectly marked minor and lacked a summary. (Keith-264 is a new editor, so these things can be forgived.) EdC 21:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Out-of-date figures

"The paper is currently losing around £5 million a year, but as of March 2004, projects a return to profit by 2005."

Does anyone have any more recent figures? Thanks. Wozocoxonoy 17:02, 28 September 2006 (GMT)

Merge Proposal

The Independent On Sunday article is a copy and paste job from here (with a few minor changes). There is little point duplicating content, thus I propose a merge. If there is no consensus for this, then two redirects, The Independent on Sunday and Independent on Sunday, should resolve there instead of here. I'll give it a few days then, be bold. Rockpocket 02:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

A question

As there is a fixed policy on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Policy saying that the Beatles has to be written with a lowercase 't', I wonder what your thoughts are about using that policy for this page, and if you would agree or disagree. I thank you. andreasegde 16:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

A very pedantic query

I rearranged the order of some of the contributors to maintain alphabetical order and placed Andreas Whittam Smith according to his last name. However, I was wondering whether he should in fact be placed according to 'Whittam' as this seems to be an unhyphenated double-barrelled name, rather than Whittam being a middle name. I apologise for my pedantry.

SteveRamone 03:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Independent Traveller image

It's a dreadful picture and I'd question the need for it in any case. At least replace it with a better quality picture. SteveRamone 17:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Website

For me, the Website of the newspaper "The Independent" is accessible only with an access code. If this is the typical behavior, maybe there should not be the link, or at least a disclaimer? -- Burkhard.Plache (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Full Colour?

A while back The Guardian printed a segment on The Indie being run eventually in full colour (see final paragraph): [3] due to a change in ownership. Does anybody have any updates on this, and more importantly, is this an article-worthy update? If this changeover eventually happens, it certainly deserves mention in the article I believe, but I've raised this because every newspaper (including The Independent itself) seems to have gone silent on the issue.
Has anyone seen, heard or read otherwise? Edit: Actually - looks like there's no need! Monday, Sept 15th '08, The Independent announced that it would be changing over to full colour in just over a week's time. Now we know!
Edit: There's been a price hike to £1, the newspaper has completed the changeover to full colour, and the Centre-Left part of the Political Allegiance box redirects to Centrism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.18.238 (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Tagging article for Unsourced info

There is just a lot of unsourced info on this page that is in violation of WP:BLP and the most controversial will be removed very soon unless sourced. Also, changed the POV interpretation of the Independent article on investigation of possible Israeli uranium bomb to one that actually reflects what the article says. Plus Blair quote WP:UNDUE and I couldn't find any link to the Independent's reply so please find one before you quote what it says. Will look for a few more possible dead links. Needs some updating as well. Carol Moore 17:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

“compact” v. “tabloid”

On 10 April 2005, this article was amended to assert that the Independent is a compact newspaper. The distinction between “compact” and “tabloid” is one of quality:

A compact newspaper is a broadsheet-quality newspaper printed in a tabloid format

To declare that the Independent is of “broadsheet-quality” is a judgment of value, an expression from a point of view. Granted that one might think that broadsheet-quality is pretty poor; it is none-the-less considered to be higher than other qualities. If someone would like to provide a cited quotation in which the opinion of some notable is that the Independent is of broadsheet quality, that's fine. But Wikipedia itself should neither embrace nor reject such an opinion. —SlamDiego_←T 03:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

By your own admission - given the distinction that you have rightly identified - "tabloid" implies some kind of value judgement just as much as "compact" does, yet you seem quite happy to plonk that description here, apparently simply because you prefer it. Do you have a "cited quotation" that it is a tabloid? Why does "compact" need one, but "tabloid" apparently not? Do you actually know what you're talking about, as you dive in to repeatedly change what has been a stable and accurate first line for four years? The Independent is simply not a "tabloid newspaper", as that term is used and understood in the UK, and we no more need a source for that than we need a source, as the cliche goes, for the statement that water is wet. The (admittedly slightly ungainly) phrase "compact" refers specifically to those newspapers in the UK, like the Independent, which shifted from the broadsheet format in recent years. However, just to indulge you, I spent two seconds on Google and found this and this. --Nickhh (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No, Nickhh, as a point of simple logic, I did not admit that “tabloid” implies a value judgment; and if “tabloid” must involve a value judgment that a paper is not of broadsheet quality, then the definition of “compact” contradicts itself. Do I have a citation that the Independent is a tabloid? Sure, here it is:

“‘The Independent’ launches tabloid version to give readers a choice”

That's an article from — that's right — the Independent, which is a “reliable source” when it comes to its physical format — which is exactly what the word “tabloid” identifies.

As I have stated explicitly, “compact” needs one because it is defined in terms of quality; “tabloid” is not, regardless of where your thoughts might leap when you read “tabloid”. (My thoughts go to unkind places when I read “journalist”, but it would hardly be proper for me to replace it with a term of praise where I encounter it on Wikipedia.) We may rest assured that when the Independent called itself a tabloid, it wasn't impugning its own quality. And, as I have also stated explicitly, any citation for the Indy being compact will at best establish this to be the opinion of some notable source. The citations that you provide seem fine for that purpose. —SlamDiego_←T 18:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If you don't understand the difference between a statement that a "newspaper X is published in a tabloid format/version/size" and the statement that "X is a tabloid newspaper" then please go and do some proper research into this, or discuss the matter with someone who does understand the terminology here and what it implies when it is used. It's not your fault that you don't, but please don't stubbornly edit war that ignorance onto pages here once the error has been pointed out to you. I'm not making this stuff up you know - it's not just about what leaps into my mind or what I happen to think about the quality or otherwise of the Independent's reporting, and also has nothing to do with "POV" or whatever WP rule you wish to dredge up to justify this nonsense. No other editor who has come by this page in the last four years seems to have thought that the Independent should be described specifically as a "tabloid newspaper". However I am not going to edit war over this, some other passing editor will spot it at some point and no doubt change it eventually. --Nickhh (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Nickhh, perhaps you can begin a version of Wikipedia with your new grammar of adjectives, but the English-language Wikipedia is not the place for it. None-the-less, I do not object to replacing “tabloid” with the somewhat redundant “tabloid-sized” if that would make you or others more comfortable. My objection is to having Wikipedia claim that the Independent simply is of this-or-that level of quality, which is entailed if the Independent is called “compact”.

Calling upon the authority of unnamed others is poor support for your insistence that I'm somehow ignorant. I really don't much object to a personal attack if you can at least make a reasonable case for it. —SlamDiego_←T 20:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, "compact" simply refers to - as I have pointed out - a former UK broadsheet which has in recent years chosen to print in a tabloid format. There's an element of continuity and simple description of fact there that you may have missed, or may not be aware of, out there in the US. I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "new grammar of adjectives", but you would appear to be one of those slightly pompous and self-proclaimed experts in language who nevertheless has a very slim grasp of the nuances of language in different cultures, or even the concept that phrases can be used in a non-literal sense. I look forward to discussing with you whether "Fleet Street" newspapers actually need to be based in that road to be so described, or whether a documentary which purports to investigate the reality of life in Toxteth is a "reality TV show" or not. And I don't feel the need to quote sources for what, at least to most people who live in the country where the newspaper in question is produced, is the blindingly obvious. Or to italicise random words in a vaguely patronising manner. --Nickhh (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Rather than pointing out the meaning of “compact”, you're been asserting a meaning. In my very first comment here, I quoted the definition of “compact” used in the article to which that word was linked. I've linked to the relevant article (and to a reliable source for the use of “tabloid” in reference to the Independent), while you've simply invoked your own authority and that of unnamed parties when it comes to the meaning here of “compact”, yet you accuse me of being a “pompous”, “self-proclaimed expert”. Get a grip. —SlamDiego_←T 02:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

My grip is fine thanks, although I'm a little bothered about whether I'll ever get the 15 minutes I've spent on this inanity back. Even though it should not have been necessary, I have of course shown you where the Indy is referred to as a "compact", both by the paper itself and by a rival paper (did you not read them? There's another one in the article now). There is no reason not to have the article use the wording I put in, so that both "tabloid" and "compact" are applied to the format, as happens out in the real world. Stop trying to remove the "compact" part, for no apparent reason other than that you don't appear to understand anything about British newspapers and how they are described and categorised. What is your problem here? You've got the word "tabloid" in now, so go and pick a fight over something else and leave this one as it is. --Nickhh (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

ps: I really dislike pointing people to dictionary entries, but since you insist that I am just asserting things without evidence, perhaps you could look at this and this in order to understand the point that "tabloid" is not simply a neutral word meaning small-sized, and that in using it, one has to be clear about whether one is talking of format or style/content. Add that to the descriptions of the Independent and its format as being "compact" that I have pointed you to from the outset, and perhaps we can lay this little piece of absurdity to rest now. It doesn't matter if you don't believe that the paper deserves the term, or that I haven't "proved" that it deserves it, it's the term that's frequently applied. How is anything going to be done in this place if every tiny and basic point has to be quibbled over like this? --Nickhh (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

pps: feel free to peruse some of these book snippets as well. --Nickhh (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Nickhh, again, showing that some sources call the Independent “compact” isn't the same thing as showing that “compact” has the meaning that you keep asserting that it has. The sources that you cited don't demonstrate that the term is neutral. (While the Wikipedia article “Compact_(newspaper)”, to which you keep linking the word in the article, makes it plain that the word carries implications of quality, as do some or all of the book snippets to which you link.) Nor is the article to which you've added a citation helpful; as the Wikipedia article “Compact (newspaper)” makes plain, the term “compact” in relation to newspapers began to refer to quality in the wake of the format switch by the Independent; you cited an article from before the switch.

Your dictionary citations show that amongst the definitions of “tabloid” can be disparagement; that was never in dispute. They also show that “tabloid” doesn't necessarily carry such meaning, which is why it has been easy to find even the Independent using this word in reference to itself. I'd already said that I'd raise no objection to your replacing “tabloid” with “tabloid-sized” (or somesuch), but you are for some reason intent on having a word which insinutates quality.

Noting that the term “compact” is “frequently applied” to the Independent is perfectly irrelevant to the issue. The Independent is frequently considered to be a paper of high quality. People frequently have that point of view. But Wikipedia isn't supposed to embrace points-of-view.

The snippets to which you refer me don't resolve the issue in the manner that you wish, for example, The History of the Times by Stewart defines “compact” to mean “tabloid-sized quality daily”. (No good reason for him to include “daily” in there, but it's your snippet.) —SlamDiego_←T 19:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't cope with this anymore, it is truly nuts. I've put out a request for someone else to have a look at this.--Nickhh (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh and you've got your work cut out. Several other pages refer to their subjects as being "compact" newspapers. And you should probably gut the Compact (newspaper) page itself, since it lists about 20 or 30 "compact" newspapers, which presumably also constitutes just as serious a WP:NPOV-breach. Oh and by the way, the source I cited in the lead was from after the Indy went compact/tabloid, not before. I'm not sure how you got that one mixed up (or how it makes any difference as it happens), but I suspect it's because you can't tell the difference between the main paper and its Sunday version. Which tells us quite a lot, I guess. --Nickhh (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Nickhh, you keep claiming that you're not going to keep-up your attempt to hold onto the term “compact”, and yet you continue. Please at least spare me the fulmination about how you're going to quit.

Also, please spare me the wax. It isn't my job to fix everything wrong with Wikipedia, nor am I obliged to let some things pass unless I do edit every other article.

It would be a necessary (though not sufficient) condition for any reference as to the present meaning to date from after the present meaning took hold; that is th difference that the date of a reference makes.

Again, your personal attacks don't even have a reasonable foundation. —SlamDiego_←T 00:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I have said that - and meant it - because I find this kind of edit warring over tiny details (none of which should really be controversial or difficult) all too common and all too frustrating, and to even engage in it is to somewhat indulge the person who kicked it off in the first place. However on reflection I don't see why one individual editor should be allowed to impose their idiosyncratic and pedantic interpretations of the world on articles here, against what would appear to be a rather obvious consensus, both in the real world and among other editors here. Shall we recap this debate?

• For around four years, the opening sentence of the article simply read "The Independent is a British compact newspaper". No one saw the need to fiddle with, or change that in all those years as far as I can tell
• You then turned up out of the blue and changed that to "British tabloid", with the change seemingly justified on the basis of a sentence you'd read on another Wikipedia page combined with a pretty overzealous interpretation of what WP:NPOV requires
• You then proceeded to edit war over this
• In a bid to defuse what seemed to me a fairly petty row, albeit one where there were issues of accuracy given how the terms are used in this country, I proposed a compromise version which described the Independent as simply a "newspaper" and then further on noted that it had originally been a "broadsheet" but was now published in "tabloid or "compact" format". That is, a version which a) included both words; b) attached the description to the format not to the newspaper as such; c) placed "compact" in quote marks
• However this did not satisfy you, and you proceeded with your one-person campaign to disrupt the article and remove the word "compact"
• I went out to seek other opinions from Wikiproject Journalism, and thought it sensible to leave the wording as broad as possible while waiting for that. Again, you disagreed and reverted out the word "compact" as soon as you logged on again.

And to recap the substantive debate: terms such as "quality", "compact" etc are totally standard and well understood descriptive terms and categorisations for newspapers in the UK, used by the newspapers themselves, the wider trade and by the general public (and, as I have pointed out, in scores of Wikipedia pages). I have pointed you to various links in the thread above which demonstrate this, even if you were not aware of it before now. You may assert that they imply a "point of view" and that in turn to use them is a breach of WP:NPOV, but I'm not sure how many people you would find to agree with that (we seem to have at least one now, besides me, who disagrees). Describing daily newspapers in this country as being "broadsheet" or "quality" is simply not controversial or disputed. It doesn't mean they are "better" or "higher quality", it is simply a category into which The Financial Times, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The Times and The Independent have always been placed, based on a combination of their format (until recently) and their style/news priorities. The other five have always been "the tabloid press". There are plenty of descriptive terms or categorisations in the world which might be mis-read as implying superiority/inferiority of some sort, or which sometimes might in fact be intended to imply exactly that; however they are not necessarily forbidden here under some bizarre and extreme interpretation of WP:NPOV, as if it were being policed by the Spanish Inquisition or the Bottom Inspectors from Viz. Inferior goods in economics or Grand Cru in French wines are perhaps two obvious examples. And now you've edited in a needlessly clumsy phrasing, which also has an obvious error in it with a double "called". --Nickhh (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Correcting your recapping:

• No, it wasn't simply “Compact (newspaper)” that prompted me to edit this article. After all, that article might have been mistaken on the point. Rather, “Compact (newspaper)” caused me to investigate the term. The investigation showed that, when “compact” was actually defined, a notion of quality was always included. You have, above, finally conceded that point (“Describing daily newspapers in this country as being ‘broadsheet’ or ‘quality’ is simply not controversial or disputed.”), whereas you previously ignored or denied it.
• The insinuation that I was edit-warring while you just undoing those edits without warring is laughable. I cited sources to defend my edit; you did not.
• I have not campaigned to disrupt anything. I campaigned to remove a word that made an assertion about the quality of the Independent. That “one-person campaign” was matched by your “one-person campaign” (Which became a “two-person campaign” after you sought recruits).
• The proposition that calling the Independent a “quality” newspaper is “totally standard” and “simply not controversial or disputed” does not address the problem. Wikipedia is not supposed to be embracing what amounts to a pure point-of-view simply because it is the point-of-view of a vast majority (in the UK or more widely).
• You have nowhere substantiated the claim now made that “quality” has a peculiar, value-free sense with respect to newspapers. If you can cite defining sources, then I would suggest that you do so, and I would also suggest that if such could be done at all then it would have been appropriate for you to do so at the outset, instead of after you'd turned this into an edit-war and flung-about personal insults and charges that you cannot substantiate. —SlamDiego_←T 21:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not interested in debating the minutiae of what should be a very simple and uncontroversial issue, no more complex for most people than an assertion that "water is wet"; or in discussing the fallacies and inaccuracies in virtually everything you have said above. You keep telling me that I have said, insinuated or done this, or not shown or sourced that, but pretty much every single assertion you have made is wrong. I asked on the relevant project page for another opinion about the word here. No one has responded there yet (it seems to be a fairly dormant page), yet you still continued on your eradication mission (you seem to forget that I had no problem the addition of the word tabloid, which was not here originally). I have no idea whether Eleland came here by that route, but he, I and every other editor who has passed by this page in the last four years don't seem to have found any problem with the word "compact". Individual editors who try to bully and bore everyone into submission with their idiosyncratic views are a real drain on this place. Given that you removed a "POV" tag from a page that openly describes someone, without any qualification or any direct sourcing, as a "paedophile and a con-man", it is clear that I don't have to take seriously anything you say on the topic of WP:NPOV. Oh and your habit of italicising every fourth word is really f#+king annoying. I guess you know that though.--Nickhh (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I take it then, Nickhh, that you do not have any “reliable sources” which show that “quality” has a peculiar, value-free meaning when applied to a newspaper, so that you cannot neutralize it within the definition of “compact”.

The {{POV}} tag says to “Please see the discussion on the talk page.” The discussion at Talk:Sean Parlaman was nothing but an unsupported theory that Clyde Lewis had written the article, which suggestion has now morphed into a charge that I am Clyde Lewis; such speculation is resolved as a violation of WP:AGF and of WP:NPA. The references included at “Sean Parlaman” substantiate the unpleasant claims about him. —SlamDiego_←T 20:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment made on User talk:Eleland

Claiming that “sources of all stripe” call The Independent “compact” in no way refutes the point that “compact” carries with it a judgment about quality, which is a value judgment. It's easy to find sources that note this tie to quality; for example, The History of the Times by Stewart defines “compact” to mean “tabloid-sized quality daily”. Nor is the pejorative “bizarre” a good argument, especially in the face of sources for the tie to quality having been presented on the discussion page. It's quite clear why an editor would want an article not to itself make value judgments. What is not clear is why anyone would insist on the use of “compact”, when “tabloid format” is already in use, unless it is exactly to push the notion that the Independent is a quality newspaper. —SlamDiego_←T 03:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Transcription from User talk:Eleland

Give it a rest. You don't like the Independent, fine, whatever, I don't even read it and I don't care. Get off my talk page. <eleland/talkedits> 04:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You're failing WP:AGF and WP:NPA. I neither like nor dislike the Independent. —SlamDiego_←T 04:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What are you, twelve years old? You think that spouting three-letter-acronyms which I've "failed" is a substitute for sensible argumentation? You're repeatedly removing a reliably sourced descriptor based solely on your personal views of what that descriptor implies. And also, get off my talk page. <eleland/talkedits> 04:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

end of transcription

No, it's not my sole point of view. I learned what “compact” meant (in this context) first from the Wikipedia article. Then I found external sources that confirmed that meaning. I cited one of them (Stewart) to you in my first comment to your talk page. Nor do I think that “spouting” acronyms is a substitute for sensible argumentation; rather, I think that linking to the policies that you're violating (WP:AGF and WP:NPA) is an appropriate part of showing you that you need to refrain from how you're arguing. I think that letting you know that I neither like nor dislike the Independent is the argument in this case. —SlamDiego_←T 04:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This is utterly inane. Numerous reliable sources call the Indy a "compact" format newspaper. I really don't give a damn what some slightly obsessed editor thinks that "compact" implies, it's a relevant, reliably sourced descriptor. <eleland/talkedits> 04:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The word “inane”, like “bizarre”, doesn't refute the point. And, again, neither does the proposition that many sources call the Independent “compact”. That would simply indicate that many sources consider it to be a higher-quality newspaper. It's fine to report that many sources have that point-of-view, but not fine to side with (or against) them. —SlamDiego_←T 04:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Eleland, you cannot defend a point of view with any number of ostensible “reliable sources” (as you are attempting to do). —SlamDiego_←T 04:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you really expect me not to notice that you're dead set against "compact," because it could be taken as implying high quality, and yet resolutely in favour of "tabloid," which implies lack of quality? To even engage in this WP:GAMEy pseudo-argument is to give it more legitimacy than it deserves. <eleland/talkedits> 04:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not simply that “compact” suggests high quality — in the sources that I cite it definitionally entails high quality. Meanwhile, you are not “notic[ing]” that I am “resolutely in favour of ‘tabloid’”. If you can find another term that neither logically implies nor suggests a valuation, that would be fine with me. (Again you fail WP:AGF.) But the fact is that “tabloid” does not logically imply a valuation — the Independent has been willing to use it in reference to itself, and Nickhh insisted above that “tabloid format” was free of negative suggestion. —SlamDiego_←T 04:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop linking policy pages without even trying to explain their relevance to the discussion, especially when you're using them to imply deficiencies in editor conduct (that's a real personal attack, unlike the stuff you're complaining about.) Stop applying a blatant double standard to terminological questions and pretending that nobody will notice. You write that it's easy to find sources tying the term "compact" to a standard of quality traditionally found in broadsheets, but you know full well it's easy to find sources tying the term "tabloid" to a standard of quality less than that traditionally found in broadsheets, so what is the point? This argument is so surreal that I'm not even sure why I'm engaging in it. <eleland/talkedits> 05:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you've made the personal attacks on this talk page and (in comments transcribed above) on your talk page, and you've made declarations (again, on this talk page and on your talk page) which declare bad faith on my part; I'm in no way in violation of policy in noting your behavior, nor am I following a double-standard.

Again: The tie between “compact” and quality is in its sole definition (in application to a newspaper. The tie between “tabloid” and quality is weaker (and Nickhh has insisted that it is removed by “tabloid format”). And I'm still happy to accept a term with an even weaker relation to quality if you can find it. —SlamDiego_←T 05:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What?? <eleland/talkedits> 05:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Since it's not clear in reference to what you ask “What??”

1. Policy against personal attacks doesn't require me to refrain from noting when you make a personal attack, nor to highlight an obvious personal attack as a personal attack; the evidence that you'd been making personal attacks (“What are you, twelve years old?”) is in this very section of the talk page, either by your putting it here or by my transcribing it. Likewise, policy on assuming good faith doesn't require me to highlight your ill-founded or unfounded, hostile claims about my motives when the evidence is right here. (“You don't like the Independent”, &c.)
2. Some words have multiple meanings, some of which are pejorative and some of which are not; “tabloid” is amongst these. Meanwhile, in reference to newspapers, “compact” doesn't have multiple meanings (though its meaning has two parts). It means that the format is tabloid, and that the quality level is relatively high. A word which always makes an assertion of higher quality is simply not acceptable. A word which sometimes makes an assertion of inferior quality is sometimes acceptable, though a word which never made an assertion about quality would be best. —SlamDiego_←T 05:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, Eleland, I was willing to accept a compromise, but Nickhh again returned to a conflict that he repeatedly said that he would quit, and restored a bald claim that the Independent was compact. —SlamDiego_←T 18:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

As you are well aware:-

1) You had already changed Eleland's version with this edit here, so I was not "rejecting" Eleland's compromise. You rejected it, and I rejected your new version. And you have now gone even further and simply wiped it all, strangely claiming that this is OK, on the basis of your made-up allegations about my action.

2) I have explained above my reasons for not letting you impose your idiosyncratic views on language and WP policy on this article, and despite my reluctance to get involved in a dumb edit war over individual words I am not willing to see you vandalise this page.

3) I did not insert a "bald claim" that the Independent is a "compact [newspaper]". My edit clearly talked about a "compact format", as I have pointed out previously. In addition of course, it was me who originally took the formulation "compact/tabloid newspaper" out of the opening sentence, and also switched to talking about "format", with "compact" being placed in addition to and after "tabloid". I am not willing to bend over any further than this, nor should I or anyone else have to.

In addition to being disruptive here, you are now quite simply lying about what is happening - in particular I can't see point 3) above in any other light, given the length of the discussion here. Give it up and go away. Or show us all something that states, explicitly, that the description "compact" does not apply to the Independent's format or that it is in some way controversial, or fringey, to use it in this context. --Nickhh (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

As you realize:

1. Had I not changed Eleand's edit is soomething like the manner that I did, it would not actually have been a compromise; just a violation of the three-revert rule. But I interpretted it as an a bona fide attempt to reach compromise noting that many used the term “compact” to describe the Independent. But a compromise that doesn't preclude or end a dispute fails as a compromise, and you have brought the compromise to failure; so, yes, the term “compact” should be removed altogether from the lede.
2. I have cited sources which demonstrate that “compact” is a value-laden term. In your alleged explanation for your reasons for insisting that the Independent be described as compact, you have ignored those sources, and insisted that I am being idiosyncratic in insisting that the lede of this article neither embrace nor reject a claim that the Independent is of higher quality. Without showing (other than by your own decree) that the term is not value laden or that there is some excpetion to WP:NPOV for this article, your alleged explanation is no explanation.
3. Your previous edit wikilinked to “Compact (newspaper)”; you cannot have it both ways. That article to which you linked (like the other source that I cited) plainly stated that compact newspapers are of higher quality. Your claim was bald exactly in the sense that it reports the Independent to be of higher quality, as opposed to noting that many say or view it to be of high quality.

The history of this discussion is right here on this page. I trust that anyone without an ax to grind can see that I have nowhere lied, and that you have repeatedly breached policy. I have never raised the issue of WP:FRINGE; I have repeatedly raised the issue of WP:NPOV. I have no fear of your threat to report my edits as vandalism. —SlamDiego_←T 19:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I see you are still choosing to be disruptive. If all you really want is some sort of little victory, can't you count the change from "is a compact newspaper" to "is published in tabloid, or "compact", format" as enough? You are deleting well-sourced material on the basis of some highly individual assertions about what WP:NPOV entails, and simply repeating your mantra that it is "a value-term", while raising bizzare non-points and pedantry on the talk page. If this page said the Independent was "one of Britain's best papers", I'd be the first one taking that out as a genuine POV issue. But that is not what we are talking about here, by some way. --Nickhh (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Your argument here is based entirely upon impugning my motives, rather that on addressing the actual points that I have made from the outset. Again, Stewart and others define “compact”, when applied to a newspaper, to mean not merely a format but a quality level. It is fine for Wikipedia to report that many regard the Independent as a newspaper of higher quality (which is all that your citations establish); it is not fine for Wikipedia to adopt (or to reject) that value-judgment as itself fact.

You recognize that the article should not say that the Independent is one of Britain's best papers; but there's still PoV in claiming that it is amongst the higher-quality papers. Since “compact” (as per Stewart and others) makes that claim, Wikipedia cannot call the Independent “compact”. —SlamDiego_←T 19:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It's becoming hard to discern what your motives might otherwise be. I have addressed all your points - for example you may have missed the lengthy "recap" I made just above the start of this sub-thread, where among other things, I cover the "quality" issue and what it actually means in this context for the 4th(?) time. It is - alongside the description "compact" - a fairly simple issue of categorisation of British newspapers. You are unfamiliar with the terminology - fine, but don't fight over it as if you know what you are talking about. If we want to go swirling down the plug-hole of theoretical pedantry together, I could claim that Stewart's view that "compact" means "quality" is simply one interpretation or point of view in itself, and that therefore it breaches WP:NPOV to rely on it as a reason to remove "compact" etc etc. But I'm not going to do that (and as it happens I don't see a huge gulf between Stewart's definition and my observation that "compact" is more or less synonymous with "former broadsheet"). Invoking WP:NPOV as some kind of trump card which means you can simply remove the word "compact" from the lead, even though it is a clear, accurate and standard term, is only going to work if the premise that WP:NPOV is even relevant here is correct. And even though there was no need to, in any event your slightly odd concerns were surely accommodated by changing the wording so that the lead talked about a "tabloid" or "compact" format. Are you seriously saying that The Independent is not printed in a compact format or that it is POV to say so? --Nickhh (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

1. How do you reconcile a claim that “It's becoming hard to discern what your motives might otherwise be” with the fact that you began attacking my motives much earlier?
2. As I said in reply to your alleged recap: “You have nowhere substantiated the claim now made that ‘quality’ has a peculiar, value-free sense with respect to newspapers. If you can cite defining sources, then I would suggest that you do so, and I would also suggest that if such could be done at all then it would have been appropriate for you to do so at the outset, instead of after you'd turned this into an edit-war and flung-about personal insults and charges that you cannot substantiate.”
3. If you wanted to argue that Stewart and others are not “reliable sources”, then argue it, rather than suggesting it as a hypothesis that you might have employed.
4. I quite agree that “compact” is clear and standard; your claim that it is accurate entirely begs the question.
5. I am seriously arguing that “compact” doesn't simply refer to format, and I have cited sources for this. Are you, having earlier declared that “tabloid format” doesn't have the pejorative sense that plain “tabloid” ostensibly does, seriously arguing that “compact” is somehow needed to describe the format of the Independent? —SlamDiego_←T 21:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Lebanon/"uranium" front page

This section gives massively undue weight to this one front page story, by using the thumbnail of that day's paper and discussing it in detail. The most interesting and significant thing about a newspaper, TV station or journalist isn't always whether CAMERA or whoever has kicked up a fuss about something they did once, or a story they might (or might not) have got slightly wrong once - although you wouldn't know that of course looking at Jeremy Bowen, France 2, Barbara Plett etc. There's a much more interesting general point to be made about Independent front pages, relating to their use for ongoing editorial campaigns and their slightly unorthodox design style on occasion, rather than focusing on and highlighting this one-off issue, especially when described as being a "controversial" claim which was "rebutted" or even "broken" [sic]. --Nickhh (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Slightly wrong is an interesting, though ill advised, description for a bloody blood libel. I know Ahmadinijad gets to speak today in front of a group of blood-thirsty despots, but not everything people of his ilk say is just "slightly" wrong. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

...what?

Jaakobou, you're not even wrong here, just unintelligible. Ahmadinejad? Bloody, blood libel, blood-thirsty? Whaaaat? <eleland/talkedits> 21:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

And your comment that I haven't "done the leg work" on that claim is false. I've actively researched and edited Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and am quite familiar with the kerfuffle. The Indie story accurately reported the results of scientific testing of samples from a bomb crater in South Lebanon. It was reported also in other sources. Two controversial, prolific, highly partisan media-watch pressure groups got mad about the story and made some accusations against Fisk, with whom they are obsessed, and those accusations got some play in sympathetic blogs and the likes of FrontPage Magazine. Subsequent scientific testing failed to corroborate the initial results, indicating that the original tests were probably mistaken. (The Indie reported that, too.) No evidence of fraud or malfeasance was ever presented. The official press complaint again the Indie was rejected. The RS-coverage was sparse at most. The choice to highlight this story is completely contrary to WP:UNDUE, and the choice to present it as a debunked smear represents a privileging of partisan rumour-mill and blog sources over WP:RSs.

Finally, and as usual, Jaakobou, your comparisons to medieval antisemitism and your rants about Ahmadinejad are disruptive at best and odious at worst. Cut it out. <eleland/talkedits> 22:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Eleland,

To be frank I can't say that the hyperbole and the tone of your comment feels like an honest request to tone things down. My side-note mention -- that people like Fisk or Ahmadinejad are not "slightly" wrong when they make dishonest portrayals of the Jewish state as "evil" -- still doesn't warrants for a personal attack. Fisk was wrong by repeating bogus, unsubstantiated, smearing allegations and he did not even bother to recant on it when it was clear that he was wrong. Still, I admit that using the British intensifier "Bloody" could be misunderstood as something more than a very mild expletive (refereed to the bogus article) but between that and between claiming I always or "as usual" make rants about Ahmadinejad, a long way exists. I'd be far more inclined to ignore your incivility issues (Sample: [4]) if you were to make a slight effort in that department.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC) clarify 11:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

By my own rough estimate, the Independent and its Sunday version have had about 8,212 editions printed over the years. Now can you give any good reason why this front page alone, above all the 8,211 others, needs to be highlighted here at the top of this section with a visual splash and detailed commentary on its content - other than that it annoyed you and CAMERA? Do you not think that there are plenty of other front pages over the years that have annoyed this, that or the other interest group or WP editor? I know it's been here a long time, but that's not necessarily proof of the value of the content. As I noted, many journalism articles are loaded with excess notes about the subject's alleged misdemeanours in reporting the I-P conflict, which says more about the hobby horses and priorities of WP editors than it does about whether such content falls within WP:UNDUE. Instead of telling us about your personal views on how appalling a blood libel this front page was, and noting how "you never see Fisk and Ahmedinejad in the same room, eh, do you?", can we have some reliable third party sources that attest to the significance of this one story in the history of the Independent as a newspaper? --Nickhh (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment If may give a comment here. For such a major newspaper, it is an incredibly short article and I think that one whole sentance and a single image which in my opinion certainly illustrates the article well is not NPOV. Prehaps the best thing to do is to fill out the rest of the article. It is not best practice to remove undue weight when the article is so short that if it was properly written it would not be so. Seddσn ^talk 21:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. In response I would say -

• I still don't think it's been established that this particular front page is noteworthy and needs to be highlighted, even in a longer article. The Sun page has good examples in this section of its front pages over the years that have genuinely made a "splash" and are still written about to this day in serious mainstream (and non-partisan) sources. It seems to me that this is the kind of bar - or its equivalent for a broadsheet/former broadsheet - that we should be looking for.
• The "expand don't delete" solution to getting more balance does of course make sense, but usually simply never happens and we are left with a pretty unending undue problem. And even if someone does step up to work on it, it often leads to equally trivial and obscure material, but which happens to come from some opposite side or point of view, being added. Articles just become a dumping ground for different WP editors to make their favourite points about the subject, rather than acquiring any objective coherence or real balance.

--Nickhh (talk) 10:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, so the step forward from here I recommend is the following:

• Give the parties 1-2 weeks to find Reliable, secondary sources, which are preferably not independent stories. So in this instance if there was such a rebuttal from the UN, find evidence that links the independent to this. The current sources do not specifically discuss the independent article.
• Following that time period discuss any results from that.
• If no sources can be found, therefore indicating the article is non-notable. Then the disputed sentances can be removed.
• If sources can be found, therefore indicating the article is non-notable and should be mentioned.

I will happily help out here, I'm on medcom so I have experience with this and it would be nice to have this sorted without having to go further as if my method doesnt work here, I see no real way of further DR being able to deal with the situation. Seddσn ^talk 13:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. I'd rather have it sorted sooner rather than later, but it's been sitting here so long I guess a week or so more won't be the end of the world. As I noted above, I've asked Jaakobou for better sources if there are any. I think the key thing is that the original story and the fuss about it (such as it was) have to have some significant resonance, in a range of mainstream sources, to be picked out and highlighted like they are currently. "Dewey defeats Truman" or "Gotcha!" maybe set the hurdle a little high, but that's the kind of thing I'm thinking of. --Nickhh (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

ps: as a medcom person you may have noticed there's another (entirely separate) issue with disputed content here, but let's leave that alone for now!

Several notable mentions on high profile references:

• Anti-Defamation League - [5]
• Yediot Ahronoth - [6] (notice the linked story), [7]
• HonestReporting - [8], [9]
• The Daily Star - [10]
• Jerusalem Post - [11], [12]
• Financial Times - [13]
• Haaretz - [14]
• Daily Times (Pakistan) - [15]
• Agence France-Presse - [16]

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

OK .. when one newspaper writes up a story on its front page, several other media outlets (and campaign groups - can we exclude the ADL and HonestReporting please?) follow it up in the days afterwards, either to rubbish it or to build their own stories on it. This is the way the media works. What I think we need, per the above discussion is something more than that - evidence of serious references, with the perspective of time, to the effect that this front page was a) significant in itself; or b) significant as a key example of the Independent's reporting style. Neither is evident from the links you have provided.--Nickhh (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

ps: I have done a rewrite of the whole politics section, adding a fuller "front pages" sub-section. As noted I have left in the Lebanon story, but still maintain it is simply out of place and undue. For info, this link gives a whole bunch of examples of the paper's somewhat idiosyncratic front page style - any of these would be far better employed as the only front page pictured in this article (other than the sample one right at the top). This article, now used as a reference, is also an example of the kind of coverage I am asking for above, to provide some serious WP:RS evidence that a particular front page is genuinely significant and worth having and making a point of in the WP article. --Nickhh (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Er, hang on Jaakobou. Despite three other editors now raising concerns - to varying degrees - about having this material here at all, you haven't even answered the above points, but are already adding more of it, and pushing both the text and the front page image higher up the paragraph again? The fact that you've added the PCC point as well as lots of guff from HonestReporting and the ADL hardly does much to improve the internal balance of this one paragraph, let alone anything for the WP:UNDUE etc issues. --Nickhh (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering you are trying to argue on another page that the work of academics cannot be used as sources if they are at all controversial or disliked in some quarters, I am a little confused as to why the ADL and HonestReporting should be acceptable as the sole sources for asserting the significance of this story/front page and the brief complaints about it. Where is the mainstream pick up of their campaign/complaint? They seem to have fought a bit of a lone battle on this one. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX for publicising their views, or a place for detailing every complaint made by every partisan campaigning group about every media story ever published which might have been overly speculative or contained some errors. Please justify what you are doing here or I shall remove the material. --Nickhh (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Nickhh,

I think you completely misunderstood my concerns with Pappe and Finklstein. They are certainly on a similar notability level as ADL and Honestreporting (albeit I'd contest the credibility of the first two far more than I would that of the latter two). The debate, in which you supported both Fink and Pappe is about using them as so-called factual and reliable sources for generic info. I have no qualms with citing either for "Palestinian/Arab/Anti-Zionist perspective....", which is exactly where citing ADL and Honestreporting as "pro-Israeli" is providing for their criticism. I'm surprised that you raise the issue as so-called justification to remove the text, to be frank.

Keep cool, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

p.s. not that this is germane to the discussion, but who other than you and Eleland raised the concerns? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

And your answer to my question, looking for evidence as to the significance of the material and criticism you are trying to push into this article, is .....? --Nickhh (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's suppose that it were germane. Wouldn't that indicate that the Wikipedia community is 2:1 against this material being present at all? And yet Jaakobou feels he can not only restore the material, but expand it. Sheesh. <eleland/talkedits> 21:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh hey Eleland,

I wasn't aware that you're really part of a discussion (violations of WP:CIV is another story) but I wouldn't mind discussing the nature and value of the content in the article if you're truly interested.

p.s. I tend to disagree with the so-called clear consensus on how the content should be dealt with and to be frank, I'm not following where I've rubbed you the wrong way by adding that the PCC backed up The Independent.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

p.p.s. I actually feel that the content is a bit over-expanded and I'd like to see what other examples or secondary sources we have that focus on a more generic outlook of the issue. I still feel that the content should stay until we can come up with a better replacement. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

So, if I understand you,

You imply that I am being uncivil and unserious (you do not explain how you arrive at this conclusion)

You "tend to disagree" with the "so-called clear consensus" (so called by...? you are the first person to use the word "consensus" on this entire talk page.)

You're not sure why I'm emotionally upset with you over something that I haven't indicated that I'm emotionally upset over and that you can reasonably surmise I'm not emotionally upset over.

You want to see the information rewritten with different sources, but if those different sources do not exist or cannot be found, you want to keep the existing information.

If I misunderstand, please explain how. It would be nice if you could do so in terms of facts and logic as opposed to personal feelings (yours, or what you imagine mine to be.)<eleland/talkedits> 04:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou. Please can you answer the questions that have been asked.

1. Where is the mainstream pick up of this issue, ie of the "secret uranium" incident [sic], from sources other than the complainants? Not just Haaretz or whoever briefly saying "the Independent reported yesterday ..", but someone picking the ADL/Honest Reporting/Wikipedia editor interpretation of this as being an "incident"
2. Where are the serious, independent sources that say more generally that this front page and the complaint about it are significant or relevant to the Independent's overall history?
3. Should every page relating to a media outlet give extensive details, backed up by pictures, of every single complaint by every single partisan campaign group, even where those complaints were rejected by the relevant oversight body?

As usual in these cases you are failing - or refusing - to address the issue, and instead making vague assertions of your willingness to discuss, while pointedly avoiding doing anything of the sort. It doesn't matter how long this material has been here, it's been spotted as being inappropriate, WP:UNDUE and a little bit WP:SOAPY by at least two editors, and it's up to you to justify why it should remain here. It's also noticeable that you held off reverting my removal of this material for nearly a week, just until the recent ArbCom ruling. Smacks somewhat of gaming the system to me, with you presumably hoping that the decision there is relevant to this article about a British newspaper, or that it might at the least put me off challenging you on this point. Neither is true. --Nickhh (talk) 11:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Nickhh,

I'm sorry that you've been sanctioned but you cannot make that into a personal attack. I don't feel that you're correct in suggesting that there is a coat rack of immaterial events in the article and, obviously, I disapprove of being smeared with bad faith suggestions. That said, I think you're in clear violation of recent ARBCOM ruling and made a note to that effect in a relevant forum.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Eleland,
I'll ignore the general chatter and stick to the content if you don't mind. Off-course, different sources do exist and can be found. I was giving a look to a few of them yesterday but I didn't have the time to sort them out a bit and place them here. There's a number of issues that could fit the bill such as the Johann Hari thing or he Independent's message board or the Phil Reeves debacle. Still, non-of them is quite as note-worthy of the never-retracted front page uranium libel. I agree that we should have a more generic outlook of the issue rather than a single event but this version is the best one for the moment.
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou. Do "different sources exist" - or any sources - which actually indicate this particular "libel," as you keep calling it, to be significant or relevant to the Independent overall? We keep asking you that and you keep ignoring us.

And complaints about "general chatter" are a little rich coming from the guy who's brought into this conversation blood libels, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and comments you perceive as uncivil on an unrelated talk page discussion. I mean, give it a rest. <eleland/talkedits> 02:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Eleland,

Maybe you've missed it, but I refer you to my comment made on 19:24, 30 April 2009 for a sample of sources. Seddon seemed to agree that removing the content is premature as the best thing to do is to fill out the rest of the article. I agree with him as that a more generic outlook of the over-all issue is preferred but I'm having difficulty on focusing on improving on this issue when I feel that I have to respond to personally directed comments rather than to content.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm striking off my earlier comment that may have helped the current situation where editors are having difficulty in discussing the content. I apologize for my own part in the current situation. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou, your sources do not indicate this story to be a significant incident in the Independent's history. One of them doesn't even mention the Independent story - [17] The other news stories simply contain one-off mentions of the Independent story, such as, "the British newspaper The Independent reported Monday morning," and "as claimed by a British newspaper." They do not criticize the Independent's reporting or quote anybody who criticizes the Independent's reporting. They don't mention any controversy over the Independent's reporting. They are simply picking up on a legitimate story which happened to have been broken by the Indy, and following developments. Nickhh has already explained this to you and you've ignored him.

As for Seddon's comments, either you haven't read them clearly or... I won't spell it out. Seddon wrote that we should take "1-2 weeks to find Reliable, secondary sources" that "specifically discuss the independent article," writing that he agreed with Nickhh's post stating "I still don't think it's been established that this particular front page is noteworthy and needs to be highlighted." That was 2 weeks ago. <eleland/talkedits> 15:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The main issue would be The Independent's political stance and the responses it has received. I disagree with your suggestion that non of the sources suggest there was an error with The Independent's initial report and certainly, the ADL and HonestReporting made a pretty big deal about it. Regardless, you missed my main points where (a) Seddon noted the need to expand the article rather than shrinking it, and (b) I agree that this text is too centristic on a single event and I'd be interested in expanding the scope of outrage inducing events while keeping the text at a similar size.

p.s. I was not ignoring Nickhh and I don't think its fair to keep bringing his username up considering his situation.

p.p.s. any idea on where the anon. editor seems to be coming from?

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

If "the main issue" is the Indy's political stance, and the only source you can cite which discusses "the main issue" is Honest Reporting, an obscure and highly partisan activist group, then the material doesn't belong. (Even the ADL's letter to the editor didn't criticize the Indy's political stance -- all it said was the story "unfairly tarnished the reputation of Israel's men and women in uniform and was based on the testimony of biased observers.") You may personally feel that the ADL "made a pretty big deal about it," but the actual evidence you've provided is that the ADL sent a single letter to the editor, and perusing their "Media Watch / Newspapers" section of their website [18] it would seem they send about one of these every week - eight letters to the New York Times thus far in 2009 alone.

This discussion is becoming increasingly unproductive. Every time I make a specific request for evidence it goes unanswered. I keep hearing assertions ("the Independent's political stance ... outrage inducing events") which are clearly based on personal beliefs and not on sources. I mean, I get outraged at everything I see in the Daily Mail, but I don't edit its article to say they're a bunch of rascals. You may have noticed I haven't touched the relevant section since April 26 - in the hopes that discussion could be productive - but I'm getting increasingly impatient to be honest, because all you've done is keep banging the same drum.

The anon appears to be coming from Egypt.[19] (Nickhh is a Brit, if that's where you were going, and if he's vacationing in Egypt I don't think even he'd be daft enough to take time to edit WP ;) <eleland/talkedits> 23:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The anon was me, I was bored and in a fit of insanity decided to look in on my phone. Daft enough to edit, not enough to log in to do so. Nableezy (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Commentary?

There were objections that there was way too much on the "uranium bomb" stuff. I agree, so I moved it to Allegations of war crimes in the 2006 Lebanon War where I think the material is a better fit and I left the photo with a shortened caption. However, Nableezy is objecting to this caption as being "commentary":

Front page of The Independent, Robert Fisk reporting that Israel had used "uranium-based weapons" during the 2006 Lebanon War, a claim which a later UN investigation found no evidence for.[20] see Allegations of war crimes in the 2006 Lebanon War

I don't see how that is. There was a report, fact, there was an investigation which found it to be wrong, also a fact. Commentary would be something like "Israel was libeled" or "UN is incompetent and missed evidence". Anyway, that's why I'm going to restore it again. Vividuppers (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Commentary not relevant to coverage of the Independent. There is absolutely no reason to single out a front page for extended comment when it has not been given that treatment in coverage of the Independent itself. Nableezy (talk) 04:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You're not making any sense. Vividuppers (talk) 04:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's indeed not commentary, but it appears to be “original synthesis”. Can you cite a “reliable source” that asserts that the claims in the Indepedent as such were rebutted? —SlamDiego_←T 05:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, check out the cites in the content I moved. It's here: [20]. One of the cites from the Independent says "Palestinian officials have frequently accused the IDF of firing shells tipped with depleted uranium, a hard metal byproduct of uranium enrichment, in the Gaza Strip. But Israel has denied it and no conclusive evidence has been produced." so I didn't understand how that's SYNT. Looking at User:Nableezy's page does explain why he would prefer just the lurid headline, without noting that it didn't exist. Vividuppers (talk) 05:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry guys. SlamDiego I've reverted myself because I think you might be right. I looked at the cite that used to be on the caption [21] and it doesn't mention the Independent. Unless someone has a proper cite for it, I don't think the photo and caption should be there. Vividuppers (talk) 05:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually OK with the frontpage itself being there, simply as an example, without commentary. <eleland/talkedits> 06:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think a different one could be used. Nableezy (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Problem with their website?

McAfee just told me that their website attempted to make unauthorized changes to the computer when I opened it. Is it spam or something? Should that be in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.125.244 (talk • contribs)

Not unless a “reliable source” treats it as “notable”. —SlamDiego_←T 18:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Nicknames

I've never heard the sunday version referred to as the Sindy, and whilst the 'Indy' tag is more well known should it be mentioned so early on in the article? Makes it sound like it's only really known by its nickname. Eldumpo (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Move request to move iOS (Apple) to IOS

IOS is currently a disambiguation page, and it links to this one. Its proposed to move iOS (Apple) over than and move the redirect to IOS (disambiguation). See Talk:IOS (Apple)#Requested Move 3 if you wish to comment. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

KGB Officer

The article describes lebedev as a KGB officer - he was recently on Hardtalk (BBC interview program), where he was asked about this, and said he was not part of the KGB, but rather a border patrol guard. However, many, many sources describe him as an ex-KGB officer - is there a definitive answer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.3.155 (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

If you can find the Hardtalk episode on the BBC website you can cite that and say that he denies having been in the KGB. If the facts are in dispute, Wikipedia can report the two conflicting claims, with their sources, without taking a view as to which of them is true. -- Alarics (talk) 08:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Re 26 July revert

Regarding this revert, what exactly was wrong with it? Apart from the editor misleadingly marking his edit as minor, the substance of his edit seems valid. There is no source for the claim that the Independent has been critical of Israeli government policies. But even more problematic is how that claim was formulated in the same sentence as the newspaper's position on the genocide in Darfur. I've separated the two claims and asked for a source for the one involving Israel.—Biosketch (talk) 08:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Political Views - Peter Wilby in the Guardian as a source

There is surely no need for this tag, let alone to keep reinserting it. It makes the page look even messier than it is already, and is, as I say, somewhat pedantic. I appreciate the point about the Guardian being a competitor of sorts, but the text about where the paper stands on economic issues is a) not a controversial or negative comment, merely a fairly simple description of the paper's general outlook; and b) Peter Wilby is a veteran British journalist who has written for and edited a wide range of publications - including the Independent (or is that a problem too?) - and occasionally now writes in the Guardian. The piece in question is quite a detailed overview and it is very unlikely he's trying to grind some kind of axe or subtly undermine - or big up - the Independent here; however, it is quite likely that he knows what he is talking about. N-HH talk/edits 08:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

To clarify my intentions, I wasn't only referring to the paper's economic stance (which is only a section of the preceding sentence), but to the first two sentences of the section that refer to its political stance and its market competitors. I realize my comment was off the mark. My problem isn't with Wilby per se, but the fact that the introduction to The Independent's stance/bias/leaning (political/economic/etc.) depends on one source. The fact that Wilby is a journalist working within the leftish media (as opposed to the Times/Telegraph) and not an external, researcher of British media makes the source even less reliable, regardless of the merits of the contents of Wilby's article. In regards to bias, I was actually giving Wilby the benefit of the doubt with my comment in the tag by suggesting an additional source, not advocating the deletion of Wilby's article.

You may feel the tag isn't "pretty", but since when are we making a permanent piece of art? The tag notified readers to be critical (since there's only one source) and notified editors to add other sources. Deleting the tag does a disservice to your fellow readers and editors. Sure, it may be "pedantic", but I'm glad you've decided to comment on such a pedantic issue and clarify my concerns.–Temporal User (Talk) 02:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Completely agree. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Redseign Problems

The paper's website was redesigned today (31-10-11) and there are problems. Links from WP articles do not seem to work anymore, nor does the Indy's search function. I hope these are teething troubles as I have used the paper as a source sveral hundred times: some of the articles I have written are going to look pretty thin if the Indy isn't usable. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Not "Classical" liberal.

In the context of political philosophy supporting "Classical" liberalism means supporting a much smaller goverment (being hostile to the Welfare State and so on), to call the Independent newspaper "Classical" is false (absurdly false). The word "Classical" should be removed from the description of the economic position of the Independent newspaper.2.220.44.1 (talk) 05:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I have also corrected the circulation figures for July 2012). It takes a few seconds to look up the Press Gazette, there is no excuse for getting the basic numbers wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.220.44.1 (talk) 05:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:V. It's mandatory policy. That means that if you change content you need change the source that supports the change. If you change content without changing the source so that they are inconsistent, the edit will be reverted. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

If you had updated the source as well as the figures, that would have of course allowed the page to avoid getting the basic numbers wrong. You're just as responsible for getting it right as everyone else who contributes and edits here. And as for "classical liberal", that point seems fair to me. Simply saying "liberal" would be confusing, not least to people in the US. Could you clarify in what way you think that is not an accurate description when applied to the Independent? The paper might not want to abolish the welfare state - no mainstream UK paper does - but it actually is quite pro-market, pro-business and pro-smaller government when it comes to economic matters, just as it is against government interference in social and personal matters. It might be better if we had a source for that specific phrasing, but the general point is in the Peter Wilby piece for example, which is used as a source in the main body -

• "Though it's generally regarded as being on the left, this is not consistently reflected in its leaders and comment pages, where the diehard Conservatives Dominic Lawson and Bruce Anderson are among the strongest voices. It is not the paper of the public sector professions, as the Guardian is ... the Independent's founders never intended it to be a left-wing paper. Their preference, in the late 80s, was for Thatcherism with a human face"

And also evidenced in any number of recent leader columns, eg on overseas aid, higher education and business, welfare to work, civil service reform. N-HH talk/edits 09:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian is itself a left-wing paper though, so I'm not sure if it can be a reliable source for categorising others. It might have an interest in exaggerating its differences with the Independent to win left-wing readers. I've added a reference from the Independent on Sunday today where it calls itself a "proudly liberal newspaper". Personally, I don't see how it can be classical liberal in the sense of Gladstone. Even "Thatcherism with a human face" would not equate to classical liberalism. In addition, it is plausible that the Independent has got more left-wing with time. Dominic Lawson and Bruce Anderson have both left now (and they were not Conservatives with a big C anyway). Perhaps we need some more recent references for this section. Epa101 (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

As discussed a couple of sections up I think it's a little misplaced to be overly sceptical about the Wilby piece in the Guardian per se or to suggest that it might be part of plan, deliberate or otherwise, by the Guardian as an entity to undermine or misdescribe a rival newspaper. No source comes without bias or a relative perspective of its own, and it seems to me to be a pretty useful and informed article, written by someone who should know what they are talking about. The point about the term "classical liberal" is that when it comes to economics, the paper's general line is much more pro-market – and hence by modern standards right-wing – than its stance on social matters more generally. I think that's still the case, as the recent editorials cited above show. The qualifier "classical" doesn't mean its politics can be directly equated to those of Gladstone (any more than anyone else's in 2013 could be), just that it's not simply "liberal" in the modern sense where that it usually taken to mean soft-socialist left, especially to American eyes. I disagree as well about Thatcherism with a human face – that seems to be potentially precisely how a moderate classical liberal would have chosen to describe themselves at the time. Anyway, that said, I agree that something more up to date is needed, especially with the change in ownership and personnel changes of the past few years, and that it would be better to have more explicit references for any phrases used. N-HH talk/edits 23:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

There is one British publication that still claims to follow Classical Liberalism: The Economist. Its stance on economic subjects is very different from that of the Independent's. I am happy for the wording to say "more pro-market" but I don't see the need for "classical liberal".

In addition, I had another look at the Wilby piece and noticed that the "Thatcherism with a human face" referred specifically to the 1980s. I can see what you mean about the editorials that you post, although there are certainly some economically left-wing columnists in the paper (e.g. David Blanchflower see today's article, Owen Jones, Laurie Penny and previously Johann Hari). I would be happy to agree that the solution would be more recent sources on the Independent's political stance, but I fear that such references would not be easy to find. Epa101 (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It is utterly absurd to describe the Independent as a "pro market" "Classical Liberal" publication - and not just because it is owned by an ex KGB Russian socialist, and employs people from well known Communist families (such as Mr Cockburn) and leftist fanatics such as Mrs Brown. Anyone who has read the Independent would know that it supports endless government spending and the interventionist European Union. To call the Independent a "pro market" "Classical Liberal" publication is too much to be an innocent error - it can only be a deliberate lie.90.194.136.154 (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I removed your addition because it is your point of view, rather than an opinion derived from a source. You should read Identifying Reliable Sources which might aid you in finding an admissible source. Philip Cross (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Leveson/Straub

I see this section is becoming contentious. Can I add my voice to those of the two editors who have now removed it? I don't see that it's a significant thing for the paper; it's an issue for the inquiry and WP, with the Independent just happening to be the paper about which the error was made (it could easily have been any other). Including the material here – not least as a standalone "Trivia" section – seems a little self-regarding for WP and also pushing up against the spirit of WP:TRIVIA. Also, pace the edit summary, I don't see where including it on this page was part of any agreement at the dispute resolution noticeboard. N-HH talk/edits 10:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

After reading Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Leveson_Inquiry I too agree that such a section is UNDUE here, and I have accordingly removed it. It is correctly located at Vandalism on Wikipedia and the See also entry added by Philip Cross is the best way to handle this. Note that the Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Leveson_Inquiry was closed with agreement of the state of affairs before this Trivia section was added to this article. -84user (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

History

If, at some point, someone decides to rewrite the "History" section then might I suggest that rather than the current "1986 to 1990" and "1990 to present" sections, a more obvious split would probably be "1986 to 1994", "1994 to 1998", and "1998 to present". 1990 seems quite arbitrary compared to the ownership and editorial changes in 1994, and the reign of Kelner commencing in 1998. 82.28.1.215 (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

New Cover

As far as I can tell there has been a new look of the cover of The Independent fro a while now. Should we change it?--89.241.99.225 (talk) 07:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Political alignment

Under "political alignment", The Independent is listed as liberal/radical centre. The radical centre link is a piped link leading to radical (politics). Shouldn't it instead be a piped link to radical center (politics).

Pink List

At the moment, there's a wp:redirect - Pink List - which points to the Sections section of this article. I'd recommend that somebody should actually make it an article in its own right, as Pink List is referenced in this list of (currently 116) Wikipedia (mostly biographical) articles.

Moreover, who fancies changing some or all of the above articles, to use this redirect?

Good luck, folks! Trafford09 (talk) 10:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Political alignment part 2

In view of the paper's decision today to support a continuation of the Tory-led coalition, we should probably reconsider whether "liberal" is still an accurate description of its leanings. MFlet1 (talk) 09:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It is an indication of the newspaper's political philosophy, not party allegiance, cited to the newspaper itself. Despite the explicit defence of the union with Scotland in the editorial, which aligns The Independent with a traditional Tory attitude, it does not turn the paper into a Conservative publication. Third-party sources affirming this viewpoint will be scarce, perhaps non-existent, and are unlikely to appear. Philip Cross (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Independent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131107002701/http://www.iht.com/articles/2003/12/08/papers_ed3_.php to http://www.iht.com/articles/2003/12/08/papers_ed3_.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120214001222/http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/article/521627/Independent-breaks-front-page-mould-again-earthquake-appeal-coupon to http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/article/521627/Independent-breaks-front-page-mould-again-earthquake-appeal-coupon

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)