Talk:The Independent/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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: [1]) 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 - [2]
• Yediot Ahronoth - [3] (notice the linked story), [4]
• HonestReporting - [5], [6]
• The Daily Star - [7]
• Jerusalem Post - [8], [9]
• Financial Times - [10]
• Haaretz - [11]
• Daily Times (Pakistan) - [12]
• Agence France-Presse - [13]

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 - [14] 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 [15] 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.[16] (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: [17]. 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 [18] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Does the lede make sense?

Surely it should be Independent is a website that used to also publish a newspaper - as the lede should feature the most current status of an org? --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

comma splices?

There are a lot of commas followed by "and" that seem to be comma splices to me. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Habeeb Surooprajally

I've deleted the section "People Mentioned": the only person listed is Habeeb Surooprajally, who had a red link. A Bing search shows him to be the young son of one of the publication's columnists, but he's not a public figure and not significant enough to warrant mention, let alone his own section ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:16, 4 July 2017 (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).

Please remember to sign your posts. I think more discussion is needed on the topic of The Independent's political position. I'd generally say it is a centrist paper, partly due to its usual backing of the Liberal Democrats. Helper201 (talk) 09:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

For met is a Centre Left paper. Reaper7 (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

It is a soft right paper, centre is the left never the right who by the fact they lie, steal and murder means they can never be the centre. I have entered eternal moderation by the 'Independent' (actually bought and paid for by the right), for stating that house prices are artificially inflated by decades long government no house building policy added to this the huge mass immigration has kept people voting rightwing either Red Tory Tony Blair or actual Tory to maintain their inflated house price. AD Scott (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

the independent conection to Saudi Arbia

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/oct/19/independent-deal-with-saudi-publisher-back-under-spotlight

We should mention the connection of the independent to the Saudis. Saudi Arabia has a deal with the independent. the Saudis pay the independent a lot of money in return for PR and image boosting. It should be mention as it is put some shadow on the credibility of the independent report of middle east issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.154.23.73 (talk) 09:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Log or page spread?

We have a page spread with a logo on it. We certainly don't need the logo separately. I think having both contravenes our policy. --MarchOrDie (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

connection to Saudi Arabia

The newspaper "The Independent" has a connection to Saudi Arabia and they are one of the owner of the newspaper. This fact should be mention in the Wikipedia article. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/aug/16/independent-evening-standard-links-to-saudi-arabia-inquiry-blocked https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/comment/2019/7/4/is-the-independent-arabia-really-independent https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jul/23/evening-standard-and-independent-unable-to-rebut-concerns-over-saudi-ownership

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.154.23.74 (talk) 08:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC) 

Philip Brady

As far as I can make out, there is no wiki-entry for scholar, broadcaster & Indy journalist Philip Brady (1932-1997). Might someone be persuaded?[19]. Regards Charles01 (talk) 09:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

(Or is it already there ... and I'm simply too dim to have found it?)

Logo has changed, dropping "The"

The Independent has changed its logo from that shown in the infobox, presently displaying only the white eagle in the red circle, followed by "INDEPENDENT"; it no longer includes "The" preceding the eagle. (I don't know when that change was made.) Wanting to find where it is published, and assuming the newspaper had no "The" in its official name, WP Search sent me to the long dab page for Independent - which does not include this paper, because The Independent has its own separate WP dab page. Normally, of course, a leading "The" is ignored in Search, and many other situations. Without taking the time to search through page history, I'm guessing that at some point there was editorial agreement that the dab page was too long and should be split.

My own recommendation would be putting a hatnote at the top of both pages, where it's easily seen. But I find that, at least for the "Independent" dab page, that idea was already tried in May 2019, and immediately reverted, with the comment "it's already in See also, as it should be" - buried among many other See alsos, at the bottom of the long page.

I'm sure The Independent has its own good reasons for the changed logo with "The" omitted; but it strikes me as unnecessarily officious to disallow a much more easily found hatnote here at Wikipedia. There's no good reason for an especially hard-to-find See also to preclude having a hatnote as well. Quoting from my own user page,

• "Don't make people have to struggle to find what they're looking for. Why make it hard for them? Here's a delicious bit of irony that I've stolen from a post by User:Ravpapa: Remember, the reader is the enemy. It's just something for each of us to think about."

Also, for what it's worth, I notice that The Independent dab page lists the following entries, none of which are listed at Independent:

• Evening Independent, formerly published in St. Petersburg, Florida
• Independent, or The Independent, the previous name of a paper in Long Beach, California, now referred to as the Press-Telegram
• The Daily Independent, formerly published in Kannapolis, North Carolina and merged with The Concord Tribune to form the Independent Tribune

I take it that these non-italicized "The"s are not part of the papers' official names. The original split between dab pages, whenever it occurred, seems not to have worked quite as well as then assumed. Milkunderwood (talk) 07:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

If the biggest problem is with newspapers and other publications, perhaps it would work to create a third dab page for such publications only, and ignore whether the official name contains a leading "The" (or other words). Milkunderwood (talk) 09:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

New first sentence

Adding new content[20][21][22][23], and as the first sentence of the lede, seems a gross POV violation, even after removing the unreliable sources.

How old is this edit-war? I just happened upon it because of the unreliable sources. --Hipal (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the article logs, this appears very similar to the past times the article was protected. I've requested protection again. --Hipal (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hipal: @EvergreenFir: That's not "a gross POV violation", and it's well-supported by reliable sources. See

• National Review
• The Washington Times
• New York Post
• Washington Examiner
• The Dispatch
• Reason
• The Federalist
• Fox News
• Blaze Media
• The Daily Wire
• Daily Express
• The Mail on Sunday
• National Post

Are those also "gross POV violations"? 2601:547:500:E930:1464:A8D6:CC28:10E6 (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Fox News is not regarded as a reliable source to use on Wikipedia for political matters and the Daily Express and The Mail on Sunday are both regarded as unreliable sources to use on Wikipedia. Please see WP:RSP for more information. Helper201 (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Helper201: Your comment is completely irrelevant. 2601:547:500:E930:1464:A8D6:CC28:10E6 (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

It's completely relevant if you are trying to use these sources as justification for your claim. They are not regarded as "reliable sources" on Wikipedia as you claimed. Helper201 (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Helper201: 1. That's not what I'm doing. 2. That's not what I claimed. Try to follow the discussion first before jumping in with lies and false claims about other users. 2601:547:500:E930:1464:A8D6:CC28:10E6 (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The Daily Wire, Blaze Media, The Federalist and the New York Post are also regarded as generally unreliable for use on Wikipedia, per WP:RSP. Helper201 (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Helper201: This comment is also completely irrelevant. Try to follow the discussion first before jumping in with irrelevant comments. 2601:547:500:E930:1464:A8D6:CC28:10E6 (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

If the ip editor isn't concerned about the reliability of sources, then I don't see any reason to continue this discussion. --Hipal (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hipal: What an outrageously dishonest comment. Why are you being deceptive and obfuscating the issue? I listed these as examples of outlets whose political leaning is given in the first sentence of their respective articles. I did not list them as the sources for The Independent being left-leaning. Those are different sources, and they were already present in the article.

Now that you're done obfuscating, please answer the question addressed to you: Are those also "gross POV violations"? 2601:547:500:E930:1464:A8D6:CC28:10E6 (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

As I said, I see no reason to continue this conversation. --Hipal (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hipal: Because you want to avoid answering the question. 73.154.135.120 (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@73.154.135.120: Yes, all those articles about newspapers, magazines and media companies from the list above include subject's political alignment in the very first sentences. But these articles don't describe them as "right-leaning" newspapers, but rather as "conservative" ones. "Conservative" is a neutral term, so if newspaper is conservative, there's no reason to not call it such, it's not POV violation. Same applies to other neutral terms as "liberal", "socialist", "labourist". So if political alignment of The Independent is to be included in the first sentence, it should be "liberal", not "left-leaning". Arado Ar 196 (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Arado Ar 196: The Dispatch is described as "center-right".

The term "liberal" is ambiguous; it has almost opposite meanings in the US and the rest of the world. If used, it should link to Modern liberalism in the United States to avoid confusion. 2601:547:500:E930:9F1:7BC5:40D0:6CFE (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)