This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
Several notable mentions on high profile references:
Warm regards, Jaakobou Chalk Talk 19:24, 30 April 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Completely agree. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 12:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?)
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,
Also, for what it's worth, I notice that The Independent dab page lists the following entries, none of which are listed at Independent:
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
Several notable mentions on high profile references:
Warm regards, Jaakobou Chalk Talk 19:24, 30 April 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Completely agree. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 12:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?)
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,
Also, for what it's worth, I notice that The Independent dab page lists the following entries, none of which are listed at Independent:
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)