Talk:Indigo Publications

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 June 2015. The result of the discussion was keep.

HumanIPO article as RS

Regarding this edit [1].

Whether HumanIPO is a Wikipedia:Reliable source in general doesn't need to be debated here. I do plan on bringing it up on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. What is most relevant here: is the article in question "Indigo Publications reports profit increase on back of digital strategy" actual reporting or simply a press release in disguise. The first clue is in the title: "Indigo Publications reports." The article goes on to substantiate the title. Out of five short paragraphs, three are labeled as quotes or paraphrases of what Indigo Publications told HumanIPO. The other two paragraphs "report" financial information of a private company, so the information had to have come from the company itself. Conclusion: this story is a thinly disguised press release, thus not suitable to use as a source for an article. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly welsome to take it to RSN, but before you do, note that HumanIPO has 91 results at Google Scholar. Mojoworker (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Mnnlaxer (talk)

On the text itself: "Since 1995, Indigo Publications has implemented a digital development strategy, and went with all digital publication of Intelligence Online and all the company's Africa publications, on the Africa Intelligence website in April 2013." Translation: Indigo has been converting mailed hard-copy newsletters onto the web for the past 20 years. That's about as trivial as anything could be. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a small point, but the point is they went all digital in April 2013. Mojoworker (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to improve the article

I take User:Mojoworker's edits as good faith efforts. But this [2] is not an improvement to the article and doesn't do enough to show notability of Indigo Publications to save it as an article, in my opinion.

VAT controversy. This section is not about Indigo. It's a party to the dispute, but doesn't have any specific information about Indigo. The section is newsworthy, and Wikipedia article-worthy, but in another article about French media and/or business taxes. Mention Indigo there. For a similar case, Lawrence v. Texas was a huge U.S. Supreme Court decision, but the plaintiff John Lawrence does not have a Wikipedia article. And listing 6 sources for one statement is over-kill. It looks like padding sources.

Publications section, sources. #11 Viadeo. Looks like a networking site, not a RS. #12. See above. #13 from Le Monde. Okay, that's something. But the only mention of Indigo is this:

FACILITATE DISTRIBUTION ABROAD
By engaging in the 100% digital, Context makes a bet that few trade press titles have dared to do. Some have partially done, as the group Indigo Publications. Among its ten tracks, only the Letter A and PressNews are still published in paper format.
Between buying items at the unit, access to archives and vertical channels by sector or by country, Maurice Botbol, publishing director of Indigo, sees the web tool that allowed him to facilitate the distribution of its securities abroad. Digital formats have contributed to 84% of the group's growth in 2013, the eleventh consecutive year of positive results with a turnover of 3.4 million euros, up 7% compared to 2012.
"Too many publishers are reluctant to digital, Mr. Botbol analysis. Many believed that the purchase of items by unit cannibalize subscriptions. But these are different purchases formats for different readerships. "And to quote the students, teachers and organizations.
If the Web has diversified offers of the trade press, its revenue still comes predominantly subscriptions. In France, they represent 95% of the means of dissemination of trade press titles listed by the OJD in 2013.

Nothing there. #14. Press release. #15. Survey book.

Each of the publications should not have a section of its own. The content of these sections reads as pure promotion.

At the AfD page, Mojoworker thinks since Indigo is a French company, most of the references will be in French. He's found some, but not enough notability, I think. But remember that all the publications are published in English as well as French, and the English versions are likely to have higher readership, web hits, and other media mentions due to its dominance in number of speakers, especially in the business world.

Last point, if Indigo itself can't find much significant coverage about itself, there likely isn't much out there. Mnnlaxer (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Improving article

Congrats on the keep decision. Fine by me. I made some basic clean up edits. Here are the remaining problems I see. I've signed each sub-section, so please comment within them.

Book chapter source

I haven't read the whole chapter, but searched for all of the key words from "Indigo newsletters became known for uncommonly substantive reporting in complex and recondite fields of business." Not that a direct quote is needed, but this obviously promotional language needs to be rewritten in a more encyclopedic style and also cited to a page number. My first choice would be to remove the sentence entirely and move the chapter to a non-inline cited Reference, while renaming the in-line cites section Notes. But if people want to use the chapter for in-line cites, then a page number is required. FYI, us the Template:Rp after the closing </ref> tag to do this. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:SteveStrummer, I looked up the key words from the lead sentence: "Indigo holds a reputation for detailed news analysis and editorial independence." Again, a direct quote isn't necessary, but it is very hard to talk about Indigo's editorial reputation without using the word "editorial." I'm going to remove the promotional sentences and put the book chapter as a general reference. If anyone wants to use the chapter for an inline citation, please use the Rp template to specify the page number. Also, I think it is premature to upgrade this article to Start-class. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mnnlaxer: Positive observations are not "promotional" if they are verifiable, and "...known for uncommonly substantive reporting in complex and recondite fields of business" is a completely fair and temperate rendering of the book's chapter-long review of Indigo. Throughout the chapter it is remarked how professionals hold Indigo in high regard, and the author notes on the very first page that "[Indigo] furnishes its readers with difficult-to-obtain insights" and provides information "hitherto concealed, misunderstood, or secret" (p.139). As for editorial independence, note the entire sub-chapter entitled "Non-partisan observers", in which the author approvingly allows Butbol to explain that Indigo is "not culturally partisan... Our neutrality tends to be complete. We are very careful not to have any 'national' positioning" (p.145). And as for Start class: the article is more than a couple of lines, has references, and tells an amount of information more than a standard dicdef; it's a Start. Contain your spite and go on to other editing now: I shouldn't have to waste a half hour of my life trying to satisfy your demands for references when they have been there since before the AfD was closed. If you're not going to read about the subject matter, you have no business editing it. SteveStrummer (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it was unverifiable, I would have said that instead of promotional. From WP:PROMO #5: "Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery." I think "Indigo newsletters became known for uncommonly substantive reporting in complex and recondite fields of business" could be a dictionary example of puffery. The main issue here is the book chapter is the only substantive mention of Indigo Publications in an independent, secondary RS. If there were more to work with, this wouldn't even come up. But being what it is, using the book chapter for reputation and evaluation of Indigo is very problematic. The book's author has no incentive to treat Indigo neutrally, in fact, he has a large incentive to puff it up. The professionals you mention are subscribers that Botbol promoted to Baumard to interview. I will give you Indigo is independent, as it solely supported by subscriptions; it would be nice to have a good RS to cite that to. However, the fact that Indigo isn't chauvinistically French might be notable in France, but compared to global RS, it is no big deal. I will not be bullied away, so you might as well engage with me to improve the article. Your time is your own, spend it as you like. That the puffery existed before the AfD is irrelevant. I've read extensively about Indigo, including translating French sources. I've read the whole chapter now (I'd skimmed it before looking for support for the statements), there is no change in my opinion. Please use Template:Rp to provide specific page numbers for the citations of the chapter. Mnnlaxer (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History section

Starting with "The Indian Ocean Newsletter was the first Indigo publication," and continuing through the end of that paragraph, I would put all simple launch and purchase info about the individual publications in their own sections, subject to my comments below. Then move the SARL sentence into the first paragraph. Further paragraphs in the History section should be reserved for information showing the impact of the company and its publications. Remember, to be notable, the article has to show significant coverage in secondary RS of the company or the publications themselves, not merely being used as sources or citations in RS. This seems like the place to do it. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Publications section

As I've argued, the fact that Indigo is moving from print to digital is not notable in itself. But certainly, "Botbol stated that too many publishers are reluctant to go digital. Many believe that the purchase of items piecemeal will cannibalize subscriptions. But these are different purchase formats for different readerships." needs to be removed or rewritten. Botbol's comments about his own company are a primary source and shouldn't be used in this article. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also think the current citations 11 and 12, the Viadeo and HumanIPO sources, are press releases and not RS. (note I'm not challenging HumanIPO as a whole, but this particular article. See above). Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Individual publication sections

To me, these are all WP:Promotions. None of the content currently there is sourced to secondary RS covering the publications themselves. If secondary RS discussing the publications themselves can not be found, I would delete the text and change the sections into one section of bullet points listing the publications. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison with Mediapart

The other company mentioned in the VAT discussion, Mediapart, is an interesting comparison with regards to Indigo's notability. Mediapart's article shows two cases where reporting in Mediapart was so significant that a RS published an article discussing the company itself. Mediapart is clearly notable. Yet the content of the article has little more than a reference to these two cases. (which is fine, if that's all the encyclopedic content that can be written, great. Keep it a short article.) The FrenchLeaks launch might be notable, but it's hard to say from just the sources given, which simply repeat Mediapart press releases. (sound familiar?). I would be very happy to call Indigo notable if something close to Mediapart's notability is produced. As it stands, Indigo is much less notable than Mediapart. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference: History of Intelligence Online

Per report prepared by the United States Information Agency for the United States House Committee on Appropriations: Beginning in 1980, the Association pour le Droit a l'Information published Bulletin d'Information sur les Interventions Clandestines (BIIC). Edited by Olivier Schmidt, BIIC changed its name to Le Monde du Renseignement in 1983. An English-language version, Intelligence/Parapolitics became the Intelligence Newsletter in late 1988.[3] Intelligence Newsletter became Intelligence Online.[4] - Location (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hello, I have made changes to this wikipedia pages on 02.01.2020 based on email response that I have received from owner of this company: Indigo Publications. I can send this email to any email address for verification. I see that Indigo Publications have now deleted my input to wikipedia and locked this wiki page so that I can not report what they do with the account holder's monies. I request wikipedia to reinstate what I wrote earlier on this page i.e. Customer Refund Policy as on Jan 2020 On 02/Jan/2020, when contacted by a customer for refund of unused credit (monies), Indigo Publication informed to customer that "Unfortunately, we do not give reimbursements on e-wallets, as specified in our terms & conditions: "Indigo Publications does not make any reimbursements for any balance remaining on the E-wallet." So, perspective customers should carefully make note of this rule. (Redacted) 88.98.78.241 (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We do not publish your personal email correspendance, see WP:No original research and WP:Realiable sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]