Talk:The Inquirer

message: The publication, Private Eye, is likely the inspiration for the style The INQUIRER uses with comments from the editor, where the word 'editor' is abbreviated simply as Ed.
:I think that's a ridiculous claim; Private Eye is by no means the only publication to use 'Ed.' (PC Gamer is the first to come to mind), and even if it was inspired by Private Eye, who cares? It's in no way relevant to the Inquirer if it writes Editor or Ed. and where that comes from.
:Some of the Inquirer writers are English, just like the Private Eye writers; it's even mentioned that the Inquirer uses English slang occasionally. Citing the fact that Private Eye does the same isn't really of merit. 
:If the writing style of the Inquirer was similar to that of Private Eye, or the way it talked about public figures or whatever, that would be of interest. But superficial similarities are irrelevant. Since Private Eye is a joky, satirical publication and the reference is irrelevant, I can only assume that it's trying to suggest that the Inquirer is of a similar vein (joky, satirical) to Private Eye. While it may make jokes and satirical comments, almost all the articles are about serious matters, which is very different. I reckon drawing the parallel to Private Eye is NPOV.
:I am therefore going to take out the reference to Private Eye.
:fel64 16:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost all of the Eye's articles are about serious subjects. You can write a satirical article about a serious sbject and still get all the points across. Often humour is the best way to get a serious point across, as it can slip in between the jokes and make people think long after the laughter has died away. I do vaguely recall asking one of the Inq's editors if he worked for the Eye and getting an affirmative, but that may well be alcohol-induced bad memory so I guess it's not authoritative. Archonix 12:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison to Private Eye

message: I removed the unsourced tag after I realised that all the fact requirements had been filled, however I forgot that this probably should be discussed first. Any comments? I also read the section again looking for comments that were not NPOV and couldn't find any. However the Criticism section is pretty bad. Compared to other Wikipedia entries for websites or publications there seems to be a lot of focus on negatives, although I notice the NY Times is almost 90% criticism. Maybe just removing the section altogether may be the best option. Thoughts, comments? Riscy 11:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly oppose removing the criticism section, that would make the article POV.  Besides, the criticism section is only four short paragraphs, about the same size as most of the other sections in the article.  Also, you yourself pointed out the fact that the NY Times article is mostly criticism.  If the newspaper is controversial, some controversies need to be included in the article.  The more controversial a newspaper, the larger the cricitism section should be.  Dionyseus 11:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Obviously controversy is something that can be interpreted a number of different ways. I think that the size of the criticism section is probably not proportional to the reliability of the publication (which I think is probably the main thing we have been disagreeing on) but more related to the amount of interest and emotive feeling towards the publication that exists in the community. Perhaps this has a good correlation to controversy (actually I just reminded myself to check the definition of controversy ) I guess I just want to prevent the article becoming a list, at the moment there is some good general information on TheINQ with basically a list of some recent goofs and a list of some funny names they use, both sections are not really encylopedic. But I feel we are making progress with the article :) Riscy 12:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV and Source Tags 

message: I added information to the criticism section about the Inquirer's reporting on the Dell exploding notebook battery mess. This got incredible  attention from the mainstream media, and was clearly the start of the process which made Dell and Apple recall about six million batteries, and Sony, which made the batteries, lost 200 million dollars paying for them. So this is an example of extremely sucessful reporting by the Inquirer to provide some balance with all that ridiculous nitpicking criticism.  - I also have put in some information from a BusinessWeek article which explains how the Inquirer got the Dell battery information, because I think that helps explain how the Inquirer works, which is actually one of the main purposes of Wikipedia, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.137.153.18 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 2 September 2006
:Very good point and I agree the Dell battery article proved to be a very important article for the Inq. Worldwide coverage and linkage from mainstread media Riscy 01:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, as far as my information go (also published in mainstream media), the price of the recall for Dell alone is around 403 million quids, which ammounts to a little over 600 million US dollars. Figures for Apple were not available at press time, but expect a hayride of around 200-250 million US$.--Tvalich 23:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dell Battery Recall 

message: The controversy over the exposure of the Everywhere Girl's identity and the deletion of the Everywhere Girl article is worth including in this article. I dug up a few INQ articles if someone wants to take a stab at it:
*Everywhere Girl's identity revealed
*Everywhere Girl: You're deleted
*Everywhere Girl receives brief Wiki resurrection, before being deleted again
*Wiki war breaks out over Everywhere Girl
*Everywhere Man confesses
*Wikiman (with only one head) speaks to the INQ
Also see:
*Wikipedia:Deletion review#Everywhere Girl
*Talk:Everywhere girl
--Lethargy 23:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that this has been added, I realize that we have approached this in the wrong way. What we need to do is have an Everywhere Girl section, and include this information in that section. Currently we are giving too much weight to the deletion controversy and not enough to the Everywhere Girl herself, which has been written about much longer than the WP deletion stuff. --Lethargy 02:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everywhere Girl/Wikipedia controversy 

message: This article is swollen beyond recognition: The fact that almost all the refernces are from the inquirere itself should ring some alarm bells.  I've removed a few itmes already, but I'm going to continue to take out anything unsourced or wildly trivial.  Regarding sourcing from the subject of the article itself, primary sources are only allowed for items that are not "self serving." brenneman 00:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted your edits. Removing large portions of the article without any discussion is vandalism. If you think that they were unsourced/irrelevant/not pleasing you, then we have certain etiquette for dealing with these - for example, there are templates that ask for sources. Also, I don't think you should edit this article or anything else related to the Inquirer, as you cannot stay to NPOV. DLX 06:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rolled back your blind reversion... re-adding under "see also" a redirect to this article, with a link to the deletion review?  That's simply astounding.  Add back in sections (with sources, of course) that you think are relevent. - brenneman 06:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Restored and cleaned "Writers" and "Nicknames and terminology" sections. Both are relevant, second one has a good source as well. Cleaned up, wikified, reordered etc. DLX 07:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bloat  

message: Some people have demanded way more sources than are necessary for this article. For example, the request for a secondary source for the fact that The Inquirer has criticized the publication of EG's real name. This is utter rubbish. From WP:NOR:
An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims.
The section in question states: "The Inquirer has criticized this deletion[8] as well as the revelation of the model's real name during the deletion discussions by Wikipedia users (the model's name and identity had been kept confidential by The Inquirer).[9]"
We comply with (1): the claim is only descriptive (it reproduces what the Inq stated in their article) and is EASILY verifiable. The information is also not interpreted, thus we also comply with (2). As such, I'm removing the redundant second source.
Further, I recently added a citation for Mike Magee's quote from BusinessWeek. Again, I am removing this. The quote appears in the earlier reference to the same BusinessWeek article, and citations are allowed to span multiple sentences.--213.46.128.161 22:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demand for too many sources 

message: Entering a search for 'Everywhere Girl' on Wikipedia still re-directs to 'The Inquirer'. I am familiar with the history of the debate and why this happened, but am wondering if it no longer appropriate to associate her purely with 'The Inquirer'. Consider this page: http://blog.ideeinc.com/2008/01/22/everywhere-girl-the-book/ which has nothing to do with 'The Inquirer' and shows literally dozens of books with cover photos of 'The Everywhere Girl'. 
Surely now this phenomenon either belongs in a stock photography article? Or, maybe having its own entry should be re-considered? 82.44.221.140 (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everywhere Girl again (2008 discussion) 

message: Hi, Im quite new to the wikipedia community and try my best to work things out for myself. I'm somewhat confused as to why this has the notability tag applied? Am I being stupid or am I missing something? The lead section seems ok to me. Any input greatly appreciated! :) Jaymzcd (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability? 

message: The Inquirer usually has an odd image on the left side which links to a unrelated (it seems) page, does anyone know what that is about, maybe it should be in the article. Rythie (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Side Image 

message: This section doesn't currently make any/much sense, relies on primary source diff removal
::===Rydermark===
In July 2006, The Inquirer posted images to show cheating by NVIDIA Windows device drivers in Rydermark 2006.The Inquirer, 18 July 2006: Rydermark screenshots back California graphics fudge (cited 4 February 2007) The images were alleged to be fake by a number of sources.Such as:
*DailyTech, 19 July 2006: "Rydermark" Cheating Allegations Discredited (cited 23 August 2006)
*BeHardware, 19 July 2006: The Inquirer accuses Nvidia of cheating (cited 23 August 2006)
 The Inquirer denied any wrongdoing and quoted the maker of Rydermark calling the allegations against them "irresponsible".The Inquirer, 19 July 2006: Rydermark maker labels hoax allegations 'irresponsible'  (cited 23 August 2006) About 8 months after the original Rydermark article, The Inquirer ran another article claiming that Rydermark was still being developed, but was near release.The Inquirer, 19 February 2007: Rydermark benchmark lives. It's almost done (cited 28 February 2007) In response, one of its critics offered $1,000 to a charity of the Rydermark articles author's choosing if he could produce (breaching his NDA) a version of Rydermark that showed the alleged screenshots in full-motion video before a set deadline (which gave the author 10 and a half hours, beginning at 6:30PM UK time). No one produced the program before the deadline passed.
Independent verification that RyderMark was genuine, first appeared in TweakTown in May 2007.16 May 2007: TweakTown: RyderMark Beta 2 Preview - Emerging competition for Futuremark? (cited 17 May 2007)  RyderMark developer Ajith Ram denied ever sending the Inquirer NVIDIA cheating allegations.
Without any confirmation of NVDIA's cheating this story is irrelevant. The text just doesn't properly explain what happened either.Imgaril (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that NVIDIA's cheating needs to be real in order for this to be relevant. The section is not about NVIDIA cheating, it is about The Inquirer reporting that they are, falsely. There are five sources, three of them non-primary. This section is just as notable as the sections around it. I am restoring this material for now. The section is well-written, and makes sense. Mamyles (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Rydermark

message: See Wikipedia:Notability the lack of any third party sources about "the inquirer" in the article makes the notability of this subject questionable. If anyone has them please either reference the article, or leave links here so someone else can.Imgaril (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This source and this use of content is enough to satisfy WP:NWEB. Mamyles (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: I came to this article via a link to Everywhere Girl on Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia, which I clicked in the hopes of finding more information. However, there is no mention of Everywhere Girl at all in this article! The fact that Everywhere Girl:
* has a an article (that redirects to this one), and 
* is linked to by the deletionism/inclusionism article
...makes it notable enough to have something explanatory at the other end of the link. Silly Wikipedians!
--HunterZ (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The content about that was removed, likely because it is not especially notable in regard to The Inquirer. It is, however, notable in regard to deletionism at Wikipedia. As such, I've changed the redirect to the relevant section of that page. Mamyles (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everywhere Girl 2013