Talk:The Economist/Archive 1

minor addition
Added the following statement to the "Tone and voice" section: It does however almost always describe the business of an entity whose name it prints, even if it's a well known business. For example: "Goldman Sachs, an investment bank,", since I believe that this has some relevance in the context of the overall prose of the newspaper, which assumes that the reader understands concepts, but takes the space to describe even well known (brand)-names.

Where to mention the newspaper/magazine thing
Curps I noticed you moved the mention of the form factor back to the lead section. I think is inappropriately high profile, and I get the impression that you personal opinion (that it is daft to call itself a newspaper when it is plainly a magazine) is clouding your judgement, maybe. What it looks like is not a big deal. Its political/economic standpoint and its influence are much more significant than a silly little thing about naming. Agreed that ==Business== was not the best section. I have started a brand new section. I hope I am not mis-representing you but also hope you think what I have just put is a reasonable way to present things. Pcb21| Pete 11:14, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The introduction of any article must tell what the subject of the article is.  The Economist is a bit of special case: to understand what it is, we need to take extra care to clarify the special meaning of the word "newspaper" before it is routinely used in the rest of the article.


 * You're not really gaining any brevity. You have added a 20-word sentence in the place of a 40-word sentence, at the price of repeating the 40-word sentence later and starting an entire new section. But the logical place for this information isn't in any separate section, it's in the introduction, otherwise you wouldn't have put that 20-word sentence there in the first place.


 * Whether it is daft to call itself a "newspaper" is beside the point. England is full of daft traditions, which is part of its charm. Nobody plays croquet at the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club either.


 * If you think the current phrasing is somehow "judgmental", it could be rephrased somehow. But for the sake of clarity and informativeness, the information belongs in the introduction. The way you have done it leaves readers incompletely informed and quite possibly confused, and requires restating the full information later anyway, all for the sake of saving twenty words in the introduction.


 * -- Curps 18:15, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Current version is OK by me, though there could be another para in the intro. What else would the intro need to be a severely-synopsised standalone precis? - David Gerard 19:44, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Seems to me that I remember there being a legal distinction in the UK about newspapers and magazines. I guess that this may well have been deregulated by now, but I'm guessing that the distinction is a historical thing - after all they've been going for a while.


 * I managed to find an edition where I have one from several territories... The company that publishes it is called 'The Economist Newspaper Ltd' which also gives another clue. The small print on a UK copy mentions that it is 'Registered as a Newspaper'. In the same copy of the SE Asia edition (printed Singapore, collected on Thai Airways) that first bit is missing. I would assume therefore that the newspaper thing is a legal UK distinction and largely irrelevant outside that jurisdiction. --KayEss 18:04, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * In today's usage, a "newspaper" invariably refers to a daily publication on newsprint in either broadsheet or tabloid format. The historically-based usage of this term for the Economist simply has to be explained for the benefit of those unfamiliar with the publication.  Otherwise the main body of the article, interchangeably referring to "the newspaper" and "the magazine", creates a great deal of confusion. -- Curps 04:34, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Under English law The Economist is considered newspaper. Under section 1, Newspaper Libel and Registration Act 1881 - which is still in force - "a 'newspaper' is defined as any paper containing public news, intelligence, or occurrences, or any remarks or observations therein printed for sale, and published in England or Northern Ireland periodically, or in parts or numbers at intervals not exceeding 26 days between the publication of any two papers, parts or numbers." (source: http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/about/gbhtml/gb03.shtml, registration authority for UK companies).


 * However, the Companies House link you cite also states: "registration is not required if the newspaper is owned by a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1985, or under one of its predecessors" - which The Economist appears to be (The Economist Group Ltd.). Economist.com states: "First, why does it call itself a newspaper? Even when The Economist incorporated the Bankers' Gazette and Railway Monitor from 1845 to 1932, it also described itself as "a political, literary and general newspaper" It still does so because, in addition to offering analysis and opinion, it tries in each issue to cover the main events—business and political—of the week. It goes to press on Thursdays and, printed simultaneously in six countries, is available in most of the world's main cities the following day or soon after." Barnabypage 15:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The Economist seems to call itself a newspaper because for the past 124 years that has been and remains its legal status in its home territory (England).


 * Incidentally, in the UK edition of The Economist, at the end of the contents section, among the small print about publisher and copyright you will find the wording 'Registered as a newspaper'. This is legally required wording reflecting The Economist's company registration status. The same wording can be found printed in all UK daily, weekly, and Sunday newspapers and magazines. -- Gjm 07:21, 08 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * I thought the registration was in order to benefit from reduced postal rates? It's certainly not required for magazines in general. Barnabypage 18:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably the intro should say that it's targeted at a high-end prestige market, and counts influential business and government decision-makers worldwide among its target audience. Phrased in some sufficiently NPOV way. -- Curps 23:46, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

witticisms?
The article says: The one feature almost all articles have in common is the concluding witticism.

Certainly the Economist does have a particular dry sense of humour, but I don't think there is a concluding witticism in almost all, or even most articles. It can often also be demonstrated by an introductory remark, a headline or subheadline, a photo caption, or a photo. In fact in recent editions I think these are more common than a concluding witticism.

opinions
I'd like to say that they have a "moderate" libertarian position. They certainly tend away from government regulation, but may argue for more of it on particular issues. [Anon]

I agree and to aid this have added a couple more to their "support" list. They do clearly support environmental regulation (see the survey on Corporate Social Responsibility, Jan 2005) and they appear to greatly admire Bill Gates' charitable position. --MJW 81.154.201.45 14:18, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

2004 US presidential election quote
In an edit entitled, "Opinions - i don't see that the quote is really relevant?" T-bomb removed "The incompetent or the incoherent?" from:
 * In the past, the magazine has endorsed:
 * John Kerry, Democrat (U.S. presidential election, 2004): "The incompetent or the incoherent?"
 * John Kerry, Democrat (U.S. presidential election, 2004): "The incompetent or the incoherent?"

I think that the quote should be included, because it tells us, in the Economist's own words, how reluctant it was to endorse Kerry and why it felt it had to. However, I would prefer, "The incompetent &#91;George W. Bush&#93; or the incoherent &#91;John Kerry&#93;?" Tim Ivorson 09:49, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I am the one who added the quote and in retrospect it should have been phrased differently. But I certainly think it should remain in there, for the reasons you stated. I thought it was a great title, I even bought the issue after I already knew the winner. saturnight 21:38, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Censorship
Added section on Censorship. However, I'm uncertain if this is routine for other newspapers. I can't imagine the Wall Street Journal is censored quite so ruthlessly in Burma, for example, but then I don't know if people want to know their view on the house-arrest of the opposition leader. The Nelson Mandela comment came from the Economist itself. Can the Economist simultaneously be the subject of the article and a reputable source for a quote about itself by someone they've written about? Seems a bit circular to me. --MJW 81.154.201.45 14:18, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Letters
I've always been impressed by the decision-makers who write into the Economist, so I included a new bit. Does anyone else think the same? If not, take the section out... Maybe I'm gushing slightly. --MJW 81.154.201.45 14:18, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Different Versions
Again, I don't know how common this is for global journals/newspapers, but the US, European and UK versions of the Economist are in a different order to each other and have some articles completely missing. Is this worth mentioning? --MJW 81.154.201.45 14:18, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

History section
It's a shame that there is no history section, I would write if myself if I had the time and knew anything about it, and could write. -- Joolz 23:39, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tony Blair in 2001?
The article states that the magazine endorsed Blair in 2001, but the title of the linked article ("Vote Conservative") certainly does not suggest that. Which is it?

Labour Party, led by Tony Blair (UK general election, 2001): “Vote conservative” [6] (http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displayStory.cfm?story_ID=639306&subjectid=483478)

Funnyhat 18:26, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The article title states "Vote conservative" and not "Vote Conservative" (note the small-c vs. big-C). Without being able to read the subscriber-only article itself I'd have to guess their point was that Labour had become fiscally conservative, and that the article goes on to endorse Blair for that reason. 64.180.109.90 18:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The article does indeed endorse Tony Blair, despite its title: it is subtitled "But choose the ambiguous right-winger rather than the feeble one" and the final heading reads "Vote Labour, reluctantly". &mdash; Dan | Talk 18:43, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Quotation about gun control in the US
Can anyone find a good line that shows support for greater gun control in America? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruguiea (talk • contribs) 05:11, 25 June 2005


 * Several can be found on The Economist's website (http://www.economist.com/). I have listed article summaries supplied by the magazine below preceded by the article title and publication date. One needs a subsciption to fully view each of the articles. Sources: and


 * A sniper terrorises Washington's suburbs, 10 October 2002 - Yet more reason to deplore guns, even as Democrats have started to like them
 * Gun ownerships and child death, 28 February 2002 - More guns at home means more child deaths. Surprised?
 * Gun control and crime, 11 January 2001 - New research shoots holes in the idea that guns in the hands of private citizens will help to deter criminals
 * Playing with fire, 21 December 2000 - The American gun lobby thinks children should be taught to use guns. Safely, of course, and just for sport or personal security, what else? The idea is as old as it is dangerous
 * I hope these are sufficient. --Oldak Quill 20:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Article at risk of degenerating into a set of lists?
Recently added content (where recent ~ 6 months) seems to have given the article a listy feel. Anyone fancy taking up the challenge of making it more prose-y? Pcb21| Pete 17:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You are quite correct. We must be prepared for a fight from list-creators, however, who think their particular item is too valuable to be removed/condensed. - DavidWBrooks 19:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Politics of The Economist
Just read this Wikipedia article for the first time and it is quite useful, giving quite a few facts I wasn't aware of, particularly in the political positions it has held.

(I have also just added the words "largely critical" to the article, but I'm not certain if they are appropriate, so, "be bold".)

Something I have noticed as a consistent theme in The Economist is that there is a subtle "bias" in its editorial positions. 'Bias' is a dangerous word, of course, and I don't mean to suggest that it consistently supports a particular political movement, for example. Rather, the analysis articles often seem to be based on an unmentioned assumption that greater economic productivity is the one and only aim of economic policy, save for the occasional effort to be charitable in exceptional circumstances (curing AIDS in Africa for example), or to prevent irreversible environmental damage.

In other words, there is a running theme that "laissez-faire is right", and the articles tend to address the concerns that are left over once this principle is accepted. The main problem with this is that it assumes away a number of political debates which are still on-going: the questions of economic and social inequality, the role of industry in society (should private individuals influence markets without hindrance?), the state provision of services such as transport, health or education -- the kinds of issues, in other words, which motivate left-wing politicians.

The Ecoomist is certainly biased in it's support of laissez faire attitudes. In the 28th October issue, the article on france is completely off the wall praising thatcher and prescribing her to a disaffected french population to do what she did with the miners in the banlieues of Paris, describing the bill for job reform which was crushed through mass protest as modest labour market reform and suggesting it introduces pro-competitive rform to its labour market. Just one example. The magazine is excellently informative if you can withstand these obvious leanings however.

I hope I don't sound like a raving Stalinist in raising this point. I am not trying to argue that a left-wing response to the questions above is superior to a right-wing response. My point is that there is more than one response, but one doesn't get that impression from reading The Economist, or at least, The Economist always seems to favour a laissez-faire outcome to its analyses.

Perhaps a small mention of this could be made in the article. Robertbyrne 05:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe you are observing a thoroughly acknowledged and intended bias which results from The Economist's founding principle of fiscal conservatism; see the second paragraph of the "opinions" section. It is certainly an opinion publication, offers commentary on almost all issues, and does not purport to be an unbiased news source. Even some of the blurbs in "The World This Week" carry the occasional bit of subtly snide sarcasm. (Pardon me while I congratulate myself on that bit of alliteration.) &mdash; Dan | Talk 05:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Not just subtly snide but suitably scintillating - boy, those guys know how to write. Even when I disagree with their slant, which isn't uncommon, I still enjoy it. - DavidWBrooks 13:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I have added a (probably less than suitably scintillating, more slightly snarky) sentence to the introduction reflecting what has been said in this discussion. A comment like this in a prominent place is basically what I was interested in adding.

As for the article on "advocacy journalism", it isn't the greatest article on Wikipedia. I made a number of grammar and language changes in the opening paragraphs of it to tidy it up a bit (which are hopefully still there!) If you are looking at the discussion page of Advocacy journalism, be sure to scroll down to the end, where the chap/lady who initially expressed reservations about the article recants somewhat, having made some edits him/herself. Robertbyrne 05:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've always wondered how one can be 'to the extreme centre' --Jayau1234 16:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Opinion list
The "Opinions" section of this article is getting ridiculous - an enormous (and completely useless) list. I am strongly tempted to cut it out entirely. - DavidWBrooks 23:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * As a reader (and only rarely an editor) of this article, I find it very useful, and it's really not all that large. I think it should stay. &mdash; Dan | Talk 00:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add my view that I also find the list of opinions very useful and interesting, and think it should stay. It is particularly relevant since The Economist always argues its points so strongly, and because of the lack of by-lines, does so more as an institution than as a media outlet. Comparisons of positions adopted over time are therefore very informative, of both deeply-held positions, and changing positions on certain issues. Robertbyrne 03:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. If it doubles in size I'll try again! - DavidWBrooks 18:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... it could become a separate article at some point. Robertbyrne 19:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, I was thinking that we could send an email to the Economist itself and ask what if they agree with it. I disagree with an article on voluntary extinction (see above) and that'd be a good way to be sure. Tony. Second thought, maybe a box on the side (like a sidebar) would work too. I don't know how to do that though.


 * No sidebar is really possible, but it could be turned into a separate article and linked from this article ... that seems like overkill to me, though. - DavidWBrooks 21:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * If we can find an accurate title for the suggested generic article, than it would be a good idea. Cheers -- Svest 21:44, 17 September 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
 * How about "Positions and endorsments taken by the Economist"? Also, I could send an email to 'letters@economist.com' once it's done, so that they can check on that. Tony
 * I think we only need a shorter title. Something like The Economist (Positions)? Cheers -- Svest 03:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
 * I think the most accurate title would be The Economist editorial stance. Svest 15:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up&#153;
 * Yeah, The Economist editorial stance sounds like a good title Tony
 * That separate article (The Economist editorial stance) is getting too big though, and has general sections e.g.: "background", "criticism" and "tone and voice". Those parts don't belong under the "editorial stance" heading. Should we transfer those paragraphs back to the main Economist article? --Michaël 21:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The article The Economist editorial stance is now alive. Categorization will be fixed later on. Cheers -- Wiki me up&#153;

ignore Economist's official opinion
Don't e-mail the Economist! Or, rather, you can e-mail the Economist, but wikipedia must feel free to ignore their official opinion.

One of the tenets of journalism is that you rarely get sources to help write their articles, because they have an inherent bias; they'll invariably turn stories into self-serving mush. Wikipedia isn't journalism, per se, but it's also not a collection of press releases or self-descriptions - it's supposed to be objective (as much as possible) oversight.

This particular topic, since it's entirely based on publicly available material, is one where wikipedias can do the necessary research. We don't care whether the official source agrees with it or not. - DavidWBrooks 12:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I am taking the same position as David. Cheers -- Svest 15:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up&#153;


 * OK, I'll email them myself and see what they think of one or two topics (in case I get a reply) and then, maybe insert what they reply. Cheers Tony Tony 15:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi Tony. Do you think that their reply would be encyclopedic?! It's like editing Michael Jackson article and contact him for his view!!! Who cares?! Cheers -- Svest 15:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;


 * New opinions are always welcome. --F. Cosoleto 21:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

If emailing The Economist generated a useful response, it would count as original research &mdash; on the part of the person who emailed and the person at The Economist who wrote the reply &mdash; and the results would therefore not be eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia. Furthermore, even if they were eligible for inclusion, they would be The View A Journalist At The Economist Takes On The Economist's Opinions And Advocacies, not those opinions and advocacies themselves. Thus the idea of using this method of research would result in material for an article other than this article, which into the bargain would not be a valid Wikipedia article.

But tell us if they say anything interesting :) Robertbyrne 04:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Why not creating the article on opinion (see above) and then I'll email them and we'll see what they say... Tony


 * The article The Economist editorial stance is now alive. Cheers -- Svest 18:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;

Circulation
Part of this article reads: ''Circulation for the newspaper, audited by Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC), is on average 1,009,759 (July 2004-December 2004 figures) sales per week. Sales outside North America totalled 492,167 (48.74%), with sales in Latin and North America making up 517,592 (51.26%).'' Are there really no readers of The Economist in Latin America, as this section seems to be saying? Matthew 16:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well spotted. Go ahead and fix it. Pcb21| Pete 20:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't have the figures. Anyone who does, feel free.... Matthew 22:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the sentence. Latin America sales are included in the 517,592. The readership in Latin America is around 1%. . Cheers -- Svest 15:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;


 * The way that the sentence is worded, Latin American sales are only included in the 517,592 if there are no sales in Latin America. Otherwise the numbers don't add up. Matthew 17:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've updated it with the newer numbers and rewritten it slightly. - DavidWBrooks 18:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Economist annual 'The World in nnnn' magazine?
The Economist publishes annually a large glossy magazine called The World in nnnn (nnnn=2006 this year). It contains articles about the year ahead by prominent figures from many fields, statistical overviews and a section summarising key information about most countries and regions in the World. See their website: http://www.economist.com/theworldin/

I don't see it mentioned in the main article - should it be? VJDocherty 16:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

New editor
In case somebody wants a source.

Cheers, Tony 20:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"general disagreement with the paper's classical liberalism" ?
The last sentance of the last section says: "Although The Economist supported George W. Bush's election campaign in 2000 and vocally supported the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the editors backed John Kerry in the 2004 election and the editorial tone has since become increasingly critical of the Bush administration due to its general disagreement with the paper's classical liberalism."

The Economist has become increasingly critical of the Bush administration, but is it really due to a "general disagreement with the paper's classical liberalism" on the part of the BUsh administration? It seems to me the disagreement has more to do with post-war planning than ideological disagreements over Classic Liberalism. Any thoughts? &mdash; Linnwood 20:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The endorsement of the Kerry campaign was mainly to do with the Iraq War. Even so, the Economist has criticized the administration on a number of fronts, poor planning for a post-war Iraq, its inability to maintain fiscal discipline, continuing prosecution of the drug war. Not sure you boil down their stance on this administration to just the classic liberalism.

Editors
I reorganized the section. Some information is missing but I have the email of someone who works there. Should we contact them or not? Is it against the no new research policy? Tony 02:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * All right, I got a hold of the Pursuit of Reason and fixed the editors' list. You may notice that there's something funny around the year 1877 but it is as in the book... Weird, maybe just a typo
 * Tony 20:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Position on recreational drug use
Since I have seen quite a few articles in The Economist advocating legalization of all drugs, including cocaine (which seems to be the drug of choice in London's financial circles), I think this magazine policy should be mentioned in the Wikipedia article.


 * Do you have the addresses of the article in questions with quotations? Tony 22:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link

Changed political category to Liberalism from Economism
I've changed the political category because Economism is a POV article (grossly so), and more to the point, The Economist doesn't believe in what that article describes. Only last week I read in a leader that taxes were a good way to reduce environmental damage - how much "economism" is that? Tamino 09:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "economic liberalism" is necessarily the best category to put The Economist in. "Classical liberalism" would be better, but that article has its neutrality disputed. But generally, political designations on newspapers or magazines are broad: e.g. "centre-left" (The Guardian), "centre-right" (The Daily Telegraph), "liberal" (The Independent), "left-of-centre" (New Statesman) and so on. In my view "liberal" is the best broad term for The Economist, as they are not just "economic liberals" but also social libertarians (gay marriage, prostitution, drugs...). Anyone who wants more detail than is available in the box can always read the article. Tamino 07:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see the neutrality or otherwise of a link destination as being a reason to change the link. I would agree that classical liberal is probably the most appropriate designation but would disagree that 'liberal' is a reasonable alternative.  If the issue is with the POV/ NPOV status of the Classical Liberalism article then address that, rather than place a deceptive link here.ALR 07:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is liberalism deceptive? Would anyone who writes in The Economist not regard him- or herself as a liberal or maybe libertarian? The point I was trying to make is that the standard on other Wikipedia articles (such as the ones I list above) seems to be to make a broad categorisation rather than a narrow one, even if the narrow one would be more accurate (with the details of the publication's position made clear in the article text). Otherwise, The Independent would have to be social liberal, The Daily Telegraph conservative or possibly liberal conservative and so on. I do however see your point about the disputed nature of the economic liberalism article not being relevant. Tamino 09:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to get in to a long drawn out arguement about what "liberalism" is, but The Economist is certainly not a "liberal" publication. The use of Liberal in this faction is so broad as to tell you nothing. Their editorial slant is that of towards free market capitalism. Economic liberalism, though imperfect, is what best describes the publication. &mdash; Linnwood 17:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge
The Economist editorial stance pretty much duplicates some of this article, I don't see that it adds much to the corpus of material.ALR 07:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The editorial stance information used to be in The Economist, until it was split off: Talk:The_Economist. Kewpid 12:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have put the 'Background' and 'Tone and Voice' sections back into the main article and removed them from the editorial stance article. Kewpid 12:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a quite good section and, for the most part, I like it. Good work.  It should stay. Rlove 16:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd read through the background, but the editorial stance article had grown into a duplicate of the material in this article, although structured differently. The changes make it more reasonable.ALR 18:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that a merge is needed. We can cleanup The Economist editorial stance by removing the duplicated material. Cheers -- Szvest 18:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;


 * It should be merge back into this article, it is a fork of little encyclopedic value when it's removed from the comtext of this article.--Peta 01:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Peta is right. The only reason which was given for breaking off this "editorial stance" section into its own article was the length of the section...but I don't think it's unwieldy. D a v e R u n g e r (t)⁄(c) 21:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no problem w/ the merge as i read your valid points. -- Szvest 17:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;

I disagree with the proposed merge. I think they are more usefully split out into two articles. Time splits into a main article and a 'man of the year article' for the same reason. Together it would just be too long and clunky clunky. Legis 19:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree. The editorial stance should simply be merged into The Economist article, it would serve more purpose here. Xioyux 00:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagree per Legis. Also if it is borderline clunky now, it will only get worse in the future as the list is sure to grow. Kewpid 04:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we can have an abbreviated section of sorts about the editorial stance, which goes into further depth in a separate article, just like the Time Person of the Year issue mentioned above. There is a small section in the Time magazine article, and Person of the Year has its own, more in-depth article. I still somewhat think that the entire editorial stance of the Economist should be in the main article, but perhaps this could be a good middle road.  D a v e R u n g e r (t)⁄(c) 01:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I Agree with merging The Economist Editorial Stance into The Economist. We cannot forget that The Economist Editorial Stance revolves solely around The Economist and therefore it is somewhat silly to have a completely different piece for it at the moment. I don't see the reason at all.
 * -- (A.szczep) 16:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I lightly disagree with a merge. While they could probably be merged now, there's definitely room for growth in the "editorial stance" article that would validate its purpose as a split-off. It seems that activity has ceased for the pro-merge stance; should the tags be taken off, for now at least? SnowFire 04:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose merge. -- Petri Krohn 12:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

So where are we now? I believe that most contributors disagree about the merge. I am removing the template for now. If you feel it is still unclear, feel free to readd it again and discuss it. --  Szvest   - Wiki me up ®  13:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Opinion
Shouldn't we make a list of issues which the magazine takes stance? Free trade, illegal drug, gay marriage, Global warming (Kyoto), and so on. It makes an interesting list. I also do not agree the magazine's position as libertarian which imply hostility to the goverment per se. Vapour
 * The Economist editorial stance contains a fairly extensive list of the magazine's positions. Kewpid 14:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Should't there be a paragraph about the "newspaper's" biased pro-American, anti-european view ? I mean that, every time I read it, I get the impression that in most of it's aricles it insists on siding with the semi-official views of American observers and think-tanks; it strongly criticises the EU while being fairly optimistic about every decision of the US administration, weights everything (e.g. ally nations) according to US interests, siding with the Bush administration even when the rest of the world condems its decisions, and hardly ever seems to get into the real depth of the issues it deals with, because of it's famously dry "writing style". All that is rather strange, considering its (long forgotten ?) British origins - at any rate, it perpatuates the view of Britons being the ass-wiping spy of Americans on Europe, a view I totally disagree with. In my opinion it's a good paper, but one that sparks controversy.


 * Not many people are honest enough to admit that "biased" and "a view I totally disagree with" are synonyms. - DavidWBrooks 02:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Concur w/ David. In other words, "i totally disagree with The Economist stance" while not calling it a bias! -- Szvest 10:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I actually wanted to say that I find the newspaper biased toward several issues, in a way that it endorses a position in a way that doesn't seem founded well enough. Maybe this is due the particular dry style of the newspaper and its need (or wish) to summarize as much as possible, leaving out things ( eg references to other writers, citations of public figures where they are discussed), that the text doesn't really need to keep the essence of its meaning. It is a very original and individual style that I have rarely met in an international newspaper ( Le Monde, for example, The Times, Die Zeit and - my personal favourite - Die Frankfurter Allgemeine - work in a totaly different way ), and it struck me as somewhat strange, because I would expect that for to found and support a political opinion a writer needs to support his/her views with tons of reference. The Ecnomist states its views with a cheeky, self-assured pose. For a paper - be it a magazine or an old-fashioned newpaper - that sells over a million copies all over the world ( by the way, so does the Spiegel, even though it sells "only" in Germany) and that aspires for the most influential people in the world to be among its readers ( Mandela, from what I read in the article, used to subscribe to The Ec ), I would expect something better than opinions you can get to read in a chatroom at 2.00 am or hear about in the local pup. Then again, it practises advocacy journalism, it can say anything it likes to support an opinion - and that by itself strucks me as peculiar : A newspaper shouldn't have an opinion, at least not an overtly and clearly expressed one as The Economist does, saying that this or that needs to be done, rather than stating dry facts first. But of course, it's not necessarily one : even in Wikipedia The Economist is defines as a newsmagazine, not a newspaper, as it insists to call itself. Now to the facts : I didn't like the cover with the French Rooster, because it seemed to pass the scarcely subconcious message that, deep down, the French are ridiculous chickens. I didn't know that bigotism can be unbiased. At any rate, I could explain it in a national newspaper of any country, that needs to please its own (nationalistic) readers first, not in an international paper, that has readers of all ethnicities ( including French ones). Because of a research I was doing, I also bought the issue on Islam in Europe ( Eurabia), showing on its cover the Eiffel Tower-turned-mosque. In the feature article itself, it was argued that the danger of Islam in Europe is of minimum importance ( contrasting to the provocative cover, which obviously had as its only aim to sell more issues ), and then the (losers) inefficient Europe was compared to the efficient and succesful US, who easily manage the integration of moslem immigrants. The image of an inefficient Europe was presented mainly through the riots of Arab immigrants in France ( again, the imbecile French, who can't do a thing straight ), discreetly pasing by the fact that no such thing has happened in Germany, a country with an equally large number of moslems, Spain, Sweden, Belgium ( the birthplace of Natacha Atlas :-) ), Bulgaria etc. The Economist rightly states that, despite their better intergration in society, muslim terrorists attacked the US and not France. But further questions regarding the Arab-American relations in the past few years remain unanswered. So, if the Economist has the right to say this or that as an opinion, I suppose that I am equally entitled to do the same. P.S. You mention that I consider any view I disagre with as biased. "Biased" was referring to the views of The Economist in general. " View I disagree with" was the image of Brits etc. I suppose you mean that any view of the E I disagree with, is biased. In that case, if we interpret it your way, the last issue of The Economist should have been "The British : America's Ass-wipers ? " ( with a roll of toilet paper on the cover ? unsigned comment by IP 213.16.198.56

Comment
The world in... should really appear in the article. This is something really special, because when every other newspaper publishes a review of the past year the Economist looks ahead. unsigned comment by IP 84.153.169.34

Use of salutations
Might this article also note that The Economist always refers to people with a salutation, i.e., it will refer to Tony Blair as "Mr. Blair." Most other newspapers and magazines stopped this form of address decades ago. Patiwat 19:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * N.Y. Times does it ... to ludicrous extremes, once referring to the singer Meat Loaf as "Mr. Loaf" on second reference. - DavidWBrooks 01:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not all that uncommon in the UK, whence The Economist hails. Barnabypage 10:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed - although in The Economist and elsewhere it would be "Mr Blair" since there is no full stop after such salutations in British English. Paul Christensen (Hong Kong) 04:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The famous instance of this is "Mr. Bastards", in reference to the gentleman from Leeds who changed his name to "Yorkshire Bank PLC Are Fascist Bastards" upon being issued a steep charge for an overdraft on his checking account. &mdash; Dan | talk 05:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
Just thought id point out that the there seems to be a pattern in the Economist of using references to Douglas Adam's 'Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy." I thought I would list the instances I know of and then anyone else can add to them.  Perhaps if there  seems to be enough we can mention it on the page. I know this might seem lame because I can only think of two examples and that doesnt exactly constitute a pattern but im 100% sure there's significantly more and i bet some of you know of them which is why im posting. You might need to be a subscriber to access the link references I posted below.

Needless to say i havent been reading the Economist as much lately as I use to but I remember at least one or two other times I saw references to these books. Perhaps this reflected the mood of the current editor at the time because I havent seen anything lately. If you know of any other refernces they've made please list them here. I bet we can get at least a few more.

Please keep adding numbers if you know of more. Thanks. Sojourner99 15:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this is a bit tenuous. I'm sure there have been many references to popular culture or allusions to works of literature in the Economist, and this type of trivia could overwhelm the article. Catchpole 18:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I still believe theres a pattern of these particular references. Anyway theres no harm in posting here on the discussion page. I wont consider even putting it on the main page unless i get many more examples. I did some research the other day on the economist website and got the following: Sojourner99 04:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok the list is getting bigger, i think it warrents attention for inclusion on the Trivia section. Sojourner99 04:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

1) An issue a few years ago (March 11th 2004) referred to a passage about the supercompter Deep Thought in an article about french science researchers going on strike. In the article they used the entire passage from the book where philosophers are threating Deep Thought that they will go on strike if he doesnt give in to their demands.  Deep Thought then replies, "Who would that inconvenience?"  They used this passage to illustrate how pointless the french researcher strike would be.  http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_NQJRRNR

2) EDIT: A feb 14th 2004 science and tech article on oceanography had a heading that read "Thanks, and so long to all the fish" which is of course a play on words to the title of the 4th book in Adam's Hitchhikers series entitled "So long, and thanks for all the fish." http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_NQQTSPQ

3) The economist ran piece in their art section a couple years ago about the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" book and movie. Now i know this isnt a reference to the books but more of piece on the creation of concept of the movie.  But considering how few books and movies get a piece done on them in the Economist and how even fewer of those are science fiction I think they definitely went out of their way to include this. http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_PJDJPVR

4) The May 17th 2001 edition ran Douglas Adam's obituary. Again they dont run many science fictoin writers obituaries so i think it says something that they included this. http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_GNPRJP

5) September 30th 2006 City guide on Hong Kong in the online edition refers to quotes from Adams. http://www.economist.com/cities/briefing.cfm?city_id=HK&calendar=1

6) Again another reference where they mention both Adams by name and the "Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy." In the June 8th technology Quarterly there is an article named "How to Build a Babel Fish" referring of course of the babel fish in Adam's book which one would put in their ear to translate languages. http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_SDDTRTJ

7) May 29th 1997 - An article about the meaning of the universe has the heading "A brilliant Oxford physicist, David Deutsch, thinks he has the secret of the universe. A breakthrough? Douglas Adams with a physics doctorate? Or another brave attempt at the impossible?" They point out Douglas Adams here because of a quote in one of the Hitchhiker books that read "There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened." Hence the reason they referred to the Oxford physicist as "Douglas Adams with a physics doctorate." http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_TVDVQJ

8) In the May 23rd 2005 edition they refer to the Nutri-Matic vending machine which was a device in the "Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy" that constructed drinks molecule by molecule. The article is about manufacturing and fabrication.  http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_PSRGPGR

9) The winner of the Economist/Shell 2001 writing prize made a reference to the first book where Earth is demolished to make way for an intergalactic freeway. Of the one essay out of the thousands they couldve picked for the top honors they pick the one containing this reference. Furthermore in the few years that the essay contest ran it seems peculiar that of all the books made reference to in all the winning essays this happens to be one of them.  http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_RPTPTR


 * I agree with Catchpole - while this list is interesting, for it to be noteworthy we would have to be sure that the magazine (sorry, newspaper ;) is not referencing other writers/quoatable sources with equal or greater frequency. Your list covers a nine-year period - how many times in that period has The Economist punned on or quoted from, for example, Dickens, Shakespeare or the Beatles? Barnabypage 12:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well to put Adams in the same category as Dickens or Shakespeare is quite a compliment to him! But realistically i doubt many would give him that much credit.  And thats just my point.  Everyone uses references from literary classics.  But how many modern science fiction writers have their work repeatedly referenced in publications like the Economist?  Sojourner99 03:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Essentially what you're doing is Original Research, unless you can find a statement in an appropriately reliable source which would identify any specific literary reference policy. And given that it's not in the style guide I think you're probably on a hiding to nothing.ALR 20:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Theres nothing wrong with original research or else whats the point of Wikipedia? It wouldnt be a community collaboration if all they wanted was the "official" take on everything.  I dont want to add a whole section to the article.  But at most one sentence after the "Tone and Voice" paragraph that talks about a "sense of whimsy."   Im not going to make an unconfirmed claim that the Economist editors have a bias toward Adams, but just simply point out that they have an "unusual number of references" to his literature.  I mean considering that Asimov and Clarke who are the fathers of modern science fiction and are among the best known writers in the world get less attention in the Economist than Adams does i think that says something and is at least worth mentioning. I will then make another page on my own seperate from this one where they can see the list ive dug up. Sojourner99 05:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I personally agree that there is nothing wrong with original research when it only amounts to stating the obvious (e.g. 'The Economist has a red masthead') but the fact remains that there is an official Wikipedia policy discouraging it - and in any case, this HHGTTG hypothesis goes beyond the obvious... Barnabypage 13:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:NORALR 07:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Finding and quoting a reference pointing out this fact would facilitate including it in the article. I had noticed The Economist's affinity towards Adams too. (I can't claim the references to Adams are more frequent than those to Dickens or Shakespeare, because the latter are more common in general and thus stick out less (IMO), but I don't recall seeing frequent references to, say, Pratchett or Clarke or even Tolkien. A superficial search on google yielded no mention of the phenomenon, however. Dig deeper! ---Sluzzelin 13:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe the fact, once verified, should be included in the Douglas Adams or THGTTG article.---Sluzzelin 13:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Letters to the edtior: idiot's corner
I can't seem to find this letter about the idiot's corner. How long ago was it published? A San Francisco Chronicle letter Nov 21, 1991 says: "Editor -- Where is this idiot's corner, and how do I get my letter there? SCOOP McGUIRE Corte Madera"

Might this be a misattribution, or is the Economist letter even older? Cool Hand  Luke  20:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Good question. I removed the reference, which wasn't very enlightening even if true. - DavidWBrooks 21:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Index of Democracy
Maybe this list can be useful as a resource.

The Economist has in a study examined the state of democracy in 167 countries and rated the nations with a Economist Intelligence Unit Index of Democracy which focused on five general categories; free and fair election process, civil liberties, functioning of government, political participation and political culture. Sweden scored a total of 9,88 on the scale of ten which was the highest result, North Korea scored the lowest with 1.03.

Full democracies: 1. Sweden, 2. Iceland, 3. Netherlands, 4. Norway, 5. Denmark, 6. Finland, 7. Luxembourg, 8. Australia, 9. Canada, 10. Switzerland, 11. Ireland & New Zealand, 13. Germany, 14. Austria, 15. Malta, 16. Spain, 17. US, 18. Czech Republic, 19. Portugal, 20. Belgium & Japan, 22. Greece 23. UK, 24. France, 25. Mauritius & Costa Rica, 27. Slovenia & Uruguay. Flawed democracies: 29. South Africa, 30. Chile, 31. South Korea, 32. Taiwan, 33. Estonia, 34. Italy, 35. India, 36. Botswana & Cyprus, 38. Hungary, 39. Cape Verde & Lithuania, 41. Slovakia, 42. Brazil, 43. Latvia, 44. Panama, 45. Jamaica, 46. Poland, 47. Israel, 48. Trinidad and Tobago, 49. Bulgaria, 50. Romania, 51. Croatia, 52. Ukraine, 53. Mexico, 54. Argentina, 55. Serbia, 56. Mongolia, 57. Sri Lanka, 58. Montenegro, 59. Namibia & Papua New Guinea, 61. Suriname, 62. Moldova, 63. Lesotho & Philippines, 65. Indonesia & Timor Leste, 67. Colombia, 68. Macedonia, 69. Honduras, 70. El Salvador, 71. Paraguay & Benin, 73. Guyana, 74. Dom Rep, 75. Bangladesh & Peru, 77. Guatemala, 78. Hong Kong, 79. Palestine, 80. Mali, 81. Malaysia & Bolivia 81. Hybrid regimes: 83. Albania, 84. Singapore, 85. Madagascar & Lebanon, 87. Bosnia and Herzegovina, 88. Turkey, 89. Nicaragua, 90. Thailand, 91. Fiji, 92. Ecuador, 93. Venezuela, 94. Senegal, 95. Ghana, 96. Mozambique, 97. Zambia, 98. Liberia, 99. Tanzania, 100. Uganda, 101.Kenya, 102. Russia, 103. Malawi, 104. Georgia, 105. Cambodia, 106. Ethiopia, 107. Burundi, 108. Gambia, 109. Haiti, 110. Armenia, 111. Kyrgyzstan, 112. Iraq. Authoritarian regimes: 113. Pakistan & Jordan, 115. Comoros & Morocco & Egypt, 118. Rwanda, 119. Burkina Faso, 120. Kazakhstan, 121. Sierra Leone, 122. Niger, 123. Bahrain, 124. Cuba & Nigeria, 126. Nepal, 127. Côte d’Ivoire, 128. Belarus, 129. Azerbaijan, 130. Cameroon, 131. Congo Brazzaville, 132. Algeria, 133. Mauritania, 134. Kuwait, 135. Afghanistan & Tunisia, 137. Yemen, 138. People's Republic of China, 139. Swaziland & Iran, 141. Sudan, 142. Qatar, 143. Oman, 144. Democratic Republic of Congo, 145. Vietnam, 146. Gabon, 147. Bhutan & Zimbabwe, 149. Tajikistan, 150. UAE, 151. Angola, 152. Djibouti, 153. Syria, 154. Eritrea, 155. Laos, 156. Equatorial Guinea, 157. Guinea, 158. Guinea-Bissau, 159. Saudi Arabia, 160. Uzbekistan, 161. Libya, 162. Turkmenistan, 163. Myanmar, 164. Togo, 165. Chad, 166. Central Africa, 167. North Korea. /////--BishheartElsie 09:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. They (The Economist) also have a Intelligence Unit's worldwide quality-of-life index (pdf). D.S. --BishheartElsie 11:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Richard Casement Internship
My first comment, so I hope I do it right - given the references in the introduction to "special features", I think the Richard Casement Internship (offered annually to a prospective writer on Science & Technology) should also be listed. Hank Stamper 10:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Economist.com
Might it be worth including something about the changes to the economist.com website? These include a weekly correspondent's diary (an innovation because the author writes as "I" although still without a byline; and also daily columns on europe (disclaimer: written by me), asia, the environment, business, technology and arts (more are planned). New blogs are also due this year (so far there are just two, on economics and american politics)

I would also say that as a long-time correspondent of the paper, I was interested in the discussion about Hitchhiker references and will raise these with my colleagues. I think this probably is an unconscious indicator of our common culture. It would be interesting to look for Monty Python allusions too. Edwardlucas 12:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that the mere fact of a magazine (sorry, newspaper ;) having a Website is by now non-notable, but substantial differences in scope or approach between the printed and online versions are worth mentioning. Barnabypage 13:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * On the Python question, the issue of Jan 13-19 2007 starts an article with "There is something rather Monty Pythonesque about the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA)..." assuming that the reader is familiar with The Life of Brian. I feel that this is not the first Python reference although I can't identify any other specific references Paul Christensen (Hong Kong) 15:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe it is worth mentioning the upcoming podcast of the economist? Newsletter subscribers to the magazine should already have received information about this. 172.209.212.122 11:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps some information on the new audio edition available at the http:/www.economist.com/audioedition? - Will Leach

It seems that the website, which used to charge non-subscribers for access to many articles, now gives everyone free access to current content. Some of the stuff in the archives is still for subscribers only, though. I am not sure when exactly this happened, but I think it's fairly recent. I don't know if it will last, either. I don't really see it as a viable business model. Does anyone have any more details about this? --sergeymk 01:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Economist makes the past year's articles freely available. Older articles are behind a paywall. Given the strong increase in the number of subscribers I'd say it is viable. The NYT decided recently that having lots of readers (and their associated revenue) was worth more than a limited number of subscribers. Kewpid 09:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Quality of The Economist
The Economist seems to be generally accepted as an one of the best magazines available in the world. Maybe that deserves to be mentioned. For example, Barton Biggs states in his book Hedgehogging, (320 pages; Wiley; 2006; ISBN 0-471-77191-0) that "Each week I try to read The Economist carefully. It is unquestionable the best magazine in the world, and nothing else has close to its global reach." Also Philip E. Tetlock notes in Expert Political Judgement, (311 pages; 2005; Priston University Press; ISBN 0-691-12302-0) that "the professionals - experts and dilettantes - possessed extra measure of sophistication that allowed them to beat the undergraduates soundly and to avoid losing by igminiously large margins to the chinp ad grude extrapolation algorithms. that extra sophistication would appear to be pegged in the vincinity of savvy readers of high-quality news sources such as the Economist, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times, the publications that dilettantes most frequently reported as useful sources of information on topics outside their expertice." In other words, people reading The Economist make better long-term forecasts about the society. --Jari.mustonen 21:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Those darned chinp ad grude extrapolation algorithms - that's why I don't subscribe! But seriously, I think we need to be very careful about formulations such as "one of the best magazines...in the world". What might be more interesting is research among, for example, CXOs of Fortune 500 companies (or any other similar listing) regarding what they read and respect. I'm sure it exists... Barnabypage 01:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree about the term "one of the best magazines ... in the world." But it is a considered to be high quality magazine. And regardless of my typos, Tetlock's research stated that those proven by history to be the most insightful people think The Economist as a useful source of information. That should stand for something. I also agree about the CXO research. I would also like to see similar listing for world leaders. Or maybe I just add above details to anectodes section. --Jari.mustonen 08:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No commercial advertisement or spam at wikipedia, thanks! Jari's suggestion could be in an advertisement of the economist, not in this article.


 * I remember an ad for The Economist, its a quote from the Oracle CEO, "Before, I used to think...now I just read The Economist." Tri400 16:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That would not be a commercial advertisement for The Economist, and I personally think assertions of certain world leaders or top businesspeople who say they read the Economist would be an interesting addition to the article. Bill Gates has said he reads it cover to cover. That sort of information is informative for the reader.--Gloriamarie 02:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps some of the people contributing to the magazine should be noted. Just recently there was an essay by Tony Blair. That's certainly a testament to its reputation. JRWalko 02:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be accurate to describe The Economist as "the longest continually published ideological journal in the world." DOR (HK) (talk) 06:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

GA nomination - on hold
I'll pass this article once some loose ends are tied:
 * Inline citations go immediately after punctuation, not before.
 * There are still a few stray 'citation needed' tags lying around.
 * Try to add a few more citations to some key claims, like the first paragraph of Censorship.

Minor concern: Is there any notable criticism of The Economist? The article only has positive things to say. Carson 02:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The Economist's moral blinkers - Criticism of an ideological nature, with which I disagree. Kewpid 04:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Citations taken care of. Basar 05:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I was unable to find references for the material tagged, but I was able to find some for the censorship section. Basar 22:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think everything has been taken care of, including the criticism provided above. Basar 05:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Passed
It's been in excess of the 7 day maximum that the GA nomination was put on-hold, and everything seems to be in good order. Congrats! Nja247 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Identifying contributors
I've added a bit that they will name their contributors when reviewing work of someone connected with The Economist. I have noticed this happening once in the last 15 or so years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Man with two legs (talk • contribs) 12:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Links to economist.com blogs
Do we really need the recently-added links to economist.com blogs? Anyone truly interested will surely find them through the economist.com link, and it does rather open the floodgates to endless linking of economist.com sub-sections... Barnabypage 17:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Removed. Economist.com is so wisely designed and the blog link is well placed in the website. No big deals. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  02:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The blogs are new and people may not be aware of their existence. It is a useful addition to the external links and should be placed back.---Gloriamarie 02:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Economist logo.png
Image:The Economist logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair use rationale added and tag for deletion removed. Tamino 18:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section
At present the only reference in the criticism section is a group blog, which doesn't meet the needs of Verifiability. I acknowledge that the position of the Economist is likely to elicit criticism from both the socially liberal, economically and socially conservative media, so it should be reasonable to find a more reliable source for that criticism.

With all that in mind I'll remove the source but fact tag the section.

ALR 12:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course it's verifiable. The reference for the fact that the Economist has been criticised is the article which does just that. So we could write Michael Cook, of mercatornet.com has criticised the Economist.... (link so I don't have to keep digging into the history of the article to find it ). Catchpole 13:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So a single individual, in a Blog, criticises liberal thinking and uses the Economist as a vehicle to do that. In what way is Cook notable as either a journalist or leading political thinker?  That would give a hook to include his opinion.  Otherwise I could just write a critique of a virulently nationalist, right wing publication such as the Daily Mail in my Blog, then include myself in the WP article on the same.
 * Seriously, come up with some credible criticism and that's reasonable, until then a blog site isn't useful.
 * ALR 13:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, mercatornet.com, whatever it is, is not a blog. It publishes a variety of authors so it is more akin to a specialist magazine. Indeed it describes itself as an "internet magazine". Michael Cook appears to have been published by The Australian, so he is not a solely self-published writer. I think having Cook's criticism (in lieu of anything else) improves the article. Catchpole 14:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * An Internet Magazine which has no hard copy publication is pretty much akin to a group blog such as samizdata.net. I don't see samizdata as reliable either, although I do find it quite an interesting read at times.
 * ALR 14:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * fwiw it would be useful if whoever started this would get involved in the discussion as well. I've been concerned about that, and a number of other sources, for a while and tried having the discussion in RS and V at the time, but most there were caught up in the drama around ATT to have anything useful to say about it.
 * ALR 14:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

There now no longer seems to be a 'criticism' section at all. This seems rather odd, given that the Moscow-based magazine 'the Exile' recently published a feature labelling the Economist as "the world's sleaziest magazine". While that rehtoric might be going a bit far, the article makes some rather compelling points against the Economist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.8.98 (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Its valid criticism to an extent, but the fact that it mostly seems to cite an anti-russian bias (valid) and it being overrated and plagaristic (which is not) --206.223.233.150 (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

See below DOR (HK) (talk) 08:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Economist Cover Picture
I think that we should definetly replace the Economist's cover picture shown here, and instead put a cover picture of one of their whitty covers for which they are famous. They frequently modify famous paintings or images to cartoonise the situation. June 17th - Biology's Big Bang. May 19th - America's fear of China. January 27th - Greening of America. My choice would be the May 19th issue - America's fear of China because its the funniest out of these recent ones. How about this hilaraious one of Kim Jong il Everyone agree? Tri400 16:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I vote for Kim Jong Il, and I agree, the one there now is lacking something. If you think the covers are good now, though, they were absolutely hilarious in the '80s/early '90s. They had some great cover artists then. Newer ones are probably more appropriate, though.--Gloriamarie 02:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The Editor
Someone has changed the page to make Daniel Franklin the editor. He runs the online Economist, but the overall editor is John Micklethwait. I have changed this. Edwardlucas 09:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Tone & Voice
What I've found unusual in the Economist is the somewhat frequent self-reference. As in 'the Iraq war, which this publication advocated', and others. I'll try to find a reference. Wikiak 03:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, it might be good to note that the final sentence in each article is often a sly gibe or witty quote, especially in articles which are critical of their subject.

--Nick Harkin 13:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The Economist is very much a right wing piece of journalism. It is far from "far and balanced". This needs to be mentioned in the entry! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.41.4 (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

whaddy mean "right-wing publication"? We are liberals, on both social and economic issues. We are pro gay marriage, pro-drug legalisation, anti corporate welfare, somewhat anti-clerical. Edwardlucas 19:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Citing 71.159.41.4 edit right after the user's talk page response, that I reverted, the user alluded to The Nation which in comparison is Leftish. Remember Edwardlucas the user is probably a US citizen, so the term liberal has meshed with the term leftish. This is because of the two party systems in the US confuses the correct terminology. Compared to leftish publication, The Nation, The Economist is more to the right, yet does not fall into any Anglo-rightist ideology (or for that matter conservative). The user is probably an anti-capitalist. I believe The Economist is libertarian (using US nomenclature) on most issues, or more specifically, a "classical liberal" publication. During the early 20th century many American liberals became leftists (denoting governmental control which solidified during the New Deal) and the name liberal was redefined during this political reorientation in the US.     In American political science, left liberals may be called "new liberals" (even progressives'). However, with the rise of the DLC, classical liberlism has had a comeback in the US democratic party and is often termed neoliberal, though really classically liberal (or third way). This is a problem when dominating party systems change their political perspectives, yet some of the terms connected to the parties stay, even if the terms contradict parts of the new perspective. Thus, we have a new liberal complaining about the classical liberal print.(or a leftish-new-liberal-progressive complaining about a third-way-classical-(neo)liberal-libertarian publication, if you fancy inclusive terms, but not to confuse you)-Kain Nihil 05:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually Edwardlucas is a journalist with the Economist. See Edward Lucas. Catchpole 06:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Economist-Jan-2007.jpg
Image:Economist-Jan-2007.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ideological confusion

 * When the newspaper was founded, the term "economism" denoted what would today be termed fiscal conservatism in the United States, or economic liberalism in the rest of the world (and historically in the United States as well). The Economist generally supports free markets and opposes extreme socialism. It is in favour of globalisation and free immigration. Economic liberalism is generally associated with the right, but is now favoured by some traditionally left-wing parties. It also supports social liberalism, which is often seen as left-wing, especially in the United States. This contrast derives in part from The Economist's roots in classical liberalism, disfavouring government interference in either social or economic activity. According to former editor Bill Emmott, "the Economist's philosophy has always been liberal, not conservative."[11] However, the views taken by individual contributors are quite diverse.

I quote this entire paragraph because its inaccuracy is not readily localized to any particular phrase. "Fiscal conservatism" is, even when specified to US usage, an extremely fuzzy term, which can readily be applied to any political platform that includes a demand to lower tax or to run a balanced budget without paying of debt or to run a surplus with which to pay off national debt — but it does not necessarily imply the classically liberal anti-regulation, free-trade stance implied both by "economism" and by The Economists 's editorial position. "Economic liberalism" comes closer, but it obscures the fact that The Economist has been a fairly consistent defender of classical liberal values outside of the purely economic realm, going as far as to express skepticism at, for instance, the prohibition of psychoactive substances. "Globalization" (or, if you will, "globalisation" — they do spell the British way, after all) is an even vaguer term, and as far as I can remember The Economist tends wisely to avoid pronouncing any sweeping judgment of its desirability. "Left" and "right," make all the other characterizations pale in comparison: let us not forget, when discussing a newspaper as old as this one, that Frédéric Bastiat, the French parliamentarian and pamphleteer who was so inspired by Cobden and Bright, sat on the left in the only legislative body in which "left" and "right" were ever defined in the truly canonical way. After the excursion into political handedness, the paragraph returns to "social liberalism," which is supported by an "it" of which the antecedent can, 'far as I can tell, only be "economic liberalism" — can that possibly be enlightening for our readers? And the "contrast" referred to in the sentence following that, in turn, is wholly specious. There is nothing inherently paradoxical about applying the principle of individual liberty in the same way to affairs that involve monetary transactions and to those that do not. Sjeng (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's an odd section. I've cut out some of it, but more should probably go, and it should be referenced and make fewer sweeping generalizations—It seems to have been written by someone whose only familiarity with ideology is the conventional spectrum of recent American politics. It's particularly odd to say that "economic liberalism is generally associated with the right, but is now favoured by some traditionally left-wing parties", which gets the historical switch pretty much backwards, since at the time The Economist was founded, the two main British parties were the Conservatives and the Liberals, and the Conservatives (the "right") were certainly not the more economically liberal of the two. --Delirium (talk) 08:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism
As the main complaint seemed to be that the Criticism section was under-referenced, I've rewritten it with proper citations. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:The Economist people
I have created this new category; please help populate. Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"Limited journalistic experience"
Objection to the source of "The newspaper runs with a skeletal crew of mostly young writers with limited journalistic experience, which is one reason for its policy of anonymous authorship."

This statement is cited, but the source is one editorial in a single newspaper over 15 years ago. I don't regard this as nearly enough evidence to make a blanket statement about the qualities of either the economist's writers or the reason(s) behind their anonymity. More importantly even the cited article itself only subtly makes the conjecture that the writer's inexperience is the reason the economist doesn't list them. Even if this was all fact at the time of the article's writing, it's outdated by more than 15 years, years in which I'm sure there's been a significant turnover of writers.

I'm all for a balanced article with a good dose of criticism, and I don't object to the section about the disproportionate number of students from one school or the number of reporters in London, which are both verifiable. But the "skeletal crew" sentence is a loaded POV statement taken from a negative editorial article published 15 years ago, and I don't think it belongs in the introduction unless further sources are introduced.

Removing it unless someone provides further documentation.

167.206.19.130 (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Goldfish


 * Very good, I support the removal. (Hope you don't mind the more concise section title...) --EnOreg (talk) 05:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Also supported, and a note on the word "skeletal" - if the article is correct in saying The Economist has 75 staff reporters, plus presumably sub-editors, section editors, etc. etc., it is very amply staffed indeed for a weekly magazine by British standards at least. It would be interesting to know how the headcount compares with Time and Newsweek. Barnabypage (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like there is some insistence on using that point. Personally it's not appropriate for the lead section, as the only sources range from six to twenty-five years old and their in opinion pieces so have absolutely no validation.  It might be fair to discuss it in the criticism section, although it probably needs something independent and verifiable for that.
 * Just to remake the point from my edit summary, just because a source is cited doesn't mean that the source is appropriate, meaningful or useful in the context where it's being used (or abused).
 * ALR (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't go either way on this, but "(or abused)" implied bad faith and clearly pissed off the colleague on wiki beneath me. An apology?--90.212.35.247 (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Do not remove cited facts
One can't just remove cited material because one does not like it. That The Economist hires young graduates is well-known and relevant. The information is verifiable from mainstream, reliable sources. Saying someone graduated from a prestigious school like Oxford is not NPOV anyway. Six years is not that long ago. I see no cites for the implied OR claim that The Economist recognized recently and does NOT recruit from Oxford. See WP:VERIFY, WP:RELIABLE. Xouwaodiu (talk) 05:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Many firms employ young graduates for a wide variety of roles, the only way to grow experienced people is to start with inexperienced people and give them the opportunities. In that sense the statement is pretty meaningless, unless you're trying to imply that they only employ them for a short period then replace them with new, cheap, graduates as a method of keeping costs down.
 * The lead section is intended to give a brief overview of the article, and at the moment the statements are only supported by newspaper opinion pieces, so are inherently unvalidated; the implication needs corroborated.
 * By all means add a section in the main body of the article which discusses the demographic and experience of the cadre of journalists.
 * I'm not clear on what your background is in terms of assessing information sources, but I'm sure you appreciate that not including an item does not imply any support to the counter argument to that item. I find your suggestion that it does to be a pretty specious argument.  When assessing a source we have to consider the authority of the originator, and whether it's corroborated by anything else.
 * In terms of making a statement about the demographic make-up of the cadre I do think that six years is quite old, particularly when it's only an Op-ed piece. The fact that none of the provided sources are anything other than op-ed calls the validity of all of them into doubt.
 * I have no issue about POV, but I do have a question about seeking to make a categoric statement in the opening section of the article, with no caveats, based on dubious sources.
 * If you can find something inherently reliable, and write a sectionj in the article about it, then you can add a sentence to the leads section.
 * ALR (talk) 08:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, you cannot just remove things because you dislike them. For good or for ill. Wilipedia does work merely on intuitive editorial judgment.You find the statement meaningless, but others have not, as the issue comes up in numerous cited references.. A factual claim in a reliable source, even in an op-ed, is still reliable. These are not dubious sources. Please stop deleting material with multiple citations. See WP:VERIFY, WP:RELIABLE. Shivering Vacancy (talk) 22:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Raised this over at the RS Noticeboard

ALR (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see why all this is controversial. After all Magdalen College/PPE is usually an important thing to put on one's resume. Shivering Vacancy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just removed it as its basically trivia and the wording is very vauge - given that this is a single college at one of Britain's universities graduates from it would be over-represented if two of them were working on The Economist at the same time! Nick Dowling (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Embedded lists
The lists that the tag mentions are a brief list of columns, the 13 points mentioned in the orignal prospectus, and a list of editors, many of whom have their own articles. I think the general presentation of the article could be tidied up, but these "lists" are important information. AleXd (talk) 07:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * True. I'll remove the tag. --EnOreg (talk) 12:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

audience description
There's some debate about how to handle the description of the Economist's audience. Currently, the reference which is tied up in that debate seems to be out-of-date:. It just doesn't (at least directly) go anywhere useful for how it's used in this article. Cretog8 (talk) 11:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

References list
I personally don't know how to edit this, as the 'edit' link on the page just takes one to a further page which seems to contain no content, but Reference number 44, linking to an article in the Observer newspaper, refers to 'The London Observer'. Such a paper does not exist and it's a completely bizarre to refer to it as such. If a more enlightened user who is able to make the change could do so, I think this would be a positive step in, at the very least, appearing more professional by Wikipedia not getting the name wrong. P toolan (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. The list in the References section is automatically generated from references embedded in the text with the tags. You have to find the paragraph where it is referenced and edit it there. See Citing sources. HTH, --EnOreg (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Competitors have a stereotype of Economist writers as hacks: overconfident young graduates of elite English universities who lack originality"

Absolutely. The Economist is TERRIBLY written. I can't make it through half that dribble, even when it's of exceptional interest to me... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.232.170 (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Historical Information
PLMuk:- I'm involved in a research project which requires the resources of the British Library. Today [Tuesday 18th Nov 2008], I noticed some material which may be useful here! It is entitled; On Saturday the 27th of September, [the year isn't specified] ... If a sufficient Number of Subscribers shall then have been procured to defray the Expense of the Publication, Price Three-pence, The First Number of a New Weekly Work, to be entitled THE ECONOMIST: ...I have a copy [jpg & pdf,] however I have yet to determine how to display or up-load it to here

(Plmuk (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC))-->

Attack pieces
The eXile may be verifiable but not notable. It's known for printing deliberately over-the-top attack pieces and not much else; quoting them on merits of a real newspaper is as bad as quoting Stephen Colbert on the merits of bears. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 14:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Will you stop stalking my edits Digwuren. Your harrassment is getting to be a right pain in the arse, and you are only just back from a one year ban, so you should know better. Mark Ames is highly notable, and the material is highly verifiable. You are an Estonian editor who hates Russia and are here to help advocate your hate-filled POV on those subjects. The opinion of an expat journalist in Russia on matters relating to how The Economist portrays its reporting in Russia and of Russian matters is highly notable. Note that Ames accuses the economist of exactly the same type of thing that you accuse the eXile of doing, except there is a difference. You are a nobody, and as a nobody people could care less what your opinions on anything are in terms of content on article (i.e. quotes, verifiable information, etc). This is not the Digwurenpedia or the Russaviapedia, it is Wikipedia, and the eXile can be established as a reliable source, which it has received critical acclaim for its reporting, and hell even the *****phobic Anne Applebaum has written for them in the past, as have many other journalists. People may look at their articles showing the sordid underbelly of life in Moscow and point to that to show them as being not reliable and unnotable, but they also at the same type printed as many serious investigative pieces. Also note that Ames, who has obviously done his research, as a journalist is expected to do (he also writes for many other NOTABLE publications), notes what the Economist has to say about the famines in Ireland - those quotes are verifiable fact, the Economist (an English magazine) basically did say let the Irish die. Just because you don't like it, nor if anyone else doesn't like it, it is not a valid reason for exclusion from an article, we are cover ALL POV on this WP, and Digwuren if you don't like it, then don't let your ass hit the door on the way out, because your stalking, your removal of information without edit summaries is unacceptable, and I will continue to argue for their inclusion with editors who aren't harrassing me such as yourself. --Russavia Dialogue 15:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just looking at last several edits of this article, one can tell: the majority of editors believe this information does not belong here. As a compromise, I placed it to Mark Ames.Biophys (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello to another of my serial stalkers. The opinion is notable, and I can easily back it up with more sources in Russian language and expand on it, if that is what people want. WP:CENSOR comes to mind, as does WP:NPOV. There is no good reason that opinion from a notable journalist is excluded, because WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not good enough and is also disruptive. I clearly stated that if people believe the opinion is too much in the article, then censoring the information is not on, but edit it accordingly. --Russavia Dialogue 16:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "journal The Economist and its ex-Moscow based correspondent Edward Lucas engage in sleazy and sloppy journalism in an agenda...". This is obvious propaganda. Please read NPOV, an important part of WP:NPOV policy. This is a one person (a tiny minority) opinion.Biophys (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You really shouldn't make a habit out of accusing everybody of being stalkers. It's real impolite, and your accusations of others being hateful are not any better. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 17:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The compromise makes sense. Thanks Biophys for helping defuse this potential conflict. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 17:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've just reverted the re-addition of this material by User:Miacek as there doesn't seem to be any support here to include this material, especially as it was originally written. Nick-D (talk) 11:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * An observation, the length of the diatribe is disproportionate to the opinion of one journo, particularly where it appears to be purely related to one subject covered by the Economist. If it is felt that Ames' opinon needs to be in the article at all then it can be dealt with in one, short, sentence identifying his view but without elaborating on the detail.  Detail can be held in the reference.
 * Personally I feel that it's not justified since Ames is not a market analyst, merely a journo that takes an opposing position and is therefore partisan.
 * ALR (talk) 11:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree: don't include. One short sentence max. --EnOreg (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, ALR, if you read Ames works, you will see that he is just as critical as the Economist at times. But what he does argue for in his writing is balanced criticism, and that is something that he charges the economist does not do. As I wrote to User:Nick-D, if he thinks it is too long, then edit it, but it is not right to delete it wholesale, simply because one does not like it. Also note the inclusion of the example of The Economist's reporting of the Irish famine, that too is quite notable as one can see here which states "A month later, which another season of starvation looming, The Economist, peering down from the heights of ideological purity, condemned was it regarded as the disastrous result of the Government's intervention in the Irish economy" and "The Economist, the The Times", normalised the horror of the Famine, and, by doing so, erased it. Ideologically inspired propaganda cynically ignored or denied reality". and "The most brutal, cowardly, and calumnious libels were found in the English press upon the Irish people, whose conduct ought to be lauded. There was the ruffian Times, and then The Economist, the free trader...but all these papers had levelled their brutalities at the people of Ireland. The Economist had basely charged the Irish people with flinging themselves like slaves upon the bounty of the English - without energy or exertion...these outrageous attacks upon the people were evidence that nothing would be done effectively for the relief of Irish distress...". That is from a book entitled "Daniel O'Connell, the British Press, and the Irish Famine". This too is all notable opinion which deserves a place in the article. There is a however a common theme in all of the criticism, is there not? That theme should be quite easy to pick out, and it needs to be expanded on. --Russavia Dialogue 15:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, note, that another editor shortened the quotes down, and I would be fine with that, along with info on the Irish famine, which can then be expanded upon. But another editor came along and saw fit to remove that too as WP:TRIVIA. Ridiculous, no? --Russavia Dialogue 15:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you've missed the point of my position, he is one journalist. He is not a media analyst, except insamuch as it impacts on his own journalism.  The volume taken up to his opinion was disproportionate.
 * I generally think that the section would be better supported by some form of analysis from the academic study of media rathr than assorted opinions of individuals.
 * ALR (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Then surely you are also arguing for the removal from all articles of "opinion" from the Economist also? For they are just a single publication and they aren't from the "academic study". I too prefer academic study over news/media sources, but we also work with what we have. In fact the criticism section states basically that the guys at the economist are barely out of nappies who basically opine away without original reporting. And this criticism is also from individuals. Now I would be fine with the following in the article...

Mark Ames criticised the magazine's coverage of Russia as biased and inconsistent in what he saw as an agenda to portray the regime of Vladimir Putin as a fascist state.

This is from here, which was then rubbishly removed as WP:TRIVIA. Trivia it is not, and it is succinct enough for conclusion. Perhaps we could also mention something in regards to his comments regarding Ireland, and then use other sources from those such as I linked above to expand further on it. It's all valid criticism, and we can't allow opinion of one person to be present, without the opinion of another being present, based upon our own biases or POV. --Russavia Dialogue 16:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've just removed a sentence on Ames, and the Socialist Party comments at the same time as there's been no support here to include either in the article other than from a single editor. I agree that this section should draw on proper analysis of the magazine, rather than be a hodge-podge of quotes from random people and organisations who don't like it, some of whom appear to be motivated by political reasons. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And I've been reverted again by Russavia: Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And I have re-included it, as it is notable opinion, it is one sentence in length, and I have left it open for further expansion which I am working on right now on in relation to its reporting of the Irish famine, and it will take in several POV, included dah dah dah The Economists POV. Thanks for your assumption of good faith --Russavia Dialogue 10:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I just checked Russavia's recent changes in the article, and I agree with the coverage and length. But as it gets reverted, it seems we need some more official conflict resolution. -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dogM. se fâche( woof! ) 12:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

And now Martintg is removing it (like that's a surprise) with a claim of consensus. We have a couple of editors above arguing for exclusion, based purely on the Russian source (not valid for exclusion, "the sum of all human knowledge" and that, not just "the sum of all human knowledge that we agree with" (WP:NOT), and we have a couple of editors arguing for a short sentence (and another editor who cut it down to what I reinserted), and one or two arguing it doesn't belong (of which Nick-D has not AGF). Let's look at what was written:

Mark Ames has criticised the magazine's coverage of Russia as biased and inconsistent in what he saw as its agenda to portray the regime of Vladimir Putin as a fascist state, and he also drew parallels to its reporting of the Great Famine in Ireland. During the famine, The Economist argued for laissez-faire policies, in which self-sufficiency, anti-protectionism and free trade were in the opinion of the magazine the key to helping the Irish.

In regards to the Irish famine, the book that I have used as a reference is not on the famine itself, but rather on how the English press reported on the famine. Yes, Wilson did say in The Economist "it is no man's business to provide for another"..."if left to the natural law of distribution, those who deserved more would obtain it"...this said whilst the Irish were begging for assistance. Such attitudes within the British press lead Maria Edgeworth to say, "To leave all the misery consequent upon improvidence and ignorace, to say nothing of imprudence and vice, to their own reward (anglice punishment) an to refuse any relief by charity to those who were perishing and perhaps before the very eyes of the anti-charitable...in their death struggle, would require a heart of iron - a nature from which the natural instinct of sympathy or pity have been expelled or destroyed." That is some quite notable comments from both The Economist, and from a notable Irish personality of the day. It is this type of thing which will be expanded upon in the article. The Economist is used all around WP as a source, often of critical information, and their article is not immune.

Of course, some editors could give a rat's about any of this, they are simply opposing, because it's me doing the editing, of course if I were writing in favour of things such as Putinjugend, in which The Economist is used as a source in which it uses Nazi imagery in order to portray Russia as a fascist state, even though one week before that article by the then-Moscow based correspondent, the same correspondent wrote "A good rule in most discussions is that the first person to call the other a Nazi automatically loses the argument.")...it is entirely possible that this type of reporting from The Economist has led to a notable person who was also a western journalist in Moscow to accuse the magazine of sloppy and biased reporting on Russian issues - I'm not saying it is, but in my eye it is possible, given my own knowledge of magazines reporting history of affairs in Russia today compared to the days of robber capitalism under Yeltsin. And that person has drawn parallels to this reporting to that of the magazine during the Irish famine.

Considering that over half of the 60-odd references in the article are from the magazine itself, one really has to question why Template:Advert is placed over the article. Of course, all it would take is a message over at the talk page for the Irish famine and I am sure that some editors there would be happy to express their opinions on whether this type of information, neutrally worded, is valid for inclusion in the article. And Nick-D if you want to see what is politically motivated editing, I would suggest that you look at this type of edit which of course does present REAL POV problems, and act upon this of what can only be described as embezzlement of any mention of this persons embezzlement of hundreds of thousands of roubles. But of course, I'll be called the POV politically motivated editor when I go back to that article, add information back in and NPOV it out, I'll put money on it. In the meantime, the same type of editor (not saying that particular editor) will come to this talk page, and refuse to AGF and remove neutrally worded criticism right whilst I am busy expanding upon that theme for this article. --Russavia Dialogue 12:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Historical criticism
Now, I might not be as old as John McCain, but wasn't the Great Irish Famine more than a century ago? I'm sure that the editorial lines of thought have changed more than once in the intervening time, so criticising the publication over econopolitical positions they took back when scientific racism was still a favoured pastime of the rich and educated Europeans seems like shooting a fish in a low-hanging barrel to me. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 14:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd step back even further and ask what we're looking to achieve in describing criticism of the publication. At present we have a loose collection of personal opinions on editorial positions and staff demographics (quote old), rather than a rigorous assessment of editorial approach, analytical quality and potential influence.  Personally I would like to see the latter, since it's too easy to wheel out opinions that disagree with the editorial position.  Would one have expected the socialist party to do anything other than criticise a publication with an explicitly liberal economic position?
 * That said I would agree that we must not overplay the editorial position referred to with respect to the Irish potato famine. It is used as a vehicle by the author whose position may, or may not, have value in the article.  As I've highlighted above, and expanded on here I don't believe the opinion has a place in the article but assuming it did it is unreasonable to use the example and then extend on the analysis in the absence of the author being quoted.  I think that probably violates the guidance on Synthesis in the Original Research position.
 * The treatment of criticism in the article at all needs improvement, but I don't believe this element under discussion has a place.
 * ALR (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. 'Criticism' sections are a bad thing in general as they tend to be a random collection of people complaining about the topic of the article, as is the case here. There have been lots of academic studies of The Economist (which have, obviously, reached differing conclusions), and these should be integrated into the article. Nick-D (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

A question
What I can't really understand here is how the opinions of a marginal extreme left group are notable ('economist is a mouthpiece of world financial capital'), whereas Ames's opinions on Russia are not? Or is the Socialist Party's opinion introduced as a straw-man-argument?-- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! ) 09:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good question. I'll remove the position of Socialist Party (UK); they don't even have a single seat in the Parliament. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 11:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So just who's opinion is valid guys? Obviously even the opininion of scholars who studied the deaths of 1 million people in IReland and the relationship of the British media in the invalidating the plight of the Irish during the famine isn't even valid enough, because, it's wait for it, too long ago. We have a quote from some American journalist who says that the Economist is the epitome of British snobbishness, and the famine example provides another historical perspective. Now, wait for the reply from Digwuren, and also Vecrumba, which will say that the opinion of an expat-journalist in Russia isn't good enough to provide opinion on how he sees their reporting of Russia -- which begs the question -- why is WP full of refs to the economist? Because according to this article, it isn't even a notable subject, as it lacks independent sourcing -- something else that has been removed. T-E-D-I-O-U-S to the extreme this is Digwuren. --Russavia Dialogue 12:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You might be unclear about the meaning of WP:RPA. It stands for remove personal attacks, not rename personal attacks.  Please do me a favour and remove your personal attack yourself, this time. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 13:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As their reporting is not confined to Russia, to put it mildly, and their reporting of Russia has not received significant coverage, the opinion of a single person concerning their reporting of Russia is certainly WP:UNDUE here. Also please keep your socialist POV to yourself, Russavia, this is Wikipedia and not Socialistopedia. Colchicum (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Advert feel and over-abundance of selfpub sources
This article has an overt publicity feel to it - it reads like an article for The Economist and it is due to more than HALF of the sources being to the Economist itself. We don't build encyclopaedic articles based upon WP:SELFPUB sources, as it is unduly serving to the subject, and this article is void of "critical" voices, making it read like one could slap "PRESS RELEASE" on it for distribution by the magazine. Take for example The_Economist - this is basically a dumping ground of opinions presented by the Economist, all referenced to the Economist, and is devoid of independent sources which describe what their opinions are and analyse those opinions. The_Economist is mostly unsourced, peacockish original research. Most of The_Economist could be merged into those two section. Why should we push the Economist line in those two sections, but not include sources who say that their "tone and voice" isn't witty, but "suffers from British class snobbery, pretentiousness, and simplistic argumentation--and that the editorial line is often contradicted by actual news stories". That is just the beginning of a general feel of this article. But whilst writing this, I saw on the talk page that this is a WP:GA - I think it may be time that this status be looked at, so I will instigate a review of this article, as it is not a good article by a long stretch and should be demoted. --Russavia Dialogue 18:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Scrub the part about delisting it as GA, as I see that was done 2 weeks ago. These issues still remain though. And placing improvement templates on articles is NOT vandalism either. --Russavia Dialogue 18:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Somewhere I have Edwards' The Pursuit of Reason: The Economist, 1843-1993. I'll dig it out and see if I can improve some of those references. Barnabypage (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it turns out that Edwards is not very well-indexed other than for proper names, so it's difficult to locate the references that we need to concepts such as byline policy in 1000-plus pages. I'll keep looking, though. Barnabypage (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I just hope I am not alone in recognising that the article and referencing is not in good shape. I'd merge the criticism section into appropriate sections (rather than ridding it completely), but I can't touch the article just now in case I am reported for 3RR or the like. --Russavia Dialogue 21:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Mislabelling vs. labelling
I believe the term 'labelling' is far more neutral than 'mislabelling'. The Economist writing 'The Gulf' was NOT an accident or carelessness - it represents a considered decision on their part to NOT PARTICIPATE in the debate over the 'correct' term.

I do not see how the term 'mislabelling' adds ANYTHING to the article other than a viewpoint. We should avoid adding viewpoints where we can. BlueLeather (talk) 10:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What's your source for this being a "considered decision"? That said, 'labelling' is more neutral wording than 'mislabeling' and I prefer it. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Any assessment of intent or otherwise is Original Research, so we can't say one way or the other. However I also think that mislabel implies an intent, equally OR.  I would prefer label as a more neutral term.
 * ALR (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)