Talk:New Statesman

Cover image

It was updated last year but without the summary being changed. TrottieTrue (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Untitled

Circulation Figures.

The circulation figure is out of date. What is the circulation of the New Statesman for the first half of 2016? It is now November 2016 what is the circulation from January to the end of June 2016?2A02:C7D:B5B8:DA00:8909:E203:CB2B:702B (talk) 09:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Verification Needed

This article needs a lot of citations. Lot's of information, but give references to where they came from.

Yep. Two different sources on the cirulation, neither with the article's figure, which was inserted in August 2009.

More still needed

I've rejigged this but it still needs a lot more detail: the history is far too sketchy still, particularly on the post-1960 period.

As of 2022-08-11 we still see:

> By 1996 the magazine was selling 23,000 copies a week. New Statesman was the first periodical to go online, hosted by the www.cleanroom.co.uk, in 1995.[29][failed verification]

The text of https://www.c-span.org/person/?123286 says nothing about circulation nor websites of the '90s. In the "West European Critique of U.S. News Coverage" footage from 1986-10-06 Ms. Wright appears in approximately minutes 0:34 through 0:43. She touches on Middle East journalism, saying nothing about circulation figures. Consider deleting the unsupported sentences, especially since the next section has a well-supported Guardian reference for the same figure. Definitely delete the spurious c-span citation. John hanley parc (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Image depicting new look needed

The image currently on the article needs updating to one that displays the recently adopted, new look of the magazine. 86.135.174.224 20:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The competitions

If the entry is expanded it might be good to give the competitions a mention. The end. Notreallydavid 00:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

History

We are really short on history here. Among the editors of the Nation was Leonard Woolf; surely that merits a mention. Citation: [1] - Jmabel | Talk 19:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

2024's False Report

'In June 2024, the New Statesman spread the false report that Noam Chomsky had died.' Is that even remotely relevant? If we have to show every wrong articles in magazines, we'll never end adding such reports. I propose to remove it.

Consistency needed with title history

When exactly did The Statesman become The New Statesman?

Was it in 1930 when "merged with the Liberal weekly the Nation, and changed its name to the New Statesman and Nation, which it remained until 1964."?

Or was it in 1988 when "The Statesman acquired the weekly New Society ... and merged with it, becoming New Statesman and Society for the next eight years."

There seems to be some confusion about this. Also, the journal seems to be referred to (perhaps in the affectionate vernacular) as The Statesman when surely it should be The New Statesman since the former denotes its original title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angry candy (talk • contribs) 15:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that it has always been The New Statesman, the reason being to avoid confusion with the Indian publication The Statesman. BTLizard (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Newstatesmini.jpg

Image:Newstatesmini.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Jock Campbell

If anyone has any (citable) information about Jock Campbell (former chairman of the New Statesman and Nation) and sponsor (?) of the "Jock Campbell/New Statesman Prize for African Literature", your contribution to the article about him would be appreciated. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Mehdi Hasan "Kaffar" controversy

Strictly speaking this section should be removed on the grounds of difficulties around verifiability, but feel unable to do so as it seems likely to reverted. I have thus modified it to better explain the context from hearing the cited recording. Philip Cross (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

User:2yyiam deleted that section without giving a reason. I'm sure he intended to say that it is a long standing Wikipedia policy (WP:Citing sources) that blogs are not acceptable as a reliable, notable, citeable source. For this reason, the text could not be allowed to stand. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

While Hasan is quoted on a blog, the blog clearly links to audio files of the quotes in question which are irrefutably Hasan. They offer the full context of his remarks. It also strikes me as strange to suggest that comments on a blog are not reliable if clearly posted by the site itself. To take a different view would be to exclude one of the most vital places where opinion and information is published in the contemporary world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.20.135 (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason we don't use blogs as reliable sources is that they are too often transient amateur opinion or contain unsourced claims that are potentially libelous. If it is picked up by the mainstream media as pprofessionally investigated, then it can be reported with the appropriate citation. See WP:Biography of living persons. In the meantime, it stays out. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This article on LiberalConspiracy.org suggests that the HP story is fundamentally inaccurate and potentially libelous, which is another reason for WP to stand back until the dust settles, as per WP:Biography of living persons. Wikipedia cannot knowingly publish a libel. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Gideon Donald

Since it wasn't merged and there's no mention of the name in this article, if someone is wondering why Gideon Donald redirects here, see this hoaxed former article and its AfD discussion. The result was a redirect here but no content was merged, leaving a orphaned redirect. -- œ^™ 00:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Really Socialist?

Is the New Statesman really a socialist magazine? Having actually bought and read it myself, I would argue that it is a left-wing political magazine, despite its socialist origins.

---

The editor Kampfner said in a recent introduction that the magazine was "true to its heritage of radical politics"

---

Since New Labour, the New Statesman has not been socialist. It should probably be described as 'centre-left'. --86.27.155.40 (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Replaced "socialist" with "centre-left". Editors are supposed to use a description the magazinne would itself use, while "radical" (Kampfner's term) is not necessarily cognate with "sociailist". We are also supposed to write in the present tense, so the magazine's history is not relevant. The magazine has regular columnists (and contributors) like Olly Grender and David Allan Green who identify with the Liberal Democrats. Philip Cross (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The supporting citation uses the phrase "left-of-centre", which has a very different meaning to "centre-left". Diogenes the Cynic (talk) 19:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Repeated removal of circulation figures

There have been a number of attempts to remove circulation figures form the article recently, either reverting to 2010 figures and/or removing the number of unpaid copies. These figures are all fully sourced so can people please keep an eye on this. Could those making the change please cease or at least discuss the issue first. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Add Ai Weiwei

someone please add this:

http://www.newstatesman.com/staggers/2012/10/taking-great-firewall-china

--維基小霸王 (talk) 14:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Origin of 'Staggers' nickname

This has nothing to do with the financial state of the magazine! It is an example of the Oxford "er".

Skeptic12 (talk) 22:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, 11 years on, and have changed the sentence accordingly. -- Alarics (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

"An apologist for Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union..."?

I have read numerous works on the New Statesman while it was under Kingsley Martin's tenure, and I believe the entry as it currently stands gives a misleading view of the magazine's position during the 1930s. The entry currently suggests the NS policy on Russia was indistinguishable from that of the Daily Worker.

While sympathetic to the Soviet Union, Martin often allowed material which disagreed with his views to be published in the magazine. For instance,Matthew Taunton points out that "The New Statesman was criticized for being too indulgent in its coverage of the Soviet Union, but its pages contained genuine debate." Discussing a review of a book by Martin about the Soviet Union, he notes that "Keynes was polite, but argued that Martin was 'a little too full perhaps of good will' in forming judgements about the 'Russian experiment', and that any doubts he had experienced had been 'swallowed down if possible'. Martin was deeply offended but printed the review". during the H.G. Wells-Stalin talk, that " Wells also contradicts Stalin and tries to put across his own view. Indeed, Shaw—a jingoistic Stalinist at this stage of his career—found Wells rather too irreverent..."

Patrick Wright, in his book Iron Curtain, points out that the NS editorial of 17th September 1932 took issue with Soviet agricultural policy, noting that the publication stated that "the serious nature of the food situation is no secret and no invention", and while agreeing with the collectivization policy, added Russia had "proceeded far too quickly and lost the cooperation of farmers".

And Roger Moorhouse notes that after the Hitler-Stalin pact, the magazine stated on 9th December 1939, that Stalin "has adopting the familiar technique of the Fuhrer" and "Like Hitler, he [Stalin] has a contempt for all arguments except that of superior force." 79.97.190.9 (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure whether this merits entry in the NS article, but E.M. Forster published an essay in the magazine disagreeing with the Communism of Christopher Caudwell, and stating "As for their argument for revolution-the argument that we must do evil now so that good may come of it in the long run-it seems to me to have nothing in it. Not because I am too nice to do evil, but because I don't believe the Communists know what leads to what." That doesn't sound like something a uncritically pro-Stalin magazine would allow to be printed.

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111124181134/http://www.bsme.com:80/events/2/latest-news/44/bsme-news to http://www.bsme.com/events/2/latest-news/44/bsme-news

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New Statesman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323143808/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n7_v11/ai_16679970/ to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n7_v11/ai_16679970
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bsme.com/events/2/latest-news/44/bsme-news

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Statesman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110616182243/http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=42839&c=1 to http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=42839&c=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Statesman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170215110121/http://www.europeanpressprize.com/winners/year-2013/the-distinguished-writing-award/jason-cowley-editor-of-the-new-statesman/ to http://www.europeanpressprize.com/winners/year-2013/the-distinguished-writing-award/jason-cowley-editor-of-the-new-statesman/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Political stance

Given the recent cycle of edits and reverts by 86.11.51.106, Snowded, Roland Of Yew and myself, I'm starting a section here to discuss where in the article the magazine's political stance should be mentioned. My own opinion is that it should appear in the introductory paragraph, where I've retained it with my own edits, but doesn't need to be in the first sentence, and particularly not the fourth word (and first adjective). I also believe we should be guided by usage in other articles about magazines on politics and culture, for example:

• First sentence of introduction: The American Prospect and The Nation.
• Later in introduction: The Economist (third paragraph), The Spectator (third sentence), and the National Review (second paragraph).
• Absent from introduction: Prospect, The Atlantic.

Also, please see the discussion above in the "Really Socialist?" section. Perhaps the New Statesman would be better described as centre-left, as is Libération in the fourth paragraph of its article. - Meticulo (talk) 09:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The Economist and Spectator articles have a more nuanced discussion in the lede, they don't label it in the opening sentence. I see you also changed the lede so I have restored it to the last stable version while we sort this out. The precidents you quote are not right up front. -----Snowded ^TALK 09:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think a political stance has to be mentioned within the first few words of the very first sentence. Meticulo (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Of course a magazine or newspaper political stance should appear and in the lede, a failure to do so would leave Wikipedia open to accusations of partiality. Why? Because most newspapers, magazines etc on Wikipedia do so. Another reason is that when these newspapers, magazines and journals are cited the reader can then have a clearer understanding as to whether the cite in question is politically biased. Roland Of Yew (talk) 09:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it arguably should be in the lead paragraph, but why do you insist it appear in the first sentence, and so early in that? Meticulo (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this rather vague label should not be included first sentence of the lead. William Avery (talk) 09:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Unless a journal is explicitly the organ of a political party, its editorial line should not go in the first sentence of the lead. Either way, a reliable source rather than wikipedians' opinion should give its alignment: best of all would be the journal's own statement, finding a genuinely neutral RS would be very difficult indeed. Only if its 'line' is quite explicit should it go in the lead at all. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The About the New Statesman page on the magazine's website describes it as the UK's "leading progressive political and cultural magazine" and mentions its "progressive and liberal politics"; so it's clear that it has a political stance, but it characterises it as "progressive" rather than "left-wing" or "socialist". TSP (talk) 12:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Crossman's editorship

"After Johnson's departure in 1970, the Statesman went into a long period of declining circulation under successive editors: Richard Crossman (1970–72), who tried to edit it at the same time as playing a major role in Labour politics"

Where is there the slightest evidence to back up that statement? At the commencement of the Labour election campaign in mid-1970, before he took up the Statesman editorship, Crossman, in his published diaries, characterises himself - based on his omission from the campaigning line-up - as "very much an ex-leading figure of the [Labour] party". In what way could such a figure, on the edge of retirement from the political fray (again, following what Crossman said in his diaries), suddenly begin again to have a substantial influence on it? Harfarhs (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I would like to see some table or list for the Issue names & numbers the New Statesman has published.

I'm just talking about a table from 1 to whatever issue No. the latest publication is, with Names & dates. I haven't found anything like that on their main site, so somebody is probably going to have to go through their publications one by one to compile it. 2600:1012:A11A:4734:48E4:25E9:36BF:B546 (talk) 05:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)