Talk:The Independent

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Independent article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 14 days

United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Newspapers High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Media Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles

Mid

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

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Mackay Radio
Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

Journalism High‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Charles Miranda (2012-12-03). "Lord Justice Leveson makes journalistic faux pas, cuts and pastes from Wikipedia". Herald Sun. The report also inaccurately describes the wrong name of the founder of The Independent newspaper, replicating an error that appears on the online encyclopedia.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

connection to Saudi Arabia ( more sources)

Even Al Jazeera mention that this newspaper is operated by Saudis. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/turkey-blocks-saudi-emirati-state-news-websites-200419112800587.html

"The Turkish website of the UK-based Independent newspaper, ******which is operated by a Saudi company,**** was one of the sites to be blocked on Sunday, in a move that its editor said reflected political tensions between Riyadh and Ankara."

I think it is important enough to be mention in the article.

New first sentence

Adding new content[1][2][3][4], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

KGB in UK media?

https://www.channel4.com/programmes/boris-the-lord-the-russian-spy-dispatches

....0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 05:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]