Talk:Executive Intelligence Review

Old thread

This publication has been around for thirty years and is frequently cited in the international press[1][2][3][4]. It should have an article, at least a stub, rather than being a redirect. --MaplePorter 15:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC);

Being cited is insufficient. It should have articles about it. Otherwise there are not 3rd-party sources to use to write the article. -Will Beback · † · 18:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

::this one is an archivist's assessment. But that is sort of beside the point. As the fellow pointed out in the discussion of Fidelio Magazine at Talk:Schiller Institute, if you exclude this magazine, you should exclude all the other similar ones. I looked, for example, at CounterSpy (magazine) and found that the commentary on that magazine in the article comes from Public Information Research, which also has commentary on EIR. So please, no double standards. --MaplePorter 22:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC);

We have double standards all over Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not consistent. I don't see anything in that source which would merit having an article to include it. All it says is that they have copies for a ten-year period and that the magazine is in English. Big deal. -Will Beback · † · 00:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

::::I am not suggesting that we have an article based on that cite. I am suggesting that we have an article because it would be useful for the reader, and because EIR is notable. You asked for a cite. The fact that Wikipedia has double standards is not an argument for proliferating them. --MaplePorter 15:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC);

We can include a paragraph on EIR in the LaRouche Movement article, if we can find even enough sources to fill one. I don't see enough info to make an article. -Will Beback · † · 18:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

$4 billion revenue

• At $400 for an annual subscription, it had produced around $4 billion in revenue by 1979.[3] [5]

This is perhaps confusing. The UK and the US have different definitions of "billion". Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Large_numbers and Long and short scales. The MOS and the article seem unclear. $4,000,000,000 seems a bit high. That would indicate 10,000,000 subscribers. That seems a couple of orders of magnitude higher than I'd imagine. Ten or a hundred thousand seems more likely.   Will Beback  talk  02:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that was high myself. Perhaps I'll e-mail the author and ask him to check his figures. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Checking again, the figure appears to be annual. I doubt even the bestselling magazines, like Time or People have anywhere near that revenue, even in 2009 dollars. Time's current circulation is 3,360,135, but its current subscription is only $20. That indicates non-ad revenue of only $67,202,700 (or less, considering the discounts). According to an inflation calculator, if we use the US definition of "billion" then the subscription revenue would have been $11,290,000,000 in 2009 dollars, about 170 times what Time brings in. $4,000,000 seems more plausible.   Will Beback  talk  05:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

That's almost certainly what it is. I've e-mailed the editor of the encyclopaedia to ask him to ask the writer to check his figures. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I've now found a couple of sources that say there were around 10,000 subscribers.   Will Beback  talk  21:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

De Borchgrave comment

The inclusion of a negative comment by Arnaud de Borchgrave in the lead is not warranted by WP:LEAD. If you want to pursue this, the appropriate course of action would be to assemble a variety of assessments of EIR (there are a lot of them in the Russian press) and then summarize them. We don't put our favorite POVs in the lead simply because we have one cite. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC);

Sun Myung Moon

• The Times was founded by Sun Myung Moon.

What does this have to do with Executive Intelligence Review, the subject of this article?   Will Beback  talk  01:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

::No mystery. It provides context to explain EIR's use of the term "Moonie Times." --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC);

You objected to identifying the owner of China Youth Daily. We shouldn't set a precedent unless we're going to apply it consistently. Moon has nothing to do with this topic, so I'm, going to delete it.   Will Beback  talk  16:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

::::The cases are not analogous. The term "Moonie Times" would seem cryptic to anyone who was not aware that Moon was the founder. There is nothing wrong with adding an explanatory sentence so the the reason becomes clear. The original quote about De Borchgrave was more apropos, but SlimVirgin deleted it, calling it a BLP violation. Do you agree with her reasoning? --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC);

If readers want to learn about the ownership of the Times they can follow the link. I think the practice of adding ad hominem attacks on critics is a poor form of rebuttal. It would make more sense to quote someone saying that the EIR is not anti-semitic, or whatever.   Will Beback  talk  20:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

::::::I disagree. The context should be restored per WP:Quotations: Quotations should be put in context and given any necessary explanation. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC);

So do you also agree that quotes from China Youth Daily should also have their context info?   Will Beback  talk  01:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

::::::::Why, is there something in those quotes which is obscure or difficult to understand because necessary info is missing? --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC);

"Moonie" isn't obscure. It's not clear how that's a relevant rebuttal anyway.   Will Beback  talk  20:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

::::::::::As should be obvious, it is not widely known that Moon is the founder of the Washington Times, so "Moonie Times" does require some explanation. Since Wikipedia policy is clear on this point, I'm restoring the one-sentence explanation. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC);

Then, for consistency, I'll add similar explanations to the quotes from the China Youth Daily, and the other foreign newspapers that readers in English will not be familiar with.   Will Beback  talk  02:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure what Steinberg's quote has to do with EIR in the first place. Can you explain why you added it?   Will Beback  talk  03:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

::::::::::::It is clear that the LaRouche organization had a longstanding feud with both the Moon organization and also the neocons. De Borchgrave speaks for both, so his attack on EIR should not be seen as a neutral, objective assessment, which seems to be how you wish to represent it. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC);

Clear? Any evidence or is that just a surmise based on two short quotations? FWIW, James Bevel worked with both groups.   Will Beback  talk  19:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Postings by sock of banned user struck-through.   Will Beback  talk  02:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Reverted edits

This edit [6] reverted a number of well-reasoned edits. I am restoring the edits, with this thorough explanation. Please don't revert again without an equally thorough explanation.

1. It is not necessary to have an extensive quote from Arnaud de Borchgrave appear twice within a short article.[7] Once ought to be sufficient.

2. It is also not necessary to have an extended reference to an interview on Iranian Press TV appear twice. [8]

3. This little bit [9] about Webster Tarpley is unsourced. Also, why is it necessary to say that a former employee also writes for several unrelated publications? Looks like an attempt to create guilt by association. There is also this thing: Members also contribute to anti-Israel websites GlobalResearch.caSharon War Plan Exposed: Hamas Gang Is His Tool by Jeffrey Steinberg Executive Intelligence Review, 20 July 2001 and Prisonplanet www.prisonplanet.com/news_alert_hamas5.html Sharon War Plan Exposed:]. This is Original Research, and also incorrect. Those are simply EIR articles being reprinted without permission, not EIR writers "contributing" to those websites.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.126.46.57 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

NPOV - peacock words?

I'm wondering whether this should be labeled as NPOV, or re-edited by whatever process Wikipedia uses to do so (I rarely do anything more than copyedit, so I'm not familiar with WP-procedures) I just noticed the word "harangue" in the sentence "The Globe and Mail of Toronto .. EIR employee .. to harangue .. opponents". The word "harangue" just doesn't seem to encyclopedic to me.. Unless of course it's a quote, which it may be. What exactly the King 1984 reference doesn't seem to be present. Although I haven't looked back through past edits to see what's there - was this the site of a past "Wikipedia skirmish" ? Jimw338 (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I just removed that entire sentence, on the grounds that it is essentially a non-notable bit of trivia. The paragraph is about activities of EIR that received global attention in other media, and that item doesn't qualify. 99.126.44.207 (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Citations that are missing info

Three cites just give the author's last name and publication date. Need the title, ISBN, full author's name, etc. for footnote #6 (given as Hines, 1986), #7 (given as Stern, 1990) and #8 (given as Wheen, 1998). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.57.128.122 (talk) 03:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)