|WikiProject Magazines||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Germany||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
Under Stance and Issues it says Stefan Aust took over in 2002 but elsewhere says 1994. Which is right? I assume its 1994 but knowing nothing at all about the Spiegel (only on here to research it) am unwilling to change it without checking. If they are both right right in their own way this should be explained more clearly. Stupid Ape 14:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I added a new image to this article to show the current layout for the cover of the magazine. I hope this is okay. I know that too many images in an article are frowned upon somewhat, but as this brings the total up to three for the article, I assume that's not too many. I tried to place it where it wouldn't distract, but if someone wants to move it to a different place within the article that looks better, then by all means feel free to move it. -Maaya 22:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
"...but its long, in-depth articles are more comparable to the Atlantic Monthly or the British Economist."
do you really think that the economist has long articles?
Yes, the Economist does have long articles. The special reports that feature in many issues are about 3,000 words long. The cover Spiegel story runs to about 5,000 or 6,000. The Economist is therefore probably the closest English-language weekly both in content and style. I guess the only problem is that Spiegel is even more mainstream than the Economist is, which is more high-brow and read more by elites. --Geoffrey Miller 07:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
this mag is certainly up there with a few other german magazines in misquotes. countless people claim to be misquoted, you mean to tell me they've never been critisied for this?
- People claim to have been misquoted by press publications all the time. If there is any evidence that this happens to the Spiegel more often than to others or that such has been claimed by critics, then maybe you could add it? --SKopp 22:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Titelseite.jpg
Image:Titelseite.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.