Talk:The Economist editorial stance

Citation Needed

I remember that The Economist made their feelings on readership size public after they got their one-millionth subscriber. It was a page within the newspaper itself that said something to the effect of "even though we don't normally concern our selves with this sort of thing, we would like to point out that we have a millionth subscriber." I don't have the issue anymore and I'm afraid that the page is not on their web site.

C Lets wait and see if we can find the citation before adding. Don Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 20:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Iraq War

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The Economist has recently been quite critical of the war, while never denying its origonal support, I shall add something as to that. Pelegius 19:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point. I too have been wondering what's going on in the Ed. department regarding the Iraq War.--Zaorish 19:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

My impression is that whilst they believe it was correct to try and remove Saddam (both for his human rights abuses, gassing of Kurds etc. and for his refusal to abide by the terms of the UN resolutions) they are highly critical of the way that the "peace" (if one can call it that) has been conducted. But they consistently argue that it would be morally indefensible for the U.S. to "cut and run" from responsibilities of their own making. Legis 07:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added a section, though it requires quite a bit of expansion Diobaithyn (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger proposal

My inclination is against a merger, mainly because I dislike articles that just get too long, and I think that rational sub-division of a larger topic. I don't have strong views on the issue, but my preference would be to leave it as is, with both articles cross referring to each other. Legis 09:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur. I think it makes sense to leave it separate, because the Economist's editorial position can't quite be summed up with any simple word. If I had to do that, I'd say 'rationalist' or maybe 'classic liberal' or 'individualist'. But I feel that this article is a good reference source and would make the Economist article too long.--Zaorish 20:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Problem with the Criticism section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I have a problem with the "Criticism" section. Whoever wrote it is criticizing the fact that rich people read the Economist. This has nothing to do with the Economist editorial stance.

I feel that someone should either explain what positions have been widely criticized, or remove this currently irrelevant section. I'll delete it if no one responds in a few days. --Zaorish 19:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Rather than deleting it, would it not be better to move it over to the article on The Economist, where it would be more appropriate? Legis 07:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The criticism is really weak anyway.

*elitist editorial policy. That's simply a type of stance, a professional one and preferred to over other stances like the underclass beggar editorial policies which The Sun employs.

*catering to a readership mostly composed of wealthy and influential individuals. I don't see The Sun being criticised for 'catering to a readership mostly composed of poor and uninfluential individuals'. This has more to do with the audience than the magazine.

*or those with an interest in high finance and politics. That's what the damn publication is about! You don't see women's magazines criticised for catering to women or fishing magazines only catering for fishers. Nonsensical.

Real criticism is things like fabricating facts etc., this part is lame. Skinnyweed 12:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll take it out. Legis 08:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Israel

Can anyone double-check me on the Israel position I just added? Thanks.--Zaorish 20:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's accurate. I never read an Economist article which argued that Israel had a right to exist, but it is scathing in its criticism of Hamas and Iran in their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist. Legis 07:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why this "Israel position" has been removed, but this article badly needs a section on the Arab-Israeli conflict. My experience reading the newspaper suggests it is strongly for the two-state solution and has been critical of pretty much every actor in the conflict for incompetence and/or bad faith, but that's OR. Anyone has a source ? Sboucher (talk) 10:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge issue

Please read the discussion about the merge proposal at Talk:The Economist#Merge before taking action. -- Szvest 18:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

US mid-term elections

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I reverted the edit where it was indicated that The Economist endorsed the Democrats in the U.S. mid-term elections for a couple of reasons. Although it is correct, they said that the Republicans deserve to get clobbered, they did not formally endorse the Democratic party. They said made the comment that "the record of the 109th Congress has been terrrible". In fact the tenor of the editorial suggests that the Democrats are a change not an improvement. Secondly, any formal endorsement must be of a candidate, not simply of a party. In all I didn't think it was reflective or appropriate edit, so I took the view it should be reverted. Apologies if I offended. Legis 19:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but I think that is a ridiculous argument. I read the article and it does read as an endorsement. You say that the Democrats are a change and not a improvement. Well did you read the Kerry-Bush editorial in 2004? Michael Bloomberg for mayor? They didn't exactly give a ringing endorsement to them but it's on the main page. You are correct in saying that they said "the record of the 109th Congress has been terrible", but who is basically in control of the 109th Congress? The Republicans. They are the ones in control. From the opening statement in bold, to the final paragraphs, The Economist makes clear who they prefer in this election. Although they don't use the word "endorse" I read through some of the other "endorsements" and they don't use the magic word. Your second reason says that a formal endorsement must be of a candidate and not a party. I see no less than 7 political parties endorsed on this page. Granted they did have a candidate leading, but the endorsement was for the party. Also, I provided a reference unlike a great deal of Wikipedians. On this section alone, there are two endorsements, one of Clinton and Dole, that don't even have a reference. I will be posting this edit again. If it is taken down again, than all the endorsements should be removed. Tatsumaki4ryu

I made the relevant comments on your talk page. The Economist does formally endorse candidates regularly, but there was no formal endorsement of any candidates (or any party) in the article. It merely said that the Republicans were going to take a beating and that they deserved to for their poor handling of Congress. An endorsement has to be a formal endorsement, not simply a criticism of another party. I would suggest the appropriate test is whether the article contains the words "We endorse" or "The Economist endorses" - that appears in each of the other articles listed under that section, but not in the article relating to the 2006 mid terms. Threatening a mass delete because you dislike an edit is not a productive way to discuss a point. Always assume good faith. Legis 07:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not threaten a mass delete. I just was stating that the reasons for originally removing my edit could apply to over half the endorsements. I would be willing to come to a compromise using your test of the words "endorse" in the article, but as I said, several articles do not have references to the original Economist article and I know at least one does not use the word endorse, so if the midterm election goes, I strongly recommend many of the others for even better reasons go as well. I hope I didn't seem rude in my original comments. I just get frustrated when every time I do an edit (which is rare), it seems to be undone immediately for reasons (some much more absurd than this one, you at least have somewhat of a point.) I do apologize, but with what I see on this site it's hard to always assume good faith. Tatsumaki4ryu

Their endorsement? Brew coffee [1] Kewpid 14:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Haha. More of an endorsement than any previous edit. Including mine. You should put it on the main page. Tatsumaki4ryu

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

God's obituary

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I described the obituary for God as controversial (and which is now subject of a "citation-needed" tag) only because of the furore (fury, even) expressed in the letters pages about the piece over the subsequent months. It was not a controversy in the wider sense, in that it was never debated before Parliament or criticised in other newspapers. I think that the adjective is not inappropriate, but obviously there is never going to be a source to put in which would be an appropriate citation; so probably either the tag should be removed or the adjective should be removed. --Legis (talk - contribs) 17:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Just reference a couple of the letters. They may be available through the website?ALR 19:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggest it is removed. The article was not an editorial stance, but rather an observation that we have all become less religious. Kransky (talk) 11:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Armenian genocide

I note the recent edit about the Armenian genocide. Is The Economists position best summed up as that they are strongly opposed to Turkish laws which make it a crime to allege that the Armenian genocide occurred? This could probably be swept up in a wider point, that they oppose laws which mandate any view of history, including Holocaust denial laws and French laws making it a crime to deny the Armenian genocide.[2] --Legis (talk - contribs) 23:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Secularism

The article should maybe explain what is The Economist's position on secularism, especially militant secularism. The Holy See has reacted to a suggestion contained in a July 19 2007 issue of "The Economist", which calls on the Vatican to remove itself from its permanent observer status at the United Nations. [3][4] ADM (talk) 09:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Bosnian War

Clearly, we don't have complete coverage yet of the publication's editorial stance on the Bosnian War. Simms is but one opinion. I have no doubt at all that there are others, and that they differ. I haven't found sources providing such differing analyses yet. I encourage anyone who has, to expand the section, so that all relevant and properly documented views on the subject are covered (attributed to their respective holders, of course). Uncle G (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Endorsements

Well done on the good work that has been done tidying this article recently, but was there a need to remove the endorsements entirely? I say this partly because I put a bit of time into them, but I do think they're a useful guide, even if we find a way of compressing the lists. William Quill (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Support for Central Bank

The Economist endorsed "The coalition" in 2015, as quoted here, which is not the same as endorsing the Conservatives. 2.100.99.70 (talk) 11:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Why no section on the support for the Economist magazine for Central Bank (and direct government) backing for the banks?

Support for Central Bank backing of the banks (if they get into trouble) was established, on a limited scale, by the third editor of the Economist (Walter Bagehot). But since the economic crises of 2008 it has become a much more important concern for the magazine.

In issue after issue not only has financially supporting the banks been favoured by the Economist magazine in an American context - it is also been favoured in the context of European nations.

Preventing the major banks (and those corporations that are dependent upon them) going bankrupt has become one of (if not the) most important concerns of the magazine, and they have supported both Central bank and direct government backing of the banks.

Yet these is no section on this principle of the editoral stance of the Economist. One does not have to use words like "bailoutism" or "corporate welfare" (although they are accurate). But one can not just ignore this principle of the editorial stance of the magazine.2.26.113.248 (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories

Why on earth did you add The Economist editorial stance to a category on cold fusion? bobrayner (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't entirely sure about that one. Thanks for correcting it. I added it because the choice is between not having any categories at all or having all of the categories it talks about. It indeed doesn't seem to fit. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 05:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Economist editorial stance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090228231949/http://www.economist.com:80/help/DisplayHelp.cfm?folder=663377 to http://www.economist.com/help/DisplayHelp.cfm?folder=663377

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Endorsement for the 2015 GE

The Economist endorsed "The coalition" in 2015, as quoted here, which is not the same as endorsing the Conservatives. 2.100.99.70 (talk) 11:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)