Talk:Sorted (magazine)

Recents edits to the article
As noted in the AN report that Black Kite, Viewmont Viking, Primefac and I were involved in, an IP was repeatedly removing material about the magazine's history. This history includes the magazine's initial launch as a lads' mag before rebranding itself as a wholesome, Christian lads' mag. This diff shows the text the IP was removing. The text that the IP was adding has been hidden in the edit history due to copyright violations. Primefac was in talks with the IP off Wikipedia and edited the article per statements by made by the IP. Primefac's edit's cut out all of the magazine's previous history, which recently led DolphinCentre to revert, stating, "Evangelist church attempting to mislead true founder of Sorted which is Russell Church. Now correctly stated." At WP:AN, I told Primefac that "I can't state that I agree with the complete removal of the magazine's history. A relaunch should not mean that the magazine's previous history should not be covered. And per WP:COI, we don't edit articles the way that a company wants it edited anyway."

So some thoughts are needed on this. I'll alert the WP:COI talk page and WP:COI noticeboard for more opinions. The WikiProjects at the top of this talk page have already been alerted to the edit warring dispute. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Evangelist Christian members continue to erase true founder details and accurate history of Sorted magazine. The founder was publisher Russell Church DolphinCentre (talk) 22:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The very first wiki entry under Sorted Magazine contains the most accurate data and citations regarding Sorted Magazine. Please help restore this. DolphinCentre (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , you make a very valid point, and maybe that will make DolphinCentre happy. I've re-added a line about its former incarnation. Primefac (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have been thinking about it, though, and is it really a "relaunch" if it's a different founder with a different mission and goals? That would be like if Google shut down and two years down the line I started a company Google that made GoPro mounts. Primefac (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Primefac, I don't view that as being the same thing. In this case, it appears that another person took over the company and relaunched/rebranded it. Starting a completely unrelated company is different. We should cover history in our Wikipedia articles...if there is history to cover on the matter with reliable sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing anything in any reference I have found that corroborates "Legg took over from Church". The first mag went defunct in '04, the second started in '07. Seems odd that there would be a three-year gap. Yes, they're both magazines, but they cater to different audiences. Primefac (talk) 01:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a fascinating situation and rather an interesting case. Looking into the past a present page edits for Sorted Magazine, and checking against available facts in the public domain from an impartial standpoint, it would appear that Wikipedians might like to check what are recorded as 'facts' (based from a citation from Sorted's own media pack) against citations now deleted in previous Wiki edits. For example, the domain name "SortedMag.com" appears on the front page of Sorted and was exactly the same one originally registered by Russell Church in the 2004 editions of the same title. Could well intentioned Christian evangelist have used this to drive traffic to their relaunched brand? Next, the social media twitter feed @SortedMagazine used to promote the current Christian evangelist Sorted Magazine states: "Sorted goes out in 21 countries worldwide" (sic). Given the print figures quoted by their own media pack of a little over 4000 subscription costed units and 20000 freely handed out, 21 countries would be an impossibility. Even the Lord Jesus struggled to supply fresh fish for the thousands without divine intervention.... I jest a little, but this is still an interesting issue that perhaps those more experienced with Wiki protocol could cast an eye over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.250.169.18 (talk) 12:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * DolphinCentre, this is exactly why we do not rely on PRIMARY sources to verify information. A contentious claim such as "21 countries" would need to be met with a very reliable source, and their own website or media pack is not that. This is why the "21 countries" information is not found in the article.
 * As for the website - if Legg knew that Sorted existed when they decided to start a magazine, then I'm not overly surprised that they would also take the same domain name. Hell, even if he didn't know it existed, "SortedMag" is one of two things I would name my URL if I had a magazine called Sorted (the other being "SortedMagazine"). So I'm really struggling to see how there's a great conspiracy when it's rather logical thinking regardless of how it's read.
 * Now, I will fully admit that if there is a source out there that says "Legg used to work with/for/around Church and decided to reboot Church's failed magazine" then I will happily rescind all of my comments. I highly doubt that exists, though, and in the absence of reliable references I simply don't see a connection between the two magazine versions. Primefac (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The IP is DolphinCentre? Probably. Either way, yet another account has entered the fray:.


 * As for primary sources, we do use primary sources (as noted at WP:PRIMARY); it's just that they should be used sparingly and with care. Per WP:About self, we also use a company's words for information about itself, as long as no exceptional claims are made and the other WP:About self stipulations aren't violated. "21 countries" can be argued as falling into "exceptional claim" territory. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

There is, I believe, justification in retaining the Wiki article on Sorted magazine. The sentence that has since been redacted from an earlier edit that references the Leveson era and the reason there appeared to be a circulation bump for titles with strong moral credentials was worthy of inclusion. This explained why Sorted gained in circulation, briefly, before declining, as most of the other more traditional lads' mags have done. This is worth documenting. The evangelical Christian movement is being deceptive, however, if suggesting this circulation increase is ongoing and was ever sustained. A brief study of the accounts for SON CHRISTIAN MEDIA LIMITED (the Christian publishing company that produces Sorted) is available on the public record via the UK government's companies house register, and it will reveal that the magazine is in an ever increasing level of debt. Maintaining that the British male has developed a genuine newfound interest in Christianity, due to the 'success' of Sorted outselling other lad's mags, simply cannot be supported by the facts. The magazine is costing thousands of pounds to run and is probably yet another example of where Christian money would be better spent on giving it directly to the poor, homeless or hungry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DolphinCentre (talk • contribs) 07:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Please try to read the first ever recorded article on Wikipedia for Sorted. And please check citations to this article. Most accurate to date. DolphinCentre (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Certainly true that the domain name www.Sortedmag.com was originally used on the Russell Church version of Sorted and has been referenced as such in national press articles on Russell Church and his desire to blend print and digital publishing. Also factual to credit Church with being a pioneer of this. The Christian evangelical mimick version of Sorted has only recently started using the same domain name and now features it on their cover. Son Christian Media also publishes Liberti magazine, which uses the letter 'i' instead of 'y' in order to mimick the famous secular brand called Liberty magazine. And The Son is a Christian version of Rupert Murdoch's The Sun. These are all distributed at Christian festivals, churches and communities in a effort to win readers to Christian evangelism. DolphinCentre (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

version 3.0
I've rewritten it (again) in the most neutrally-worded and timeline-accurate way I can think of. Both founders are mentioned (in order), both target audiences are given, and I do not think anyone can argue with the facts as I have presented them. If there is a further issue, could we please discuss it here rather than continually revert each other? Primefac (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Background of the founders
Who the founders are (or were) is completely immaterial, because they are not notable individuals in their own right. It doesn't matter if Russell Church and Steve Legg were serial magazine founders, chefs, children's entertainers, or just some guy restocking the shelves at Asda. The facts of the matter are the two men founded the two versions of the magazine. Primefac (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)