Talk:The Economist editorial stance

message: I remember that The Economist made their feelings on readership size public after they got their one-millionth subscriber. It was a page within the newspaper itself that said something to the effect of "even though we don't normally concern our selves with this sort of thing, we would like to point out that we have a millionth subscriber." I don't have the issue anymore and I'm afraid that the page is not on their web site.
:  Lets wait and see if we can find the citation before adding. Don Spencertalk-to-me⛅ 20:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation Needed

message: The Economist has recently been quite critical of the war, while never denying its origonal support, I shall add something as to that. Pelegius 19:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a good point. I too have been wondering what's going on in the Ed. department regarding the Iraq War.--Zaorish 19:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My impression is that whilst they believe it was correct to try and remove Saddam (both for his human rights abuses, gassing of Kurds etc. and for his refusal to abide by the terms of the UN resolutions) they are highly critical of the way that the "peace" (if one can call it that) has been conducted.  But they consistently argue that it would be morally indefensible for the U.S. to "cut and run" from responsibilities of their own making. Legis 07:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've added a section, though it requires quite a bit of expansion Diobaithyn (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Iraq War

message: My inclination is against a merger, mainly because I dislike articles that just get too long, and I think that rational sub-division of a larger topic.  I don't have strong views on the issue, but my preference would be to leave it as is, with both articles cross referring to each other. Legis 09:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. I think it makes sense to leave it separate, because the Economist's editorial position can't quite be summed up with any simple word. If I had to do that, I'd say 'rationalist' or maybe 'classic liberal' or 'individualist'. But I feel that this article is a good reference source and would make the Economist article too long.--Zaorish 20:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: Can anyone double-check me on the Israel position I just added? Thanks.--Zaorish 20:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's accurate.  I never read an Economist article which argued that Israel had a right to exist, but it is scathing in its criticism of Hamas and Iran in their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist. Legis 07:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why this "Israel position" has been removed, but this article badly needs a section on the Arab-Israeli conflict. My experience reading the newspaper suggests it is strongly for the two-state solution and has been critical of pretty much every actor in the conflict for incompetence and/or bad faith, but that's OR. Anyone has a source ? Sboucher (talk) 10:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel 

message: Please read the discussion about the merge proposal at Talk:The Economist#Merge before taking action. -- Szvest 18:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge issue

message: I described the obituary for God as controversial (and which is now subject of a "citation-needed" tag) only because of the furore (fury, even) expressed in the letters pages about the piece over the subsequent months.  It was not a controversy in the wider sense, in that it was never debated before Parliament or criticised in other newspapers.  I think that the adjective is not inappropriate, but obviously there is never going to be a source to put in which would be an appropriate citation; so probably either the tag should be removed or the adjective should be removed. --Legis (talk - contribs) 17:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just reference a couple of the letters.  They may be available through the website?ALR 19:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Suggest it is removed.  The article was not an editorial stance, but rather an observation that we have all become less religious.  Kransky (talk) 11:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: God's obituary

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

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

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

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

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

message: Why on earth did you add The Economist editorial stance to a category on cold fusion? bobrayner (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't entirely sure about that one. Thanks for correcting it. I added it because the choice is between not having any categories at all or having all of the categories it talks about. It indeed doesn't seem to fit. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 05:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on The Economist editorial stance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090228231949/http://www.economist.com:80/help/DisplayHelp.cfm?folder=663377 to http://www.economist.com/help/DisplayHelp.cfm?folder=663377
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

message: Since the election was called today 68.199.243.137 (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Starmer be added now for the 2024 GE? 

message: Today 68.199.243.137 (talk) 12:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  They also just endorsed the DA in South Africa