Talk:The Economist/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The two paragraphs of "Additional Information about The Economist" are a direct copy of the information on the economist's site.

Because of The Economist's lack of by lines, I would like to see a list of the The Economist’s correspondents. For instance I learned from reading the NY Review of Books that Max Rodenbeck is The Economist’s Mideast correspondent. I know a freelance journalist for Proceso and he knew the Economist correspondent covering the Mexican election because he hosted a party for all the journalists; so I would bet this information is mostly publicaly known. A perfect job for wikipedia. Dafergu3 02:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I fear that keeping such a list up-to-date would be almost impossible. No reason, of course, that individually notable correspondents shouldn't be identified either here or in their own article. Barnabypage 13:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Valid point. The entry could just say list of Economist Correspondents: Max Rodenbeck, Middle East (Current September 2006) So and So Mexico/Latin America (Current July 2006) or something like that.

Try this link: [[1]] Brown168

I didn't see the Big Mac index in the Feb 7th 2004 issue. Has it stopped? - David Gerard 13:21, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

It is published on a more or less annual basis. Was last in the Jan.15th issue.
Index still there. Seems to be published approximately every six months. Last published 9th June 2005. Guess another one due later this month. Do a quick search at www.economist.com for relevant dates. -- Gjm 06:57, Dec 08, 2005 (UTC)

User:Edward made Big Mac index in the hope that such an article would be written. Well I've made a start on it - please take a look. Note that previously it was a redirect to purchasing power parity so there is no visible change on this page, which is why I am telling y'all about it. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 17:52, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Front covers - are these really special about the Economist? This bit of the article doesn't say anything about the Ec. that's different to any other magazine (whether it calls itself a 'newspaper' or not) - David Gerard 23:00, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

Kill it, there is something distinctive about the cover, but not so different from newsweek, time, etc on seconds thoughts to warrant a mention. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 23:15, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Just done a shuffle - noted its strong opinionation. Shuffle further as you like ;-) - David Gerard 23:21, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic: This weeks edition of The Economist (12th-18th June 2004) mentions Wikipedia and in a good way too. Page 16 in the UK edition or at http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2747734 - subscriber content only - fair use snippet follows:

"The model is particularly well suited to information-rich goods, of which software is merely the most obvious example, since it is pure information. The surprisingly good open-source encyclopedia (see Wikipedia.org) is another example. Like software, it is modular, which allows different people to work on different bits."

Pcb21| Pete 11:00, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This week's issue (Jan 6th) uses Wikipedia as a source for a series of probability distribution function graphs --Cruci 15:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

minor addition

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

Where to mention the newspaper/magazine thing

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

I disagree. The introduction of any article must tell what the subject of the article is. The Economist is a bit of special case: to understand what it is, we need to take extra care to clarify the special meaning of the word "newspaper" before it is routinely used in the rest of the article.
You're not really gaining any brevity. You have added a 20-word sentence in the place of a 40-word sentence, at the price of repeating the 40-word sentence later and starting an entire new section. But the logical place for this information isn't in any separate section, it's in the introduction, otherwise you wouldn't have put that 20-word sentence there in the first place.
Whether it is daft to call itself a "newspaper" is beside the point. England is full of daft traditions, which is part of its charm. Nobody plays croquet at the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club either.
If you think the current phrasing is somehow "judgmental", it could be rephrased somehow. But for the sake of clarity and informativeness, the information belongs in the introduction. The way you have done it leaves readers incompletely informed and quite possibly confused, and requires restating the full information later anyway, all for the sake of saving twenty words in the introduction.
-- Curps 18:15, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Current version is OK by me, though there could be another para in the intro. What else would the intro need to be a severely-synopsised standalone precis? - David Gerard 19:44, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Seems to me that I remember there being a legal distinction in the UK about newspapers and magazines. I guess that this may well have been deregulated by now, but I'm guessing that the distinction is a historical thing - after all they've been going for a while.
I managed to find an edition where I have one from several territories... The company that publishes it is called 'The Economist Newspaper Ltd' which also gives another clue. The small print on a UK copy mentions that it is 'Registered as a Newspaper'. In the same copy of the SE Asia edition (printed Singapore, collected on Thai Airways) that first bit is missing. I would assume therefore that the newspaper thing is a legal UK distinction and largely irrelevant outside that jurisdiction. --KayEss 18:04, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In today's usage, a "newspaper" invariably refers to a daily publication on newsprint in either broadsheet or tabloid format. The historically-based usage of this term for the Economist simply has to be explained for the benefit of those unfamiliar with the publication. Otherwise the main body of the article, interchangeably referring to "the newspaper" and "the magazine", creates a great deal of confusion. -- Curps 04:34, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Under English law The Economist is considered newspaper. Under section 1, Newspaper Libel and Registration Act 1881 - which is still in force - "a 'newspaper' is defined as any paper containing public news, intelligence, or occurrences, or any remarks or observations therein printed for sale, and published in England or Northern Ireland periodically, or in parts or numbers at intervals not exceeding 26 days between the publication of any two papers, parts or numbers." (source: http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/about/gbhtml/gb03.shtml, registration authority for UK companies).
However, the Companies House link you cite also states: "registration is not required if the newspaper is owned by a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1985, or under one of its predecessors" - which The Economist appears to be (The Economist Group Ltd.). Economist.com states: "First, why does it call itself a newspaper? Even when The Economist incorporated the Bankers' Gazette and Railway Monitor from 1845 to 1932, it also described itself as "a political, literary and general newspaper" It still does so because, in addition to offering analysis and opinion, it tries in each issue to cover the main events—business and political—of the week. It goes to press on Thursdays and, printed simultaneously in six countries, is available in most of the world's main cities the following day or soon after." Barnabypage 15:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
The Economist seems to call itself a newspaper because for the past 124 years that has been and remains its legal status in its home territory (England).
Incidentally, in the UK edition of The Economist, at the end of the contents section, among the small print about publisher and copyright you will find the wording 'Registered as a newspaper'. This is legally required wording reflecting The Economist's company registration status. The same wording can be found printed in all UK daily, weekly, and Sunday newspapers and magazines. -- Gjm 07:21, 08 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I thought the registration was in order to benefit from reduced postal rates? It's certainly not required for magazines in general. Barnabypage 18:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Probably the intro should say that it's targeted at a high-end prestige market, and counts influential business and government decision-makers worldwide among its target audience. Phrased in some sufficiently NPOV way. -- Curps 23:46, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

witticisms?

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

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

opinions

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

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

2004 US presidential election quote

In an edit entitled, "Opinions - i don't see that the quote is really relevant?" T-bomb removed "The incompetent or the incoherent?" from:

In the past, the magazine has endorsed:
...

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

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

Censorship

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

Letters

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

Different Versions

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

History section

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

Tony Blair in 2001?

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

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

Funnyhat 18:26, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

Quotation about gun control in the US

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

Several can be found on The Economist's website (http://www.economist.com/). I have listed article summaries supplied by the magazine below preceded by the article title and publication date. One needs a subsciption to fully view each of the articles. Sources: [3] and [4]
    • A sniper terrorises Washington's suburbs, 10 October 2002 - Yet more reason to deplore guns, even as Democrats have started to like them
    • Gun ownerships and child death, 28 February 2002 - More guns at home means more child deaths. Surprised?
    • Gun control and crime, 11 January 2001 - New research shoots holes in the idea that guns in the hands of private citizens will help to deter criminals
    • Playing with fire, 21 December 2000 - The American gun lobby thinks children should be taught to use guns. Safely, of course, and just for sport or personal security, what else? The idea is as old as it is dangerous
I hope these are sufficient. --Oldak Quill 20:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Article at risk of degenerating into a set of lists?

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

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

Politics of The Economist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Opinion list

The "Opinions" section of this article is getting ridiculous - an enormous (and completely useless) list. I am strongly tempted to cut it out entirely. - DavidWBrooks 23:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

ignore Economist's official opinion

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

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

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

I am taking the same position as David. Cheers -- Svest 15:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™
OK, I'll email them myself and see what they think of one or two topics (in case I get a reply) and then, maybe insert what they reply. Cheers Tony Tony 15:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi Tony. Do you think that their reply would be encyclopedic?! It's like editing Michael Jackson article and contact him for his view!!! Who cares?! Cheers -- Svest 15:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™
New opinions are always welcome. --F. Cosoleto 21:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Circulation

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

Well spotted. Go ahead and fix it. Pcb21| Pete 20:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't have the figures. Anyone who does, feel free.... Matthew 22:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the sentence. Latin America sales are included in the 517,592. The readership in Latin America is around 1%. [5]. Cheers -- Svest 15:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

The way that the sentence is worded, Latin American sales are only included in the 517,592 if there are no sales in Latin America. Otherwise the numbers don't add up. Matthew 17:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
I've updated it with the newer numbers and rewritten it slightly. - DavidWBrooks 18:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Economist annual 'The World in nnnn' magazine?

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

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

New editor

In case somebody wants a source [6].

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

"general disagreement with the paper's classical liberalism" ?

The last sentance of the last section says:

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

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

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

Editors

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


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

Position on recreational drug use

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

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

Here is a link [7]

Changed political category to Liberalism from Economism

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

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

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

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

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

Merge

The Economist editorial stance pretty much duplicates some of this article, I don't see that it adds much to the corpus of material.ALR 07:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The editorial stance information used to be in The Economist, until it was split off: Talk:The_Economist#Opinion_list. Kewpid 12:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I have put the 'Background' and 'Tone and Voice' sections back into the main article and removed them from the editorial stance article. Kewpid 12:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
This is a quite good section and, for the most part, I like it. Good work. It should stay. Rlove 16:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd read through the background, but the editorial stance article had grown into a duplicate of the material in this article, although structured differently. The changes make it more reasonable.ALR 18:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe that a merge is needed. We can cleanup The Economist editorial stance by removing the duplicated material. Cheers -- Szvest 18:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
  • It should be merge back into this article, it is a fork of little encyclopedic value when it's removed from the comtext of this article.--Peta 01:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Peta is right. The only reason which was given for breaking off this "editorial stance" section into its own article was the length of the section...but I don't think it's unwieldy.Dave Runger(t)⁄(c) 21:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem w/ the merge as i read your valid points. -- Szvest 17:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opinion

Shouldn't we make a list of issues which the magazine takes stance? Free trade, illegal drug, gay marriage, Global warming (Kyoto), and so on. It makes an interesting list. I also do not agree the magazine's position as libertarian which imply hostility to the goverment per se. Vapour

The Economist editorial stance contains a fairly extensive list of the magazine's positions. Kewpid 14:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Comment

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

Use of salutations

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

N.Y. Times does it ... to ludicrous extremes, once referring to the singer Meat Loaf as "Mr. Loaf" on second reference. - DavidWBrooks 01:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not all that uncommon in the UK, whence The Economist hails. Barnabypage 10:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Indeed - although in The Economist and elsewhere it would be "Mr Blair" since there is no full stop after such salutations in British English. Paul Christensen (Hong Kong) 04:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The famous instance of this is "Mr. Bastards", in reference to the gentleman from Leeds who changed his name to "Yorkshire Bank PLC Are Fascist Bastards" upon being issued a steep charge for an overdraft on his checking account. — Dan | talk 05:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


I agree with Catchpole - while this list is interesting, for it to be noteworthy we would have to be sure that the magazine (sorry, newspaper ;) is not referencing other writers/quoatable sources with equal or greater frequency. Your list covers a nine-year period - how many times in that period has The Economist punned on or quoted from, for example, Dickens, Shakespeare or the Beatles? Barnabypage 12:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Well to put Adams in the same category as Dickens or Shakespeare is quite a compliment to him! But realistically i doubt many would give him that much credit. And thats just my point. Everyone uses references from literary classics. But how many modern science fiction writers have their work repeatedly referenced in publications like the Economist? Sojourner99 03:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Essentially what you're doing is Original Research, unless you can find a statement in an appropriately reliable source which would identify any specific literary reference policy. And given that it's not in the style guide I think you're probably on a hiding to nothing.ALR 20:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Theres nothing wrong with original research or else whats the point of Wikipedia? It wouldnt be a community collaboration if all they wanted was the "official" take on everything. I dont want to add a whole section to the article. But at most one sentence after the "Tone and Voice" paragraph that talks about a "sense of whimsy." Im not going to make an unconfirmed claim that the Economist editors have a bias toward Adams, but just simply point out that they have an "unusual number of references" to his literature. I mean considering that Asimov and Clarke who are the fathers of modern science fiction and are among the best known writers in the world get less attention in the Economist than Adams does i think that says something and is at least worth mentioning. I will then make another page on my own seperate from this one where they can see the list ive dug up. Sojourner99 05:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I personally agree that there is nothing wrong with original research when it only amounts to stating the obvious (e.g. 'The Economist has a red masthead') but the fact remains that there is an official Wikipedia policy discouraging it - and in any case, this HHGTTG hypothesis goes beyond the obvious... Barnabypage 13:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
WP:NORALR 07:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Finding and quoting a reference pointing out this fact would facilitate including it in the article. I had noticed The Economist's affinity towards Adams too. (I can't claim the references to Adams are more frequent than those to Dickens or Shakespeare, because the latter are more common in general and thus stick out less (IMO), but I don't recall seeing frequent references to, say, Pratchett or Clarke or even Tolkien. A superficial search on google yielded no mention of the phenomenon, however. Dig deeper! ---Sluzzelin 13:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe the fact, once verified, should be included in the Douglas Adams or THGTTG article.---Sluzzelin 13:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Letters to the edtior: idiot's corner

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

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

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

Index of Democracy

Maybe this list can be useful as a resource.

The Economist has in a study examined the state of democracy in 167 countries and rated the nations with a Economist Intelligence Unit Index of Democracy which focused on five general categories; free and fair election process, civil liberties, functioning of government, political participation and political culture. Sweden scored a total of 9,88 on the scale of ten which was the highest result, North Korea scored the lowest with 1.03. [1][2]

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