Talk:New Scientist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Magazines (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Editorial staff[edit]

This section is baffling. Over the years, hundreds of people have worked on New Scientist. Beyond a recently added passing reference to Jeremy Webb, the only one mentioned here is Roger Highfield, a recent recruit who is the latest in a line of six or seven, maybe more, editors, several of whom ran the magazine for a decade or more. Even there the entry is all about the books Highfield has written, not about his work at New Scientist. Shouldn't there be a biographical entry elsewhere linked from here?

Many people working in the media came out of the New Scientist stable: Lawrence McGinty (ITN), Tom Wilkie (The Independent for a time), Steve Connor (The Independent), Susan Watts (BBC) and many more.

Other notables include Fred Pearce, who has covered the environment in great detail over many years, and David Dickson, who went on to set up an important science development website, SciDevNet.

There is no historical context. The section on Australia ignores the founding editor, the late Ian Anderson. MK (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Have deleted the Editorial staff section, replaced with a mention of Highfield as editor. If he's notable, a linked article about him should be added. Maybe the section should be reinstated, but with mention of others (e.g., from above), and far less detail about Highfield. For reference, deleted text:

Editorial staff;

Roger Highfield, who joined the magazine as editor in 2009, read chemistry at Pembroke College, Oxford and holds a doctorate in physical chemistry. Highfield's thesis concerned the interaction of neutrons on soap bubbles. He was appointed to his current role in 2008, having previously been science editor of The Daily Telegraph. In the latter role, he won many awards for his science journalism, and authored or co-authored eight books, including the best-selling The Arrow of Time (1992) with Professor Peter Coveney, and The Private Lives of Albert Einstein with Paul Carter (1995), which prompted considerable controversy through its focus on the emerging documentary evidence of Einstein's private life, affairs and the fate of his first child, Liserl. Highfield was chairperson at Pestival Symposium in September 2009. The editor of the Sydney-based Australian edition is E. L. Young, herself the author of several books. He is a member of the Advisory Council of the Campaign for Science and Engineering[1]

  1. ^ "Advisory Council of the Campaign for Science and Engineering". Retrieved 2011-02-11. 

Pol098 (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

History of New Scientist[edit]

It is wrong to state "The original idea for New Scientist came from nuclear physicists..."

I need to read the original editorial again. MK (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know why New Scientist is so titled? I was wondering if it was ever titled, simply, Scientist and then changed after a revamp/relaunch. To what does the New refer? Rob 10:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, it's always been called New Scientist. (talk) 09:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
That's not correct. After the 1971 merger with Science Journal, the journal was renamed to New Scientist and Science Journal, before reverting to New Scientist at the end of 1971. Paradoctor (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Not ironical, British tradition. New Statesman, New Electronics, New Humanist, New Civil Engineer... Pol098 (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Australian and American editions.[edit]

Are the Australian and US editions significantly different in contents (other than advertisements)? The main advantage of these two editions is that they are printed locally and and not affected by the time delay and cost of shipping. When there was no Australian edition, Australia got its NS several weeks late.

Tabletop 07:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The answer is not usually, but sometimes. There is sometimes different cover art to reflect different priorities in the US, for instance this one from 13 September 2008, during the US election: vs The content is usually the same.

Australia edition used to have its own editorial team, and occasionally had different news, to cover more Australasia-centric issues, but I don't believe that happens at present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ns webmaster (talkcontribs) 11:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Bm gub[edit]

Bm gub is a sock puppet for editor Jeremy Webb who has deleted an article on Ivor Catt and replaced it with lies and insults. Jeremy Webb has also conducted a hate campaign which has been documented against Electronics World authors, inclusing abusive emails which have resulted in complains to hism publishers (although they have never issued any reply or apology). See [[1]]. Bm gub's claim that there are only "3 comments" of controversy is a falsehood: if you follow the links, there are numerous articles and comments. The deletion of numerous links to controversy by sock puppets is in contravention of Wikipedia rules and precedes the claim by Bm gub sock puppet. SEE ALSO THE IVOR CATT DISCUSSION PAGE FOR VANDALISM AND ABUSIVENESS BY BM GUB! Photocopier 13:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Jeremy Webb breaking Wikipedia rules?[edit]

Some edits claiming to be made by Jeremy Webb are in contradiction of the Wikipedia rules and have removed cited references. Photocopier 13:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Photocopier, your accusation of sockpuppetry is utterly unfounded (see WP:ICA) You have no evidence other than the fact that you disagree with two of my edits, which commonly occurs for reasons other than sockpuppetry. Bm gub 17:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

proposed merge[edit]

Proposing that article Jeremy Webb, editor, be merged here. Article is otherwise sub-sub-stub whose content was one or two bloggers writing about their disagreements with him. Bm gub 20:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge of Jeremy Webb completed, per one agreement and no objections on old page. I have left out the NN, POV "controversies" which used to make up that page; they consisted of links to one or two bloggers criticising NS editorial policy. This was totally inappropriate on a biography article; WP:BLP is explicit and firm on this point. I don't think they were notable enough or WP:RS enough for inclusion here either (per WP:UNDUE, WP:SPS) but I'll let other editors deal with it here. Bm gub 17:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


The Emdrive part is fairly out of place. It is a particular critisism of the magazine. If the exact disagreement is allowed, then the page becomes a disinterested page. Meaning I would get to alter it legally. Public defamation must be factually placed in context and the place was out of place here. No factual account was written making it technical defamation.

To correct technical defamation the technical reason must be stated for the failed magazine coverage. -- (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Advertising content, irrelevant material[edit]

Large portions of this article read like advertising/promotional copy for NewScientist. Should {{advert}} be added to the whole thing? Much of the material in the article reads like self-promotion for the magazine and website, or even simply attempts to add keywords to affect search engine rankings for the terms. --Sylvank (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

About removing some external links[edit]

My opinion is that Space and Tech external links should be removed, because are pointing to the main magazine website, but different section of it. What others mean?
--Čikić Dragan (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it New Sci or old looking at the following....???[edit]

-- (talk) 00:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

-- (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

-- (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Controvery response[edit]

Did the editors ever respond to people such as Meyers and Dawkins, who obviously didn't read the article on Darwin (or took the title too seriously)? Just curious because it might be a good add to the article. (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

May I...[edit]

change Australian to Australasian? As a New Zealander I'm used to frequently having our countries lumped together as referring to the Western territories in the area, but here Australasian is commonly used to designate both countries as many international agencies don't have a set designation for New Zealand - but how common is the word "Australasia" in the rest of the world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It is actually an Australian edition, produced in Australia by the team in Sydney. Sorry. The International edition is distributed in most of Asia, although I think NZ do get the Aus version, I think they're the only others in Australasia that do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ns webmaster (talkcontribs) 11:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Criticism in history?[edit]

I believe the two criticisms in the article have been given undue prominence (there have surely been others), and shouldn't be in the History section at all, but under a separate heading "Criticism" further on down the page, as is done in many other articles. It's my view that the "Darwin was wrong" cover was more about attracting new readership than winding up the science community and as such was simply a misfire. Tony Holkham (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I left this comment a month ago and no one has responded, so I have made the change I suggested without altering the text. Please discuss here if anyone is unhappy about it. Tony Holkham (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)