Talk:The Big Issue

History section

For sources, see e.g. http://www.bigissue.com/magazinesite/introduction.html

Pagw 17:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

NVM then I've written it now...

Pagw 18:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms Section

I undid the deletion of this section as the section was sourced and no reason was given for the deletion.

Pagw 16:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The criticisms section claims that no other services are offered other than magazine distribution, and that the big issue at times doesn't address the problem of drug use, However the big issue foundations FAQ says other wise, under the "What services does The Big Issue Foundation offer? How is the money raised spent?" question http://www.bigissueonline.com/cgi-bin/foundation/info.html?domain=info&name=faqs --61.68.31.5 (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The Oxford Forum source says these services are only provided at the bigger centres, and this is stated in the Criticisms section. The FAQ you link to doesn't say that the services provided are provided at all the centres.

Pagw (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Reponse section

Where has this 'response' come from? The Big Issue itself? Are the points verifiable? EvilRedEye (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes from The Big Issue directly, please contact the Press Department to verify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.25.129 (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This is outside of normal Wikipedia convention - pages are not threaded discussion forums or a place to make and rebut accusations. Can it be amalgamted into a single article? If there is evidence that the accusations arent true they should either be removed or worded so that "The Big Issue is sometimes criticised for X however Y". Truthmonkey (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The Response section simply shouldn't be there, and has been removed multiple times. As much as everyone sympathizes with the paper's mission, this article is not TBI's soapbox and should not be written by individuals who are in a conflict of interest. Responses to the criticisms should either be sourced to independent third-party publications, or should be worded with something to the effect of "The Big Issue, however, claims that..." and then sourced to TBI's own mission statement or something. An easy rule of thumb is that words like "we" should never be showing up in an article. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Where then is the proof of source of the information for the critism section, which refers to an article in the Oxford Forum, let the people of Oxford come forward then. A casual observer can note the lack of sources from the oxford forum, which undermines the argument above, about it being someones soapbox, because that is exactly that is what the critic section becomes. The Big Issue should have right to reply, or this section should be removed. What is more at least this Response section can be verified as that of the words of The Big Issue if you take the time to contact the big issue press deapartment. Can you be as certain of that about the critism section? This a reason why this article like many here are flawed. The fact someone refers to The Big Issue as TBI implies an intimate knowledge thus implying an unbalanced and biased view, possibly, dare I say it a disgruntled employee or worse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.224.147 (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said above: TBI has every right to reply, but not here. A Wikipedia article is not a forum. We don't care if the "reply" you are repeatedly inserting is from TBI's press department; Wikipedia is not TBI's press outlet. If TBI publishes these arguments elsewhere (in a reliable, third-party source) then we can cite them here using external links. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 00:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

And, by the way, the fact that I used "TBI" doesn't mean anything. I have no affiliation with TBI and do not even live on the same continent. I used an abbreviation because I didn't feel like typing the whole thing out. In the future, please assume good faith and don't just go out making ridiculous accusations against people you don't even know. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 00:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The section needs a complete rewrite - it's full of unsourced claims and the only source is a single article in a student magazine looking at the homeless situation in a single city. I'm not surprised that the big issue are pissed off. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at it closely (thank you, btw, for going through it and tagging the stuff that needs attention), but I know there are a couple better sources over at Street newspaper, which I worked on a month or so ago, which would offer some "criticisms" that are less OR-ish. rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer)^talk/_contribs 14:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've rewritten the section and commented out most of the OR for now. I contacted User:Pagw, who originally wrote the section, asking if he can identify his sources. Thank you for your input, rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer)^talk/_contribs 14:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes the sole source for that section was the Oxford Forum. None of it is my own original research. The article was based heavily on interviews with street vendors. I expected that other people would think of ways to tidy it up. Do with it as you feel fit... Pagw (talk) 08:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

London-based?

The Big Issue is not only a London based street newspaper that needs correcting. The article contradicts itself by saying there are regional editions further down the document, and from their different regional sites, they have regional journalism, it seems, so not very London based. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.244.143 (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, the main headquarters are in London. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It may be correct the head office is in london for the UK editions, but the wording gives the false impression all distribution and content is solely London based. People who do not read the full article will be none the wiser in that case. What about the international editions I am sure they will not be pleased with their efforts being dismissed as London based.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.244.143 (talk) 11:18, 23 February 2009

Fixed. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Good call. PhilKnight (talk) 12:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Who is Gordon Roddick?

Is this Gordon Roddick, husband of Anita Roddick, or another man of the same name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Middleton (talk • contribs) 01:29, 14 May 2009

Yep, pretty sure it is. I don't have the source on hand right now, but I remember this question came up before. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Cf. Germany "BISS"

I am too tired and busy to add a remark about de:BISS (Straßenzeitung), a similar project in Munich ... --Lueckless (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC).

Might be more worthy of a mention in Template:Street newspapers, rather than specifically here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, looks like there already is a redlink there. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Unclear part: Romani/Romanians

This part:

"When Romania and Bulgaria joined the EU in 2007, the right of their residents (termed "A2 nationals") to work in Britain was limited to the self-employed, highly skilled migrants, and food and agricultural workers.[10] The Big Issue, whose vendors are classed as self-employed, offers an opportunity for A2 migrants to work in the UK. By 2011, around half of Big Issue sellers in the north of England were of Romani origin"

first talks about Romanian (and Bulgarian) immigrants and then suddenly about Romani people who are totally different from Romanian people. Either it's a mistake and Romanians are meant or it is simply formulated extremely unclear. I'll add a clarify tag.

It's unclear, rather than a mistake -- the reason being that I was trying to stick fairly close to the sources when I wrote it. The source used for the Romani statistic does talk almost entirely about Romanian and Bulgarian Roma, so the implication was supposed to be that these Roma mostly come from those countries. I'll try to tweak the language, so let me know what you think. Celuici (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! But I think your first version was better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.53.210.214 (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

"Criticism of its publishing model" section -- does it even have a US presence?

The "Criticism of its publishing model" states that the magazine has been criticised for its US business practices. The sources are from 10 years ago, and I can't find any evidence that the magazine is still being sold in America. So perhaps this section should be updated. Celuici (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

James Bowen: "A Street Cat Named Bob"

I acknowledge that James Bowen may not have had a major impact on the development of The Big Issue, but I think his best-selling book "A Street Cat Named Bob" does at least deserve a mention in this articlce. Of course, I am assuming that the book is accurate, and not suggesting that every aspect applies to all sellers. Nevertheless, I think it gives lay-people a useful insight into the way a Big Issue seller has to operate (buying magazines, running own business, liaising with distributors, maintaining a pitch, etc). Certainly, I had no idea what was involved until I read this book.

Would also be interesting to know if magazine sales have increased as a result of the book's publication and his fame.

EdJogg (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Big Issue. 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/20070911030448/http://www.rrj.ca:80/issue/2002/summer/373/ to http://www.rrj.ca/issue/2002/summer/373/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150205222939/http://www.bigissuenamibia.org/ to http://www.bigissuenamibia.org/

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} 06:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Big Issue. 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/20080220220110/http://www.unesco.org:80/courier/1999_02/uk/connex/txt1.htm to http://www.unesco.org/courier/1999_02/uk/connex/txt1.htm

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} 18:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Big Issue. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090301141303/http://www.bigissue.com/History_34.php to http://www.bigissue.com/History_34.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090302154455/http://www.bigissue.com/How_We_Work_14.php to http://www.bigissue.com/How_We_Work_14.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060629073232/http://www.nyaorganisationer.soch.lu.se/SituationSthlm.html to http://www.nyaorganisationer.soch.lu.se/SituationSthlm.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060715052929/http://www.bigissuecymru.co.uk/ to http://www.bigissuecymru.co.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

further notes to add to criticism, potentially

surprised that the criticism page does not discuss the actual business model of the big issue in depth. I'm sure that elsewhere it has been argued that their model is exploitative since it does not fully employ or contract workers and instead take them on a self-employed basis, meaning they often earn below minimum wage. I don't know enough about this to contribute but if I get the chance I'll brush up Meikkon (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)