Talk:The Economist/Archive 2

Not "Classical Liberal".
To describe the Economist magazine (they deny being a magazine - but it is an obvious physical fact that the publication is a magazine) as "Classical Liberal", as the article does, is utterly absurd. "Classical Liberalism" is about rolling back the state, making the government smaller - supporting Civil Society (voluntary cooperation and voluntary fiancé) against state domination in the various area of life. The Economist magazine stands for state finance (control) from the cradle-to-the-grave in basic areas of life - for example just this week in was demanding universal health care be provided, for the ENTIRE WORLD. And on monetary policy a "Classical Liberal" supports lending being from REAL SAVINGS - not the Credit Bubble Keynesian policy of the Economist magazine. To call Economist magazine "Classical Liberal" (to suggest or imply that it supports Classical Liberalism) is a lie. The Economist does not support the political philosophy of Classical Liberals such as Prime Minister Gladstone of President Grover Cleveland - it stands for the "New Liberalism" of such thinkers as J.M. Keynes, a philosophy that is radically OPPOSED to Classical Liberalism.2A02:C7D:B417:4800:DC51:1DF7:9FFA:B3AE (talk) 10:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In your opinion.
 * Your edits to the article have been reverted because Wikipedia is not interested in your opinion (or mine, for that matter). See policies wp:No original research, WP:NOTFORUM, wp:neutral point of view. If you consider that the article lacks important information and can find a credible, neutral, external source that says so, you may add it giving the source. For an example, see the citation already in the article that says that if is classic liberal.
 * When contributing material to a Wikipedia talk page, please use the "new section" option. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Editorial Stance
The Economist recently had a blog post "Is The Economist left- or right-wing?" that explains their editorial stance quite eloquently. It seems wise to incorporate it's information into this wiki page.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/economist-explains-itself-0

Martin (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Untitled
The Economist does NOT support Classical Liberalism.

The idea that the Economist is a roll-back-the-state sort of publication (which is what Classical Liberalism is - see the first editor of the Economist) is refuted by its support for ever more government health and education spending and endless banking, and other corporate, bailouts and government monetary expansion.

J.M. Keynes was not a "Classical Liberal" (although he may have been a "liberal" in the modern sense) - and neither is the Economist.

The article gives a totally false impression by just repeating the, false, claim of the Economist that it is a "Classical Liberal" publication. It is no such thing - in fact its politics are similar to those of Time magazine and the rest of the American "mainstream media". Its being British does not alter this fact - and neither do its, wildly dishonest, claims to be a "Classical Liberal" publication.

Paul Marks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.107.70.141 (talk) 11:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that The Economist is not as clasically liberal as most Classical Liberals would like it to be. Instead, it's a mixed bag, with more classical liberalism than most publication. The New York Times, for example. On the other hand, consider that their primary target market is career bureaucrats. For example, people who work for the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Bank for International Settlements, the European Central Bank. I'm a Classical Liberal, and I like The Economist. I just don't expect them to live up to my standards of ideological purity because they have to make a living in the real world, just like the rest of us. Zyxwv99 (talk) 04:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

If the only way the Economist publication can "make a living" is to support bailouts, advocate "stimulus" government spending (on "infrastructure" and so on) and support more "public services" around the world, then it should stop calling itself a "Classical Liberal" publication supporting "economic liberalism". It is a Keynesian publication and should stop pretending to be a "Classical Liberal" publication supporting "economic liberalism". It is "liberal" - but in the sense that David Lloyd George, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, President Johnson and (of course) Lord Keynes himself were "liberals"90.204.144.129 (talk) 09:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems unlikely, to me, that career bureaucrats in international treaty organisations make up the bulk of their readership.
 * Political positions aren't boolean; even a left-right spectrum is a simplification - there are many possible axes. The economist is definitely somewhere on the "Classical liberalism" side of an n-dimensional space but they're not on the perimeter. Hmm, that's a terrible metaphor but I can't think of a better one, sorry. bobrayner (talk) 09:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

If the Economist publication was on the Classical Liberal "side of an n-dimensional space" then it would be advocating less "public services" (i.e. government spending on health, education and welfare)around the world not more. And it would be advocating an end to "stimulus" and "monetary expansion" (read Corporate Welfare)and it is actually a leading voice for continuing these policies. The Economist publication is "liberal" in the sense that "Nick" Clegg (the leader of the British Liberal Democratic Party) is, not in the sense that Gladstone or Grover Cleveland (or Barry Goldwater) were - it is not CLASSICAL liberal, it supports (de facto) Social Democracy (the Welfare States paid for by fiat monetary expansion) not Economic Liberalism.90.204.144.129 (talk) 09:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Who is the new Lexington?
Adrian Woolridge is no longer writing the Lexington column (See ) so I have removed that claim from the article. Unfortunately I have not been able to find out the identity of the new Lexington. —Dominus (talk) 05:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's Robert Guest, author of The Shackled Continent (ISBN 0330419722).  See .  —Dominus (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As of June 2010, as stated, it's Peter David. See . L0ckd0wn420 (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Circulation
Does anyone know what their circulation in the United States is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.243.23.37 (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Christmas Issue
How about their Xmas issue? It features special 3-4 pages-long article on just about anything (from the creation of the modern kitchen, to how music could have been created as an answer for a genetic need). As one of their readers, I look forward to it every year, and thus believe it should be included in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popersman (talk • contribs) 17:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Newspaper or newsmagazine?
I don't care, but this has to be one of the lamest edit wars in quite a while. I've protected the page for three days; please discuss the substance of the issue and come to consensus on how to describe the publication. Skomorokh, barbarian  06:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've blocked User:Ervinshiznit for 31 hours and have been trying to block the IP editor as well (their IP seems to change regularly). Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I work for The Economist so I probably should not edit this page, but I do think the use of "newsmagazine" is wrong. From a stylistic point of view it would be better to vary with "the paper", "the weekly" and "the Economist" at different points in the article.17:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"provinces" in history
There is a minor issue in that a blue link is provided from the word "provinces" in point 6 of the history section to the Historic counties of England. This implies "province" was being used as a synonym for these, when what will have been meant is slightly different - it refers to Britain or England outside London (the word is from a district of the Roman Empire and is now generally avoided due to the suggestion it carries of insignificance compared to what happens "up in London"). I'm not sure what would be the best change to make since the page Province currently has no information on this use Billwilson5060 (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Reference #6 change
For some reason I can't edit the article. Can Reference #6, referring to the founding quote of The Economist, at least be changed to the following link http://www.economist.com/help/DisplayHelp.cfm?folder=663377#About_The_Economist for that would be significantly more accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.134.102 (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Amnesty International
I wonder if the use of the word "vibrant" in the brief mention of a letter responding to a critical article about AI adds some unnecessary spin (or vibration). Pedantically, I am not sure if a letter can be "vibrant" but if it is intended to mean (as it presumably is) that it was a wonderful letter, I think that is probably POV. I won't edit this myself as I work for the Economist Edwardlucas (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Liberalism Vs "Progressivism"
I changed "It also supports social progressivism, including legalised drugs and prostitution." to "...social liberalism...". Re-legalisation and deregulation of the "vices" is a liberal, not progressive position. The modern era's prohibitions- drugs, alcohol, tobacco, prostitution, pornography, etc etc are artifacts of the Progressive Era and were introduced by progressive activists. They are maintained today primarily by progressive lobby/campaign groups. It is certainly not progressive to campaign for the abolition of these laws/regulations- it is classical liberal. Progressives actively promote and maintain regulations and prohibitions of activities they perceive as vice, as they always have. Such regulation and prohibition was at the heart of the Progressive Era and remains at the heart of progressive activism.82.71.30.178 (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think your edit was wise. Your IP indicates you're from the UK, so you may not know that in the US, conservatives have used "liberal" as a disparaging epithet heavily enough that many American liberals don't self-identify as such, and are more likely to call themselves progressives. Modern American liberals certainly share some sympathies with the Progressive Party, but you're right that there are some real differences as well. Refer to Modern liberalism in the United States for more information. --BDD (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Untitled 2
Hello, I'm relatively new to editing still. However, I replaced "founder" with "emperor" in reference to Charlemagne since Charlemagne was not the founder of the Frankish empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.134.13 (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Criticism &sect;
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/15/business/media/15econmag.html

It’s Called The Economist, Not The Futurist

For 23 years, The Economist has issued bold predictions for the coming year in its thick December special issue. Last year, its crystal ball, in the issue called “The Worldin 2008,” was a little foggy.

“About 2008: sorry,” reads a note from the issue’s editor, Daniel Franklin, in the prediction edition for 2009. Who would have seen the financial crisis coming, Mr. Franklin asked? “Not us. The World in 2008 failed to predict any of this,” he said.

And on it goes. I won't go into The Economist's failed predictions on Russia as well, just yet, but in reference to the above quote by Daniel Franklin "The World in 2008 failed to predict any of this" is untrue. Paul Krugman predicted it, and so did other notable economists. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The Economist is the only news publication I've seen that routinely analyzes the success or failure of its past predictions and presents the results in print. I consider this one of its greatest strengths.  My impression from their routine lack of admitting errors and taking credit for successes is that the editors of The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Time, and so forth are too busy cranking out a new batch of predictions than to learn from their past mistakes.  The result is that they make more mistakes. Spril4 (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well when a prediction was superbly wrong, as it was in the case of The Economist, you have to analyze it and apologize for it, or lose your readership, like CNN did in Russia. The Economist may do so routinely, and that's fine. However, when a mistake is as big as it is in this case, I think it deserves mention. You can add your quote as a response to the criticism, provided it doesn't break Wikipedia's Original Research guidelines. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "The Economist is the only news publication I've seen that routinely analyzes the success or failure of its past predictions and presents the results in print" - This is your opinion not a fact. My opinion is that it does nothing of the sort (except when they are catastrophically wrong and the issue cannot be avoided). As an example:
 * "[The] coalition may well not last much more than two years. The risk is not only that Ms Merkel's coalition will follow wrong-headed economic policies; it may also turn out to be unstable as well. Poor Germany."
 * - Taxing Times, Angela Merkel's coalition programme risks doing serious damage to the economy, Nov 17th 2005
 * compare this to:
 * "Germany was the star performer among the rich G7 countries over the past ten years."
 * - Angela in Wunderland, Feb 3 2011
 * This is a blatant volte face with no apology nor explanation for their change of direction.
 * The magazine is riddled with such inconsistencies but people don't generally notice them unless they are pointed out to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.148.39 (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * - Angela in Wunderland, Feb 3 2011
 * This is a blatant volte face with no apology nor explanation for their change of direction.
 * The magazine is riddled with such inconsistencies but people don't generally notice them unless they are pointed out to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.148.39 (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The magazine is riddled with such inconsistencies but people don't generally notice them unless they are pointed out to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.148.39 (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The magazine is riddled with such inconsistencies but people don't generally notice them unless they are pointed out to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.148.39 (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Couldn't tell if this thread was about the tagging or what, anyway moved it here and renamed it so it could be actionable. Why is it so hard to identify haute bourgeois/capitalist bias in those things where it is obviously directly relevant? The vast majority of people on earth are neither and this publication practically embodies bourgeois/mainstream political economy. That should be either in the lede or the &sect; under discussion. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This is like criticizing Ebony (magazine) and Black Entertainment Television for ignoring white people. Like, duh! The whole reason fore reading The Economist is to find out what the haute bourgeois/capitalists know that we don't. That's why Homer Simpson reads it. Zyxwv99 (talk) 14:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you read it for that reason? My reason for reading it is much less colourful and rhetorical - I read it because it's a good source on important news. bobrayner (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Sullivan Did Not Say that Dotcom Bubble Burst Wouldn't Happen In The Long Run
He did, in fact, write that the burst could've happened in the long run, but noted that magazine had inaccurately predicted that there were troubling signs in the US market when the articles were written in late 1998. Sullivan carefully noted that the magazine greatly exaggerated the danger the US economy was in after the Dow Jones fell to 7,400 during the 1998 Labor Day weekend aqnd that there were not yet signs that the US economy was in grave danger; even the Dow Jones reached 10,000 by the time the article was written. The Dotcom burst also didn't take place "a few months" after those articles were written, but rather a few years; the articles were written in 1998 and the Dotcom bubble burst didn't happen in the US market until early 2001.75.72.35.253 (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Untitled 3
The Central Principle of the Economist magazine - clue it is not "more limited forms of government interventionism".

The central principle of the Economist magazine is active Central Banking supporting commercial banks (and those corporations that are closely linked to them) - this has been true, to some degree, since its third editor (Walter Bagehot), but since 2008 it has become an overiding concern - to prove this simply look at issues of the Economist magazine since 2008 (pick one at random). It is not just a matter of supporting TARP - it is a matter (both in the United States and in Europe) of supporting more monetary expansion in order to support banks and those corporations that are very closely connected to them. The words "bailoutism" or "corporate welfare" may be ugly but they are accurate in describing the central principle of the Economist magazine. Of course supporting the "Finance Economy" may be entirely the correct policy, but readers of Wikipedia must be aware that this is what the Economist magazine stands for (Central Bank monetary support for the banking system), this is not a minor matter (it is a matter of very great importance) and using a form of words like "more limited forms of government interventionism" is not very informative. The Ecomomist Magazine is not "economically liberal".

To claim (as the article does) that the Economist magazine (to call it a "newspaper" is to accept its tactics to reduce its tax and mail bill, it is a magazine and to call it anything else is dishonest) is "ecomically liberal" is absurd. It must be remembered that "economic liberalism" (unlike modern American political liberalism) is about reducing the size and scope of the state - not increasing the size and scope of the state.

Since my previous comment (see below) there have been many issues of the Economist magazine that confirm what I have pointed out about it (indeed virtually every issue does so). For example, in the current issue the Economist magazine describes the Congressional resistance to the agenda of the Obama Administration in 2009 and 2010 (the unsucessful opposition to the Stimulus Act, "Obamacare", the Financial Reform Act increasing regulations - and so on) as "extreme" and "obstructionist" (these words are actually in the title of the article in the magazine). Please note that Economist magazine is not attacking Barack Obama (as an "economic liberal" would) - on the contrary it is describing his opponents in these terms. And not the opponents in the country - but, rather, the collection of Senators and members of the House of Representatives who spoke and voted against the agenda to expand the size and scope of government.

Now President Obama may have been 100% correct and his opponents 100% wrong (it is not for Wikipedia to judge one way or the other) - but "economic liberal" he (and the Economist) were, and are, NOT.

This is not rocket science - it is basic stuff. The Economist magazine (regardless of what it calls itself) supports the left in American politics - it supported John Kerry in 2004, it supported Barack Obama in 2008. And, more importantly, the Economist magazine supports Barack Obama's POLICIES - on all the major Acts mentioned above. I repeat that these policies (and Obama and the Economist magazine) may be 100% correct (about everything) - but "economically liberal" they are not.2.26.113.248 (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I started reading the Economist again recently and found most articles to be attacking Obama directly with many "drop-in" cliche attacks typical of Fox News. Which easily waters down the actual substance that might be there... somewhere. I came to this wiki page curious to see if there is actual documentation of the new bias but I am surprised not to see any section on it. I hope I'm wrong...may be I will keep trying.75.115.215.122 (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Editorial Stance & Opinions
Claiming The Economist supports "government health and education spending" is not quite accurate. While they do support SOME spending in this area, they support less than most other publications. The phrasing, while not explicit, does imply that they support it to an above-average level, or support an increase in it, etc. In reality they probably support a decrease in government spending in this area. Changed to talk about their pro-environment stance which is notable given the otherwise conservative lean of the magazine. Edited the same sentence in the Opinions section.

I also felt compelled to mention libertarianism somewhere in the opinions section. I feel this section is overly confusing to people that do not know the bizarre history of the terms "liberal" and "conservative" and should be looked at by a more experienced editor to improve clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teckman1 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Do we have a cite for The Economist "call[ing] for Bill Clinton's impeachment"? I've looked over the archives and I don't see that. Ethanvox (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Ownership
Having read in the The Economist itself the following sentence: I came to Wikipedia to discover who owns the publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.212.99 (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * André Esteves, the Brazilian investment bank’s chief executive, had said before that an IPO was a matter of when, not if. A private deal in late 2010 with sovereign-wealth funds and rich families, including the Agnellis and the Rothschilds (both of whom have links with The Economist), had brought in $1.8 billion in return for 18% of the firm.


 * OR---Half is owned by the Pearson PLC via The Financial Times Limited and the remainder by the founding family and employees.DOR (HK) (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Economist audio 'logo'
Is it really necessary to include the non-free image from the Economist audio page in the article? I can't see that the image has much significance other than that it appears here -- in fact, calling it a 'logo' is probably going a bit far. Celuici (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I support this, even though I was the one that added it. The page at the moment doesn't have much for images going on though, so it'd be ideal to find something to replace it with. Maybe if a free-use image of the Economist offices in London could be found? Shaded0 (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the page could have more images, so thanks for trying to rectify this problem. There is now a category on Wikimedia Commons where images relating to The Economist can be placed. Celuici (talk) 08:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Advertising
Regarding the recent addition of a 2.5k section on advertising, followed by a revert (and an undo of the revert): even though advertising is important, that section seems to devote a lot of space to a thin slice of history. If it went back to the 19th century, that would be a different story. The way it is now, it just feels like trivia. Zyxwv99 (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree to some extent. There should be a section on advertising but the long list of adverts is too much.  I think that as a compromise the first paragraph should be kept but the list should go.  The paragraph is far from perfect and only covers a relatively short space of time but is better than nothing.  Hopefully people will add to it in time and increase the period that it covers. RicDod (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, mostly. I think that sourcing needs to be fixed, but it's worth keeping some content on the advertising. A paragraph (plus perhaps one or two examples which attracted comment by other sources?) would be fine with me. bobrayner (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

This article is confusing civil liberties with social liberalism.
--MeUser42 (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Question about tag
Why do we need a third party source for a sentence which is stating the paper's own aims and ideas?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Economist English a model for Wikipedia?
As a 'Murcan I find The Economist less prone to briticisms than most contemporary writing from the mother country. Is this because they humor us with a dumbed-down version or do they manage to achieve readability on both sides of the pond without forking into editions?

If an untweaked Economist reads perfectly well in New York and London, also in Brussels, Delhi, Singapore, Sydney, Toronto and Wellington, this could be a linguistic model for all English language Wikipedians to follow. LADave (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. I think they do put a lot of emphasis on clear writing for a broad audience. bobrayner (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * They certainly do. The Economist sells far more outside the UK than within its borders (in fact, North America is its single largest market by a long way) and sees itself as a global publication rather than a British one. So there is a deliberate policy toward internationally comprehensible English. The very first sentence of its style guide reads: The first requirement of The Economist is that it should be readily understandable.
 * It does editionise editorially to an extent (i.e. run certain articles only in certain regions), but I don't think this involves a huge percentage of its content. Barnabypage (talk) 08:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I like "their" English just fine, but there are more important things to discuss to revitalize the editorial community in a spirit of collegial, if spirited, collaboration as we enter 2014. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Article on Wikipedia.
In its March 1st-7th 2014 edition, The Economist published an article (on pages 63-64) about Wikipedia: "WikiPeaks?".

In this, the writer stated: "Wikipedia is starting to show the limits of the volunteer-only model, says William Beutler, the author of "The Wikipedian", a blog. The fabled grumpiness of established editors is one reason: Please do not bite the newcomers runs a reminder on its noticeboard, presumably frequently ignored. (...)".

This prompted me to produce the userbox attached below (based on an existing template created by User:Scepia). I dare say it might serve as a useful reminder to us all, that we ought to ease up some, relax a little more and rekindle the enjoyment of what we do here.

I therefore offer this userbox for consideration; thank you.

With kind regards;

Patrick.

ツ Pdebee. (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Cover image
The cover image suggests the magazine is about global warming. Does everything have to be about global warming?! Might the cover image portray something about currency? - Ac44ck (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The current image seems relevant to me but if you would like to change it, then do so. I think that I would ask that if you change it, either chose a cover which is more representative of the publication or choose any cover more recent than the one shown.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  18:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Category
The Economist was a newspaper at the time of its foundation, therefore adding the category Magazines founded in.. is misleading since it was not established as such at the time. Fairly simple case IMO. Why would someone EW (20 seconds later reverts) over this? --Tachfin (talk) 10:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Look at it this way: suppose we have the biography article of one John Doe, born somewhere in the 17th century. We don't have his birth year. Hence we categorize him in the category, but despite the fact that he definitely was alive at the time of his birth, he is not alive now any more, so we don't categorize him as . Similarly, whatever The Economist was when it was established, it is a magazine now and it was established in 1843, hence it is, indeed, a magazine that was established in 1843. Note also that "magazines established in ..." is always a subcat of "publications established in ...", so that anything in "manuscripts established in ..." is automatically also part of the mother cat, "publications established in ...". Hope this explains. --Randykitty (talk) 11:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your analogies are illogical though I'm sure they make sense to you. Please stop reverting (including following me on other unrelated articles) and tendentious behaviour such as you did in Maroc Hebdo in the most nonsensical clueless way Tachfin (talk) 12:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1/ Please remain civil. 2/ This is a magazine. It was established in 1843. You have reverted me now 3 times (please be aware of WP:3RR). The last revert you justified in your edit summary with questioning the consensus. You came to this article that you never edited before and where nobody has ever questioned the categorization. On what consensus are your 3 reverts based? When I try to reason with you, instead of giving a polite answer and telling me why you think that you are right and I am wrong, all you do is telling me that I'm illogical, tendentious, nonsensical, and clueless. Please re-read all of my comments, I think I have been unfailingly civil towards you and I expect the same in return. Maroc Hebdo is the same thing as The Economist, by the way. It's a magazine. It was established in 1995. The category follows logically. I urge you to self-revert on these articles or give a coherent (and polite) reason why this should not be done. --Randykitty (talk) 12:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

3O Response: declined because of no thorough discussion from the both parties involved, per instructions on the main page. Unless both present their side of the argument clearly, giving 3O is not possible. Feel free to repost this later. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. I can see merit on both sides of this issue—a good argument can be made either way. As a compromise, what about just categorizing it in both categories for now? Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a possibility. However, it is also not really in agreement with categorization principles, as "magazines established in ..." is a subcat of "publications established in...", so that anything in the "magazines" cat is already included in the "publications" cat. --Randykitty (talk) 11:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The way I see it is that "the status at the time" is what matters since saying "Magazine founded in 18XX" when in fact it was a newspaper then is a counterfactual and misleading. It seems common-sense that if, say, you had a state founded in 1905 as a monarchy then it changed to a republic in say 1950, then you wouldn't add a category "Republics founded in 1905". Think of Hagia Sophia, founded as a church in the 6th-century transformed to a mosque in the 15th-century and is now neither since it became a museums in the 1930s. You wouldn't add a category saying "Museums founded in the 6th-century" arguing that it is a museum now and that is what counts. Similarly you have the Arap Mosque (founded as a church in the 14th-century and converted to a mosque in the 15th), or the Mosque–Cathedral of Córdoba (Founded a sa church then mosque then a church) etc. This is how I see it, and the reasoning propounded by the other party wouldn't be appropriate in these cases. Although there is no clear-cut Wiki policy on such categorisations, I deem this a fairly standard practice to anchor the category-appropriateness to both current status (i.e. at the time) and present status. For this reason if say a person was member of political party X and later changed and became member of party Y, you wouldn't remove category X arguing that presently they are no longer member of it. (although I've already seen people do that mistakenly) I can see many more similarly analogous examples and think we should remain coherent in categorisation. Tachfin (talk) 11:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Re Comment by Randykitty, it's not that I've never edited this article. The reason you edited the category in this article was because I mentioned it as an example in Talk:Maroc Hebdo, and this is where the discussion is coming from and I already outlined my argument there regarding the categorisation issue, before any discussion took place here. Other than that, 3RR applies to you too, and you should therefore be more worried about it and not attempt to game the system by things such "frist move advantage" etc. Tachfin (talk) 11:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's take the Arap mosque as example. What do you propose, to categorize it as a "church build in 1325"? Or is it a "church build in 1325" and a "mosque build in 1475"? Of course not, because it's not a church any more. It's a mosque and it was build in 1325. The article can then clearly explain its history. People who want to use a category, like (the nonexistent) "church build in 1325" expect to find articles on churches there, not mosques (and remember that categories are to help with navigation). Leaving aside the silly mosque examples, The Economist is a magazine and it was established in 1843. In addition, I repeat that "magazines established in ..." is always a subcat of "publications established in ...", so that anything in "magazines established in ..." is automatically also part of the mother cat, "publications established in ...". --Randykitty (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Arap Mosque is in "14th-century religious buildings" not in "14th-century mosques‎"...You basically made a straw man argument that is beside the point. --Tachfin (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Which is a container category and per the instructions on that category should only contain subcategories, so apparently miscatechorized. You can choose, 14th century church buildings or 14th century mosques" (it's a mosque, it was built in the 14th century, mmm let's see, what is it...) Your example, not my straw man. --Randykitty (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand perfectly that according to your reasoning it is miscategorised (same for other examples I suppose). Good, at least your position is coherent. Tachfin (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Category: Economics
Just because The Economist has economic content doesn't mean it should be included in the category of economics. If we follow this path we would have to include every Newspaper, TV channel or Radio show that has economic content. The category Economics is not used for this. See for example: WikiProject_Economics/Assessment NotYetAnotherEconomist (talk) 12:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Which CATEGORY??? We're talking about a Wikiproject banner here, NOT a category. If you don't understand the difference between the two, why are you edit warring over them? --Randykitty (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The Wikiproject is about economics as a category. An article describing a newspaper has nothing to do with that category. Also if oyu can't sign your writings, why do you write? NotYetAnotherEconomist (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like you have no clue about what a Wikiproject is. I also note that I am not the only editor disagreeing with your banner removals. --Randykitty (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Explain why I have no clue what a Wikiproject is? Banners are for Wikiproject users to identify relevant articles. A newspaper isn't a relevant article. Just because there is one other guy the mistakenly reverted an edit, doesn't mean you are right. NotYetAnotherEconomist (talk) 13:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikiprojects are very different from categories. A magazine covering news on economics does indeed not belong directly in the Category:Economics (but will be in that category indirectly. In the current case, this article is in the Category:The Economist, which is in "British business magazines", which is in "business magazines", which is in "works about business", which is in the Category:Economics). Wikiprojects, however, are much broader. They will often cover subjects that are related to their subject of interest. FOr example, the Academic Journals wikiproject does not only include academic journals, but also journal editors, articles dealing with the publishing business, etc. It is therefore entirely reasonable to include people like Buffett, even though he is not strictly speaking an economist, or magazines like The Economist, just because these subjects would be "of interest" to people working in that project. --Randykitty (talk) 13:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Make your case then. Why would a newspaper or a stock trader be relevant for economics? NotYetAnotherEconomist (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The magazine is named "The Economist" because it concentrates on economics news and is one of the mot influential magazines on the subject. The "stock trader" is not just anybody, but a hugely influential person and everything he says is weighed and analyzed and often influences the economy. Seems sufficient to me. --Randykitty (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If I'm the other guy, I didn't "mistakenly revert an edit"...I just don't feel like dealing with someone who shows up and decides they know everything this morning. Randykitty is correct, and I'm not participating in this nonsense. It's my day off. --Onorem (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am afraid you do not understand what WP:ECONOMICS is about. A newspaper that reports news is not related to economics. Other newspapers that report on business news like the Wall Street Journal, the NYT or the Guardian aren't included aswell. Also I suggest you read economics. You might learn that the stock market is not the economy. So a trader at the stock market is not economically relevant, but he probably should be included in WP:FINANCE NotYetAnotherEconomist (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Can I jump in here and recommend that we put a hold on this back-and-forth discussion, and see if we can get any input from other WikiProject memebers? This discussion between two editors isn't going to go anywhere. It's quite clear that there's a disagreement to whether or not the project should be covered by WikiProject Economy, so lets see what actual members of the WikiProject have to say. Regarding PROJGUIDE, that certainly doesn't justify removal of the tag. This isn't a case of a WikiProject member removing a WikiProject label recently added by a non-member. Not only has the WikiProject label been on the talk page for years without interuption, but it has been evaluated in the past by members of WikiProject Economy, so there definitely is some support for the label. This is something that we should get the input from other WikiProject members on, not just a sole member who recently joined. ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 14:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep WikiProject economics There must be some misunderstanding about what a WikiProject is. It would be extraordinary to exclude this article from WikiProject Economics, and anyone who wishes to do so should have an extraordinary explanation for taking such an unusual action. I reinserted the WikiProject banner to keep status quo and avoid making radical unexplained changes. If someone has proposed a reason for removing this then I fail to see it - please point to the reason again.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The discussion is at the Wikiproject page. But you don't give any reason why newspapers should be included in the WikiProjects Economics, nor are you actively engaged in the WikiProject. You also are not generally engaged in economic articles. But that doesn't seem hinder you talking in imperatives about those subjects. Wikipedia is full of interesting people. NotYetAnotherEconomist (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And more interesting people arrive all the time, such as people that arrive here and within a day start telling people here how WP should be run... --Randykitty (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Copied from elsewhere The key thing is you need to realize that you do not own the project, or the articles, and people all accross the encyclopedia expect certain things of Wikiprojects. The question of project scope, what page belongs there, etc... is typically understood as "articles related to, or with some tangible connection to, the scope" as well as "pages that would be of interest to typical readers of that subject". Scopes tend to be broad, rather than narrow. The question never is "Is this topic economics?" but rather "Is this related to economics in some tangible way?".

For instance, Ernest Rutherford was not a chemist, yet he is tagged with WikiProject Chemistry's banner because a lot of his research dealt with elements, and chemists will have valuable input on this.Likewise, Warren Buffet may not be an economist proper, but his sphere of influence overlaps with several topics in macroeconomy, market analysis, etc. If Warren Buffet is to become a Featured Article in the future, having the input of someone who knows something about economy will be most beneficial, if not required. That alone warrants the WP Economics tag. Just replace Warren Buffet with The Economist, and that's my take on the issue. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You still have not answered the question: Why is The Economist included in the wikiproject but not the Wall St. Journal? Have you never read either? They both cover the exact same level of economic content. Why the witch hunt against a user that is trying to clean up the mess started by people clearly unfamiliar with the field??

I don't have any interest in arguing with people who don't understand the scope of economics and think a newspaper belongs to it. You don't include the NYT into WP:MilitarHistory just because they report on the iraq war. Also Warren Buffet has no relevance for macroeconomics and market analysis is not economics but business. But as I said, I don't care. If must have an unrelated banner there then so be it. NotYetAnotherEconomist (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want a more direct comparison, Astronomy Now falls into WP Astronomy, just as Physics Today falls into WP Physics. You have no argument here except WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Your enthusiasm to revive the project is great (although it wasn't exactly dead, it could certainly use an influx of new people and energy), but try not to behave like an bull in a china shop, then declaring to the world it's your way or the high way. You've yet to receive one single support for your position. That ought to make you reconsider your approach here. Take your time, learn the written and non-written conventions, ask rather than demand. You'll find you'll have a much more pleasant time working with people than against them. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you ever read one issue of the economist? It has the same economic content like any other newspaper (NYT, WSJ, FAZ...). The two magazines you mention are exclusively about the relevant field. Economic equivalents would be The International Economy or Challenge: The Magazine of Economic Affairs. NotYetAnotherEconomist (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. No one had yet given a good, convincing answer as to why The Economist is included in the wikiproject but WSJ, for instance, is not. This user clearly knows more about economics than others yet is being plainly discouraged from sharing knowledge.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on The Economist. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061219221031/http://www.economist.com:80/research/johnson/ to http://www.economist.com/research/johnson/
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=2574

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on The Economist. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130927201158/http://www.american.edu/kogod/case/upload/casecomp_2011_student.pdf to http://www.american.edu/kogod/case/upload/casecomp_2011_student.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

No longer verifiable
Sadly it used to be a paper of record, but does not reply to requests for information about the underlying research for its articles. Sic transit.PatrickGuinness (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess a lot of respected media will not do that? I do not think that this is what our WP:V policy refers to as verifiability, if that is your concern.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Original research
Hiya,

I just tagged the article for original research, and relying on primary sources. I removed a section of original research which synthesizes content from primary sources. The section effectively is conveying the opinion of the Wikipedia editor who added it; it is a published opinion - it's a synthesized one.

-- Many articles include some witticism; image captions are often humorous puns and the letters section usually concludes with an odd or light-hearted letter. These efforts at humour have sometimes had a mixed reception. For example, the cover of the 20 September 2003 issue, headlined by a story on the WTO ministerial meeting in Cancún, featured a cactus giving the middle finger. Readers sent both positive and negative letters in response. -- If you find the opinion in a reliable source, feel free to add it back with a proper citation and of course, changing the sentence structure so that it is not written as the opinion of Wikipedia, but noting a published (and reliably sourced) one. Curdigirl (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If I may add, it also looks little promotional. Amazonz (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please add tags and in-line tags to the sections that need work. That way editors can fix it. I have added more citations, non-primary that is, and changed the captions. There is more work to do, so feel free to review sentences that need improvement. DonSpencer1 (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)