| Revision as of 14:19, 1 February 2009 editDigwuren (talk | contribs)11,308 edits →Historical Information← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 13:27, 25 March 2024 edit undoKowal2701 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users16,330 edits →CEO: new sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic |
| (229 intermediate revisions by 95 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
|
{{Notice|{{find}}}} |
|
{{WikiProject Magazines|class=|importance=|nested=yes}} |
|
|
|
{{forum}} |
|
{{Bus&Econ|nested=yes|class=GA|importance=top}} |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{JournProjectArticles|nested=yes|class=GA}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Economics|nested=yes|class=GA|importance=Low}}}} |
|
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|action1=GAN |
|
|action1=GAN |
|
|action1date=16:59, 8 February 2007 |
|
|action1date=16:59, 8 February 2007 |
| Line 10: |
Line 8: |
|
|action1result=listed |
|
|action1result=listed |
|
|action1oldid=38667631 |
|
|action1oldid=38667631 |
|
|
|action2=GAR |
|
|currentstatus=GA |
|
|
|
|action2date=23:36, 16 March 2009 |
|
|topic=Socsci}} |
|
|
|
|action2result=delisted |
|
{{Talk Spoken Misplaced Pages id|The_Economist.ogg|63115923|small=yes}} |
|
|
|
|action2oldid=274319956 |
|
{{archivebox| |
|
|
|
|action2link=Talk:The Economist/GA1 |
|
*] Jan 28, 2007 |
|
|
|
|topic=Socsci |
|
|
|currentstatus=DGA |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject London|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Business|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Journalism|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Finance & Investment|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Newspapers |importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Websites |importance=Low}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Binding== |
|
==Richard Casement Internship== |
|
|
|
Perfect binding? My economist is held together with staples. No glue in sight! {{u|49.196.22.24}} 13:41, 19 April 2021 |
|
|
|
|
|
: That was then (1971 is 50 years ago), this is now. I have updated the caption but does anybody know when staples arrived? --] (]) 15:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC) |
|
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. ] 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. |
|
|
] 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. ] 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 ] 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. ] 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? --] 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. ] 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, ] 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 ] 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. |
|
|
--] 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... ] 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. --] 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 ], its a quote from the ] CEO, "Before, I used to think...now I just read ]." ] 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.--] 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. ] 02:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It would be accurate to describe ''The Economist'' as "the longest continually published ideological journal in the world." ] (]) 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. |
|
|
] 02:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: - Criticism of an ideological nature, with which I disagree. ] 04:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Citations taken care of. ] 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. ] 22:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:I think everything has been taken care of, including the criticism provided above. ] 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! ] (] • ]) 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. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 12:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> |
|
|
|
|
|
==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... ] 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. -- ] - <small>]</small> 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.---] 02:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Fair use rationale for Image:The Economist logo.png== |
|
|
] |
|
|
''']''' is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under ] but there is no ] as to why its use in '''this''' Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the ], 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 ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
Please go to ] and edit it to include a ]. Using one of the templates at ] is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages 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 ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Missing rationale2 -->] 07:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Fair use rationale added and tag for deletion removed. ] 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 ]. 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
] 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 ). ] 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. |
|
|
::] 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 ], so he is not a solely self-published writer. I think having Cook's criticism (in lieu of anything else) improves the article. ] 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. |
|
|
::::] 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. |
|
|
::::] 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. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) --] (]) 14:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
See below ] (]) 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 ] Everyone agree? ] 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.--] 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. ] 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. ] 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
--] 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! <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. ] 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 '']'' which in comparison is ]. 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 ] (using US nomenclature) on most issues, or more specifically, a "]" publication. During the early 20th century many American liberals became leftists (denoting governmental control which solidified during the ]) 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 ]). However, with the rise of the ], classical liberlism has had a comeback in the US democratic party and is often termed ], though really classically liberal (or ]). 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)-] 05:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Actually Edwardlucas is a journalist with the Economist. See ]. ] 06:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
==Fair use rationale for Image:Economist-Jan-2007.jpg== |
|
|
] |
|
|
''']''' is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under ] but there is no ] as to why its use in '''this''' Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the ], 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 ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
Please go to ] and edit it to include a ]. Using one of the templates at ] is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages 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 ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Missing rationale2 --> |
|
|
|
|
|
] 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." 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 ], 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. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 08:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==]== |
|
|
I have created this new category; please help populate. Thanks, --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 04:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Goldfish |
|
|
|
|
|
:Very good, I support the removal. (Hope you don't mind the more concise section title...) --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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). |
|
|
:] (]) 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?--] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. |
|
|
:] (]) 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. ] (]) 22:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Raised this over at the ] |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 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. ] (]) <small>—Preceding ] was added at 23:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
: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! ] (]) 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. ] (]) 07:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:True. I'll remove the tag. --] (]) 12:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== audience description == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Censorship: citation needed == |
|
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. ] (]) 11:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"It's a picture, how can it need a citation???" was my reaction too, until thinking about it a bit more. It may well be true that the page was ripped out by the censorship department but equally (given what often happens in public libraries in the West too), it could just have been 'liberated' by a reader. So the citation request is to ask "how do we know who did it" because, if we don't, then we can't state in Wikivoice that the usual suspects did it. |
|
==References list== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, somewhat reluctantly given the balance of probabilities, I am reinstating the cn tag but I will add a hidden note to say why. |
|
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 Misplaced Pages not getting the name wrong. ] (]) <small>—Preceding ] comment was added at 13:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:Fixed. The list in the ''References'' section is automatically generated from references embedded in the text with the <nowiki><ref>...</ref></nowiki> tags. You have to find the paragraph where it is referenced and edit it there. See ]. HTH, --] (]) 16:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would love to believe that the same consideration would apply to a similar case at The People's 'Pedia (or whatever it is called) but of course it would not and does not. But that doesn't mean that we should join them in the gutter. --] (]) 00:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
"Competitors have a stereotype of Economist writers as hacks: overconfident young graduates of elite English universities who lack originality" |
|
|
|
:Since it will be impossible to get a reliably sourced citation that records what the secret police did when and where, I have rewritten the caption so that it now says {{tq| Page 28 from the June 1st, 2019 issue, about the ], has been removed}}, which really speaks for itself. --] (]) 15:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion == |
|
Absolutely. The Economist is TERRIBLY written. I can't make it through half that dribble, even when it's of exceptional interest to me... <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: |
|
|
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: speedy | 2022-05-08T23:06:42.601831 | The Economist Article.jpg --> |
|
|
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —] (]) 23:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion == |
|
|
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: |
|
|
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2022-05-08T23:51:44.103285 | Economist Cartoon.jpg --> |
|
|
Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 23:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== CEO == |
|
==Historical Information== |
|
|
PLMuk:- |
|
|
I'm involved in a research project which requires the resources of the British Library. Today , I noticed some material which may be useful here! It is entitled; On Saturday the 27th of September, ... 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 however I have yet to determine how to display or up-load it to here |
|
|
<gallery> |
|
|
An example 1st Economist .jpg |
|
|
</gallery> |
|
|
(] (]) 00:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC))--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is it worth including the CEO in the info box? ] (]) 13:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
==Attack pieces== |
|
|
] 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 ] on the merits of bears. ]<sub>]</sub> 14:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
"It's a picture, how can it need a citation???" was my reaction too, until thinking about it a bit more. It may well be true that the page was ripped out by the censorship department but equally (given what often happens in public libraries in the West too), it could just have been 'liberated' by a reader. So the citation request is to ask "how do we know who did it" because, if we don't, then we can't state in Wikivoice that the usual suspects did it.
So, somewhat reluctantly given the balance of probabilities, I am reinstating the cn tag but I will add a hidden note to say why.
I would love to believe that the same consideration would apply to a similar case at The People's 'Pedia (or whatever it is called) but of course it would not and does not. But that doesn't mean that we should join them in the gutter. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=icon}
