Talk:The Economist/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  opinions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Censorship 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Letters 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Different Versions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  History section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Tony Blair in 2001? 

message: Can anyone find a good line that shows support for greater gun control in America? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruguiea (talk • contribs) 05:11, 25 June 2005
:Several can be found on The Economist's website (http://www.economist.com/). I have listed article summaries supplied by the magazine below preceded by the article title and publication date. One needs a subsciption to fully view each of the articles. Sources:  and 
** A sniper terrorises Washington's suburbs, 10 October 2002 - Yet more reason to deplore guns, even as Democrats have started to like them
** Gun ownerships and child death, 28 February 2002 - More guns at home means more child deaths. Surprised?
** Gun control and crime, 11 January 2001 - New research shoots holes in the idea that guns in the hands of private citizens will help to deter criminals
** Playing with fire, 21 December 2000 - The American gun lobby thinks children should be taught to use guns. Safely, of course, and just for sport or personal security, what else? The idea is as old as it is dangerous
:I hope these are sufficient. --Oldak Quill 20:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotation about gun control in the US 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Article at risk of degenerating into a set of lists? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Politics of The Economist 

message: 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)
replies: text: I am taking the same position as David. Cheers -- Svest 15:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: The article The Economist editorial stance is now alive. Cheers -- Svest 18:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ignore Economist's official opinion 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Economist annual 'The World in nnnn' magazine? 

message: In case somebody wants a source .
Cheers, Tony 20:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New editor 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Position on recreational drug use 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Changed political category to Liberalism from Economism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Opinion 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Use of salutations 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

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

text: 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)

text: Maybe the fact, once verified, should be included in the Douglas Adams or THGTTG article.---Sluzzelin 13:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy 

message: 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)
replies: text: Good question. I removed the reference, which wasn't very enlightening even if true. - DavidWBrooks 21:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Letters to the edtior: idiot's corner 

message: 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. Laza Kekic. "A pause in democracy’s march" (From The World in 2007 print edition)[www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.pdf Economist Intelligence Unit democracy index 2006] (PDF file)
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)
thread_title:  Index of Democracy 

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

message: Might it be worth including something about the changes to the economist.com website? These include a weekly correspondent's diary (an innovation because the author writes as "I" although still without a byline; and also daily columns on europe (disclaimer: written by me), asia, the environment, business, technology and arts (more are planned). New blogs are also due this year (so far there are just two, on economics and american politics) 
I would also say that as a long-time correspondent of the paper, I was interested in the discussion about Hitchhiker references and will raise these with my colleagues. I think this probably is an unconscious indicator of our common culture. It would be interesting to look for Monty Python allusions too.
Edwardlucas 12:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that the mere fact of a magazine (sorry, newspaper ;) having a Website is by now non-notable, but substantial differences in scope or approach between the printed and online versions are worth mentioning. Barnabypage 13:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Maybe it is worth mentioning the upcoming podcast of the economist?  Newsletter subscribers to the magazine should already have received information about this. 172.209.212.122 11:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps some information on the new audio edition available at the http:/www.economist.com/audioedition? - Will Leach
It seems that the website, which used to charge non-subscribers for access to many articles, now gives everyone free access to current content. Some of the stuff in the archives is still for subscribers only, though. I am not sure when exactly this happened, but I think it's fairly recent. I don't know if it will last, either. I don't really see it as a viable business model. Does anyone have any more details about this? --sergeymk 01:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The Economist makes the past year's articles freely available. Older articles are behind a paywall. Given the strong increase in the number of subscribers I'd say it is viable. The NYT decided recently that having lots of readers (and their associated revenue) was worth more than a limited number of subscribers. Kewpid 09:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economist.com 

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

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

message: I'll pass this article once some loose ends are tied:
*Inline citations go immediately after punctuation, not before.
*There are still a few stray 'citation needed' tags lying around.
*Try to add a few more citations to some key claims, like the first paragraph of Censorship.
Minor concern: Is there any notable criticism of The Economist? The article only has positive things to say.
Carson 02:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Economist's moral blinkers - Criticism of an ideological nature, with which I disagree. Kewpid 04:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Citations taken care of. Basar 05:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I was unable to find references for the material tagged, but I was able to find some for the censorship section. Basar 22:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think everything has been taken care of, including the criticism provided above. Basar 05:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA nomination - on hold 

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

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

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

message: :Image:The Economist logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair use rationale added and tag for deletion removed. Tamino 18:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:The Economist logo.png 

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

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

message: What I've found unusual in the Economist is the somewhat frequent self-reference. As in 'the Iraq war, which this publication advocated', and others. I'll try to find a reference. Wikiak 03:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Citing  71.159.41.4 edit right after the user's talk page response, that I reverted, the user alluded to The Nation which in comparison is Leftish. Remember Edwardlucas the user is probably a US citizen, so the term liberal has meshed with the term leftish. This is because of the two party systems in the US confuses the correct terminology. Compared to leftish publication, The Nation, The Economist is more to the right, yet does not fall into any Anglo-rightist ideology (or for that matter conservative). The user is probably an anti-capitalist. I believe The Economist is libertarian (using US nomenclature) on most issues, or more specifically, a "classical liberal" publication. During the early 20th century many American liberals became leftists (denoting governmental control which solidified during the New Deal) and the name liberal was redefined during this political reorientation in the US.     In American political science, left liberals may be called "new liberals" (even progressives'). However, with the rise of the DLC, classical liberlism has had a comeback in the US democratic party and is often termed neoliberal, though really classically liberal (or third way). This is a problem when dominating party systems change their political perspectives, yet some of the terms connected to the parties stay, even if the terms contradict parts of the new perspective. Thus, we have a new liberal complaining about the classical liberal print.(or a leftish-new-liberal-progressive complaining about a third-way-classical-(neo)liberal-libertarian publication, if you fancy inclusive terms, but not to confuse you)-Kain Nihil 05:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Edwardlucas is a journalist with the Economist. See Edward Lucas. Catchpole 06:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone & Voice 

message: :Image:Economist-Jan-2007.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 08:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Economist-Jan-2007.jpg 

message: :When the newspaper was founded, the term "economism" denoted what would today be termed fiscal conservatism in the United States, or economic liberalism in the rest of the world (and historically in the United States as well). The Economist generally supports free markets and opposes extreme socialism. It is in favour of globalisation and free immigration. Economic liberalism is generally associated with the right, but is now favoured by some traditionally left-wing parties. It also supports social liberalism, which is often seen as left-wing, especially in the United States. This contrast derives in part from The Economist's roots in classical liberalism, disfavouring government interference in either social or economic activity. According to former editor Bill Emmott, "the Economist's philosophy has always been liberal, not conservative."[11] However, the views taken by individual contributors are quite diverse.
I quote this entire paragraph because its inaccuracy is not readily localized to any particular phrase. "Fiscal conservatism" is, even when specified to US usage, an extremely fuzzy term, which can readily be applied to any political platform that includes a demand to lower tax or to run a balanced budget without paying of debt or to run a surplus with which to pay off national debt — but it does not necessarily imply the classically liberal anti-regulation, free-trade stance implied both by "economism" and by The Economists 's editorial position. "Economic liberalism" comes closer, but it obscures the fact that The Economist has been a fairly consistent defender of classical liberal values outside of the purely economic realm, going as far as to express skepticism at, for instance, the prohibition of psychoactive substances. "Globalization" (or, if you will, "globalisation" — they do spell the British way, after all) is an even vaguer term, and as far as I can remember The Economist tends wisely to avoid pronouncing any sweeping judgment of its desirability. "Left" and "right," make all the other characterizations pale in comparison: let us not forget, when discussing a newspaper as old as this one, that Frédéric Bastiat, the French parliamentarian and pamphleteer who was so inspired by Cobden and Bright, sat on the left in the only legislative body in which "left" and "right" were ever defined in the truly canonical way. After the excursion into political handedness, the paragraph returns to "social liberalism," which is supported by an "it" of which the antecedent can, 'far as I can tell, only be "economic liberalism" — can that possibly be enlightening for our readers? And the "contrast" referred to in the sentence following that, in turn, is wholly specious. There is nothing inherently paradoxical about applying the principle of individual liberty in the same way to affairs that involve monetary transactions and to those that do not. Sjeng (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an odd section. I've cut out some of it, but more should probably go, and it should be referenced and make fewer sweeping generalizations—It seems to have been written by someone whose only familiarity with ideology is the conventional spectrum of recent American politics. It's particularly odd to say that "economic liberalism is generally associated with the right, but is now favoured by some traditionally left-wing parties", which gets the historical switch pretty much backwards, since at the time The Economist was founded, the two main British parties were the Conservatives and the Liberals, and the Conservatives (the "right") were certainly not the more economically liberal of the two. --Delirium (talk) 08:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideological confusion 

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

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

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

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

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

message: PLMuk:-
I'm involved in a research project which requires the resources of the British Library. Today [Tuesday 18th Nov 2008], I noticed some material which may be useful here! It is entitled; On Saturday the 27th of September, [the year isn't specified] ... If a sufficient Number of Subscribers shall then have been procured to defray the Expense of the Publication, Price Three-pence, The First Number of a New Weekly Work, to be entitled THE ECONOMIST: ...I have a copy [jpg & pdf,] however I have yet to determine how to display or up-load it to here
An example 1st Economist .jpg
 (Plmuk (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Information 

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

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

text: Thanks, I just hope I am not alone in recognising that the article and referencing is not in good shape. I'd merge the criticism section into appropriate sections (rather than ridding it completely), but I can't touch the article just now in case I am reported for 3RR or the like. --Russavia Dialogue 21:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advert feel and over-abundance of selfpub sources