Talk:The Nation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

old comments[edit]

Does anybody know anything more about The Nation (like amount of money lost or revenue streams) that they can add?

One thing that seems worth noting is the accusation from some leftists that the periodical has slowly been drifting right since the Clinton years.

Well, more towards (that's towards) the center (which is to the right of where they were; still I (for example.., a Z mag reader) find it even now a generally convincing, thought-provoking publication) however!! —
Posting anonymously and quoting some leftists, besides not being the "Wikipedia way" isn't going to tell many people much of anything. Does FAIR [1] claim this? Do they provide evidence? That sort of thing, say. Schissel : bowl listen 03:51, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)


It really doesn't seem right to describe The Nation as a "weekly leftist periodical". Are other newspapers described thusly in Wikipedia? Subversive 21:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I had changed this to "left-liberal" and I see that now it has been changed simply to "liberal", which, as a faithful Nation reader, I think is quite wrong. There are regular Nation contributors who would strongly object to being considered merely "liberal", Alex Cockburn being an obvious example: for his views on "liberals" see, for example, The 'Conscience Industry' Says..., where Cockburn replies to a letter by saying, "Northern liberals love to applaud anyone who makes a living beating up the rubes, whether it be Zeskind or Molly Ivins…" (and, indeed, attacks his fellow Nation columnists for pandering to liberals); far more of the same in his own newsletter Counterpunch.
Note also the many first-person uses of "left" in The Nation, for example:
I could go on at enormous length; if you doubt me, just do a Google search on left and keep in mind that the literary back section of the magazine, which tends these days to be left of the front section, is not that much represented among their online content.
Which is not to deny that The Nation staff and contributors also include many self-described liberals. I'm not sure I understand what the objection is to "left-", which seems to me to embrace the politics of nearly all of their contributors, rather than favoring one or the other side of the house. Could someone please explain what they objected to? Since the removal was anonymous, I have no one in particular to address this to. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. If The Nation is not leftist, then there are no leftist publications in existence. I guess "left-liberal" is ok, although that term can mean just about anything. I do think some of the confusion of the editors to this article comes from the fact that, these days, in the US, the two terms "liberal" and "leftist" have been so convolved that most people use them interchangably. --Deville (Talk) 04:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Please let's not be dogmatic about this much-abused term; the American, the British, and the Australian/Canadian senses do refer to related movements; all three respect John Stuart Mill, for example. The American one has evolved through the Populists, the Bull Moose Party and the American progressives. Furthermore, in American English, "leftist" is quite frequently an insult, and should be avoided where possible. "Left" may have a different connotation, depending on the audience. Septentrionalis 04:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Any political label may be an insult, depending upon the speaker and the audience. But, as I pointed out above, plenty of Nation writers gladly consider themselves part of "the left" and some (most notably Cockburn) firmly reject "liberal". - Jmabel | Talk 18:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, Septentrionalis, I don't know if I quite understand your point. Political opponents of "the left" use "leftist" as an insult, just as surely as political opponents of the "right" use "right-wing" (or "wing-nut", etc.) as an insult. The question of commonality of this insult is simply a function of the fact that in the US today, leftists are not entirely common even in their canonical environments (i.e. academia etc.) any more, and are quite thin on the ground outside of that. But, certainly, those who think of themselves as "Left" wear the term "leftist" as a badge of honor, no? "Socialist" and "fascist" are also common insults in American political discourse; should we never refer to a movement as "fascist" on Wikipedia because of this, even if it is accurate?--Deville (Talk) 18:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the term "liberal" was recently changed to "left-wing" by an IP. I was under the impression that we had sort of come to a concensus on what term to use, and we came up with "liberal" for now. Any other thoughts on what the concensus should be now?-- Deville (Talk) 19:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually the discussion above indicates the consensus is "left wing" and not "liberal," which is simply not accurate. The same label can be applied to many publications quite different from it, such as The New Republic. Note that the article for TNR -- which is at odds with The Nation on most issues -- describes it as "liberal/centrist." --Mantanmoreland 13:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted to "left-wing" which I believe is more accurate, and also was the consensus as I read the earlier discussion.--Mantanmoreland 18:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

From reading the above, I certainly don't see any consensus for "left-wing" being the appropriate description for the magazine. I agree that "liberal" is more accurate, so I will revert.Hal Raglan 14:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is simply not factually accurate. Not only was there no consensus on "liberal," but no user advocated use of the term. In fact, Deville (who later recommended use of the term "liberal:) had earlier said that "left-liberal" was "OK." I'll revert to that as a compromise and I would suggest discussing the subject here before making further changes on this. Also this is an important issue so please don't mark edits on this point as "minor." Thanks.--Mantanmoreland 15:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you changed the description without any kind of discussion, then you "suggest" that no further changes be made unless discussed here on the talk page. And you claim that its not factually accurate that the consensus was to use "liberal" but that's what Deville also noted in his comment above. Certainly there was no common voice to use "left-wing". Your compromise of "left-liberal" is a little better but I still think we should open this up for a vote, so there can a definitive and clear consensus on this issue. Historically, this article has consistently used the term "liberal" (except for a few attempts to change it from time to time to "left-wing" or "leftist"...such changes are almost always immediately reverted), its political position in the article's infobox is noted as "liberal", and its additionally described as "classical liberal" further down in the introductory paragraph. Lets open this up for further discussion with other editors and see what description they feel is best for the magazine. I'll grudgingly accept "left-liberal", but I still think "liberal" is more accurate.Hal Raglan 17:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I just noticed that this issue had been additionally detailed in the "Truth in Labeling" section below, and Deville had suggested that American liberal was an appropriate characterization of the magazine's editorial slant. The discussion seemed to pretty much end at that point.Hal Raglan 18:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, we got all kinds of stuff all over the place. And of course I had forgotten my chain of thought on this from way back. But looking over my comments of March, I stand by them. I think it's accurate to describe the Nation as "liberal" if we take this to mean "American liberal" and not "classical liberal". As long as the link goes to American liberal then we're fine, as the Nation, being a U.S. periodical, is liberal in the sense people usually mean it in the U.S. I propose the following, since there is a disagreement. How about we revert to the choice which has stood for several months, and then have a discussion/vote below? I'll start up a template below for such a discussion. --Deville (Talk) 18:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I've put in my vote below. And I agree with you that it should be reverted to the article's most historically consistent term, and would appreciate it if you would do so, since I don't want to be accused of participating in a "revert war".Hal Raglan 18:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Deville, I've followed your thoughtful recommendation and have reverted to the label that has stood unchanged for months. Until there is a consensus of some kind in the vote below, this label should stand.Hal Raglan 16:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed the discussion here. I had thought it moved over to section 7 below. I suggest that this discussion be moved there. Incidentally I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but the magazine calls itself the "flagship of the left." I really think that should put this whole matter to rest.[2] --Mantanmoreland 18:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not true. What appears in the link (#3) is not what "the magazine calls itself". The quote "flagship of the left" stems from Amazon itself and is merely a part of Amazon's own product description, not a description from the magazine's editors. "The Nation" is definitely on the left side of the political spectrum of the United States, but the quote from the link cited does not support what the text of the Wikipedia article asserts. I think the text should be changed to accurately reflect the quote or, drop the footnote, and characterize the magazine in a more objective fashion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The following was recently removed "Its politics are to the left of The New Republic and The American Prospect, and to the right of New Politics." It was (accurately) described as unsourced. But it seems to me to be quite on the mark and to place The Nation well. Does someone have something like this from a citable source? - Jmabel | Talk 20:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I just saw a commercial for the Then Nation and they even said they took a liberal stance on politics. While promoting their their magazine almost all of the covers portrayed GWB as a dumb character. So yes, they are left and they are liberal. I'm not using this in a derogatory sense. The terms right and left are there for a reason. You have to use them. I mean, come on. These arguments as to whether the use of left is derogatory are completely insane. Just go with it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 25 November 2006.

Not quite sure where to go with this but the term "Liberal" doesn't fit this magazine from a "Liberal's" viewpoint. I am both a reader/subscriber AND a liberal (Socialist). I find the magazine to be quite centrist, though it is far more left-leaning than other "news" magazines such as News Week and Time. The magazine calls itself "Progressive" using the tag-line in its advertisements on "progressive" news and talk shows (ie WCPT, Air America, et al) as "Progressive Thought for Progressive People". Who better to name their politics than the magazine itself. As a side note from above, it's correct that (at least the regional groups I work with/for) that liberals do wear the badge with far more honour and pride than Democrats (centrist politically). For the sake of clarity, being left-of-right doesn't make one liberal, only further to the left. Lostinlodos (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Progressive makes much more sense. Especially as liberal usually refers to one who is a proponent of unfettered free market trade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


Has The Nation taken up a some new advertising or marketing campaigns in the past few years? I had never heard much about them until 2 or 3 years ago, and now I am hearing many more people talking about the magazine.Ionesco 21:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Truth In Labeling (TIL)[edit]

  • JA: I am deleting the label "classical liberal" and the link to what seems to me an extremely POV article, until such time as someone can source "from the source's mouth", as it were, that The Nation, as a part of its explicit editorial policy, currently subscribes to "all" of the elements of the platform enumerated at the article on Classical liberalism. Jon Awbrey 13:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • JA: User:Radicalsubversiv reverted to the previous version, posting the following response in the edit line:

01:55, 8 February 2006 Radicalsubversiv (rv. The Nation is at present a liberal publication in the modern U.S. sense of the term, and at its founding was liberal in that sense)

  • JA: Unsourced claims presently reside in the article. Those claims do not describe the The Nation as "a liberal publication in the modern U.S. sense of the term", and they do not describe it as "liberal" in some sense that the word might have had "at its founding". If the article is revsied to say that, then the accuracy of the revised claims can be evaluated. Until that time, I am repeating the request for sources — that means (1) reasonably NPOV sources, or (2) editorial self-definitions — for the specific claims that are made, both in the article and via the implications that are made by linking to attributions and definitions in other articles. Jon Awbrey 02:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

And now we are back to the blatantly incorrect description of it as "liberal". Two sections back I addressed why this is wrong, and no one has refuted any of what I said. - Jmabel | Talk 03:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I see that my comment there was accidentally deleted. Septentrionalis 05:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Jmabel, I think what we have now is ok. The link is entitled liberal but the link goes to American liberal, which is actually pretty accurate, IMHO. In fact, if one reads the first paragraph of American liberal, it could easily be summarized as "'American liberalism' is not liberalism and here is why." And I think "American liberalism" is a fair characterization of the editorial slant of The Nation. I do agree with you that a link to, say, classical liberalism would not be appropriate.--Deville (Talk) 18:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) 22:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Article title[edit]


Add your comment per Wikipedia:Straw polls.

This vote is to make the generic name "The Nation" link to the disambiguation page (The Nation (disambiguation)), and links to the US periodical to require the more specific name "The Nation (U.S. periodical)".

See also prior discussions at Talk:The Nation (disambiguation)#The Nation shouldn't be a dab page and Talk:The Nation (disambiguation)#Responding to the RfC.


  1. Support name change to something more specific. This is like in the Middle Ages when people found that they needed to add more names if they planned to leave their village. Some people really need to get out more. Jon Awbrey 05:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support move, make The Nation a disambiguation page, and I will volunteer to personally fix all inbound links to The Nation and change them to The Nation (U.S. periodical). Stifle 11:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support move, current arrangement may seem natural to those in the US but less so to the rest of us. If the older, (Irish) nation were the main page and the later US production on a disambiguation fork, now THAT would make sense .... Zymurgy 12:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Strong Support. Just because The Nation article sat unchallenged for 2 years does not mean the US-centric argument is the right one instead of an encyclopaedic viewpoint. Of course the US publication has a greater circulation but the US is not the centre of everything. Now that there are other articles with the same basic title a disambiguation page IS necessary. If the Irish publication had been written first would we even be discussing this? No, we would, most likely, just have made a disambiguation page and it would be over. I don't think the London and Dublin arguments are similar. There are no other The Times articles but maybe The Guardian too should be a disambiguation page rather than the British publication. Remember that Wikipedia is constantly changing, so why should the earliest article, or publication with largest circulation, or longest article, or most literary article win the battle. Disambiguation is IMHO, without a doubt, the way to go. ww2censor 14:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support move. If a name has an internationally recognised meaning across cultures, and a couple of variants that are local, it makes sense for the internationally known version to get the main page and the rest to be linked in a special disambigulation page linked to the main page. Hence as the world thinks of the British capital when they say London, we place London as the main page, and other local Londons at a disambigulation link. Ditto with Paris, Dublin, Rome, etc all of whom have multiple users of the name but only one internationally recognised one. That is not the case here. To U.S. users, The Nation means a periodical printed and distributed in the US. To Irish users, The Nation means a famous nineteenth century paper that is in every child's history book. To Thai readers, The Nation means their local newspaper. To British people, The Nation means an early twentieth century British publication. Other countries too think of their own local publication when the Nation. Many of the other publications have yet to be added to Wikipedia. Most of the world, when asked about the publication The Nation would ask "what publication?" because they have never heard of any. It is americocentric in the extreme to presume that a U.S. publication that is largely unheard of outside the U.S., and is not even known of by every in the U.S., should be given the page and all other meanings, which are no more widely known internationally but also no less widely known internationally than the U.S. one, should be shunted off to a side page.
    It is the equivalent of deciding that President means President of the United States, Queen means British queen, or Prime Minister means British Prime Minister, and that all other presidents, queens and prime ministers should be pushed off to side pages. It is different to The Guardian or The Times because unusually the British newspapers are internationally known and have an international recognition factor, meaning that when internationally when those names are used worldwide, most people think of them. The bottom line is simple: is something, someone or somewhere widely known internationally to the dominance of other things, places or people with the same name? If so, it should be on the primary page and the lesser known versions on a secondary subsidiary page. If however there is no one internationally known dominant usage of the name, just numerous national or local variants, then no one user of the name should be entitled to be given the primary page and the other users demoted.
    As there is no internationally known usage of the name The Nation for one specific publication, and multiple local usages and rivals for the name, to give one local version priority over the others would breach NPOV, for it would involve a ruling by Wikipedia that "this country's local newspaper is more important than that country's local newspaper". That is someone Wikipedia simply cannot do under NPOV. FearÉIREANNMap of Ireland's capitals.png\(caint) 20:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support Move too generic to be a monopoly. Djegan 22:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support A search of Google for the-nation newspaper brings up many "the Nations" around the world before it gets to the US of A. Now it is important to stress that there is nothing anti-american in this support. The clear question is "is the claim of any one country to primacy based on genuine world-wide recognition". If so, then it should have the article with a link to a dab page for the others. If not, then it should be have a designation. So my support is based in Wiki as an international phenomenon and not the propery of one continent. --Red King 00:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    The U.S. publication isn't a newspaper, it's a magazine. A Google search for "The Nation" + magazine yields the U.S. one as the first hit. [3] Using the neutral term "publication" also gives the U.S. publication as the first hit. [4] These results don't prove that it's the primary topic per Wikipedia policy; my point is only that a search for "newspaper" is uninformative because biased against magazines. JamesMLane t c 03:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    As with JamsMLane, I don't want to claim any "google test" is definitive. But searching "" (the Thai newspaper) gives about 3700 hits, while searching "" (the US magazine) gives about 30k hits. Only about 500 hits point to "" (the Pakistani newspaper). The 19th century Irish newspaper presumably doesn't actively maintain a website :-). But of currently published ones, the US magazine seems to be referred to online about 8x more than the others combined. For context, "" gives about 212k, which is probably the most widely mentioned US print publication. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support - As mentioned above, there are many The Nations. Page should be dab, with a notice. Prsgoddess187 00:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support - for many of the same reasons mentioned above.UMclassof06 05:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support There are a number of notable publications with this name, no one has any more right to be "the one" than any other. --Kiand 05:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support "The nation" is a generic term, and depends on which nation you are searching from (even google searchs give different results, depending on which google you use). Also agree with comment above, that it's similar to "president". It boils down to the question, "Is this paper notable enough outside the US to override local usage?" I've heard of many US papers, but never this one, so don't think so. MartinRe 11:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  12. SupportMost people on this side of the pond have never heard of the American publication of this name. No offense meant, cousions. Plus, the Irish publication played a hugely significant part in Irish life for much of its existence. Added to that is the fact that there are current a number of other publications of this name current. All of this adds up to the fact that we cannot have a bias towards a single current publication simply based on its age, readership, nor popularity in just one country. I fully understand and sympathise with the view of the opposition, but from my own point of view I cannot do other than support the motion. Thank you for hearing me. Is mise, Fergananim 17:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


  1. Oppose proposed move. This is like London, a case where one meaning clearly predominates, so the article should concern that meaning, with a note at the top linking to the dab page. JamesMLane t c 05:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose move. I think the inward links tell the story. The oldest newsweekly in the U.S., and no small source for Wikipedia articles. - Jmabel | Talk 07:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose move as per JamesMLane. Those who are supporting the move of "The Nation" name space to a disambiguation do not know about/are purposing playing down the international content, contributors, readership, and notability synonymous with U.S. periodical. They are blindly politicizing this issue without care for Wikipedia process, and clearly only want to satisfy their own POV. --Howrealisreal 12:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Looking across other publications, I don't see a precedent. Should The Guardian be likewise moved to The Guardian (U.K. newspaper)? What of The Times? I think that if we don't need these disambiguations then we shouldn't use them, unless we want to be consistent and use them for all articles. -Will Beback 12:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. This is a clear case where the article should be about the most common periodical. Just take a look through here, and see what people typically mean when they link to it. (And compare that to the number of links here, here, or here.) Either way, you will have to refer to The Nation (Irish newspaper) specifically if you mean the Irish one, so it's not a slight against any other "Nations". And this isn't a debate about what the "one true Nation" is - it's about what the most common "Nation" is. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 17:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose move because it is a matter of primacy and practicality. London and Dublin are perfectly good examples of exactly the reason why. Look at World Trade Center as another example, there are many buildings and centers around the world with the same name. -- MicahMN | μ 18:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose move per primacy arguments above. | Klaw ¡digame! 19:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose move: primary disambiguation works here. Jonathunder 22:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose move: As I would for "The Times" etc. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. Strong Support. There was heavy opposition to de-dabbing this article on the original dab talk page, and a worrisome amount of circumstantial evidence that the original de-dabbing proposal had a political motive. --Aaron 06:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Changing my vote to Weak Oppose per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic. --Aaron 18:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose move: I can see the point about US-centric perspective. However, the link to the disambiguation page at top is prominent enough, and as some editors have argued, renaming The Nation would still require links to the Irish, Thai, or Pakistani publications to fully specify that. Moreover, the US publication is extremely widely known in the USA, and is in fact the longest continuously published magazine in the USA. All that said, I found the clincher to be looking at the "what links here" for each disambig page: although possibly some links reflect a naming error, it appears that the US publication is the most commonly linked to, far more than all the others combined. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose move: It's unfortunate that we have to be making these kinds of decisions, but I think in many cases it just comes down to quantifying the number of extra clicks that would be generated by the competing proposals.--Nectar 22:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose move: As I've already stated, I find it highly unlikely that a significant number of readers arriving here are looking for a publication that's been defunct for more than a hundred years, next to one of the more widely-read opinion journals in the world. And then there's the links -- not just those that exist, but those that will continue appearing. Amerocentrism has nothing to do with it. RadicalSubversiv E 01:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose move. As Lulu and others. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 16:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose move per Lulu. I'm against systemic bias; but I don't see why this article should move, since when most people refer to a publication called "The Nation", they're talking about this one. Rome and London don't redirect to disambig pages, even though there's a Rome in Georgia and a London in Ontario. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  16. Weak support:This came to my attention when I started in doing a disambiguation back when The Nation went to The Nation (disambiguation). It is true (this is also said above) that the majority of links which went to The Nation (disambiguation) were meant to go to The Nation (U.S. periodical). However, I found that in all the cases where this was not true (e.g. when the Irish or Thai periodical was meant) the editors of those articles seemed to not be aware of the U.S. periodical. (This makes sense, incidentally, as this periodical is not entirely well known even in the U.S.) In short, the old situation was that there were a ton of links to a disambiguation page, which is to be avoided, but in this new situation, I think we'll eventually see a ton of links to simply the wrong thing, which strikes me as worse. Moreover, a remark: although the majority of the inbound links were meant for the U.S. periodical, I think there is a systemic bias at work here. A vast majority of those were in bibliographies, where a web article from The Nation was referenced. Many (almost all?) sources in Wikipedia bibliographies are web-based, and thus we should not be surprised to see a current magazine overrepresented, especially when constrasted with a 19th century publication. But all in all, weak support in that I think the oppose position is also quite reasonable. --Deville (Talk) 04:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC) Oppose: Changing my vote after rereading Wikipedia:Disambiguation with a view towards this issue. --Deville (Talk) 01:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    That's not a systemic bias. Print bibliographies would also tend to cite a current publication more than one that's so long defunct, and the disparity will only grow as the U.S. magazine continues to publish. The future links created to "the wrong thing" will be small in number and will bring the reader to an article with the dab notice right at the top, so the handful of people looking for the Irish or Thai publications will get there. As an aside, I appreciate your not casting this as a holy war against American imperialism. JamesMLane t c 06:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. The U.S. publication is the largest and best known of the ones still in print. If the Irish and British ones were still around, or if the Thai and Pakistani ones were of worldwide importance, I would support the move. As things are, though, I don't. Angr/talk 10:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose. I think we should leave The Nation article just the way it is, not just because it's easiest for users for the status quo to remain the same, but also because of the other articles entitled The Nation, this one is definitely the biggest and in actuality, of all of the periodicals entitled 'The Nation, the American is definitely the biggest. Bcem2 22:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    Irrelevant. The issue isn't size. It is international usage. It is irrelevant which of The Nations is biggest. The issue is that no one is international. It is elementary under NPOV. FearÉIREANNMap of Ireland's capitals.png\(caint) 00:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose move. The present American magazine is the most widely known to English speakers, which are the target for this encyclopedia. What the Thai wikipedia has, or should have, under this title is another question. If the New Statesman divides into two magazines, we can reconsider. Septentrionalis 05:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
That's not true. See comment three below for further details. Fergananim 17:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


  1. does it really matter that much to have a survey about it.--M4bwav 18:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


  • I don't see an explanation for the name change. There are no articles about other current periodicals named "The Nation", and so this dismbiguation seems inappropriate. I'd further guess that the U.S. "Nation" has a circulation which significantly exceeds those of the previous periodicals. In any case, the matter ought to be discussed before we commit to changing the title. Therefore, I'm going to revert the page move to the old consensus until we can decide what to do, probably in Wikipedia:Requested moves. Cheers, -Will Beback 04:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
It appears to me that the Pakistani and Thai publications are also both currently published. However, they each have mere stubs of articles that do not let me judge their significance very well. The Irish publication is no longer published. And the UK newspaper changed names some good while back. So the US publication seems to win in predominant (current) usage. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is a repost from the original discussion by Jtdirl. His findings and the claim that the American periodical is the One True Nation cannot both be correct. --Aaron 15:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC):
I work in the media and emailed 8 colleagues about it, asking the question "when you hear of a publication called "the Nation" what publication do you think of?
  • The man in the Guardian said "Do you mean the American one? There is one in Thailand too I think, and I thought there was one in France but it closed down."
  • A BBC contact asked "Which one? Do you mean the Irish one Thomas Davis launched?"
  • An ITN contact said "It doesn't ring a bell. Is there some particular one you are thinking of?"
  • A (London) Times colleague said he thought there was something of that name in Pakistan or India.
  • Another Guardian friend didn't know of a magazine of that name.
  • A CBS friend I used to work with asked whether I meant "our" one or someone else's?
  • An Irish Times colleague asked "Which one? There are ten internationally, I think."
  • A friend in the Irish Independent asked did I mean the old Irish newspaper.
I emailed them back to say I was asking about the US one. Four never heard of it. The rest either had but knew nothing about it, or in the case of the CBS guy said that he was surprised I had heard of it!!! So much for an internationally known name. And the people being asked work in the media!!! If they don't recognise it the odds on ordinary people visiting WP worldwide recognising it are slim. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how that has anything to do with Wikipedia. What does a biased unverifiable finding by Jtdirl have to do with this conflict resolution? Give me some time, I'll "find emails" from some people I know that back up my position as well. I don't know what is worse: that the previous comment got reprinted, or that there are actually people out there that work in the media that aren't fluent with a notable publication like The Nation. --Howrealisreal 15:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
That's coming a bit too close to an WP:NPA violation, IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron (talkcontribs)
Sorry. To clarify, I was attacking the so-called "evidence", nothing personal. --Howrealisreal 16:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
No biggie. (My apologies for not signing. I just forgot to hit the tildes.) --Aaron 16:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Jtdirl's comments are totally unverifiable, totally unbelievable (to me, at least), and therefore totally irrelevant to this discussion for the prior two reasons. | Klaw ¡digame! 19:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
WP:AGF. You can disagree, but don't accuse him of lying. --Aaron 18:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't. An accusation that he was lying would require some kind of proof on my part, and I have none. I simply don't believe what he wrote. | Klaw ¡digame! 22:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • (In response to Jtdirl's request for input on my talk page): I'm afraid my vote isn't as you wanted. Btw. the US publication is also a prominent political magazine dating from the 19th century, and referenced in history books and the like. I'm persuaded by the London example here... try going to Ontario sometime, it'll definitely throw you for a couple days :-). FWIW, no one hereabouts means the London Times when they say The Times either (they say it, normally, of the New York Times; but the disambig is handled OK on WP). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • In response to Jtdirl's requests for people to vote in this poll, the Wikipedia:Straw polls Voting etiquette section clearly states: "If you are posting on talk pages, asking experienced editors to give their opinion on an issue, make sure not to use language that may suggest bias." I think this (or any one of these [5][6][7][8]) is a perfect example of trying to persuade editors to take up his POV. For comparison, you can see how I asked Quadell to take part in this poll. --Howrealisreal 22:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll defend Jtdirl here. I found his request for my input entirely appropriate in tone. Yeah, I could tell his opinion even before I read this talk page; but he was polite and respectful, and I value the fact he thought I was an editor whose opinion was worth soliciting. And it turned out (perhaps partially because I am a former subscriber to the US magazine), I feel the US publication is the predominant usage. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Of course that is fair enough. I was just a bit alarmed by "some US Wikipedians have decreed that all other publications of that name must be shunted off to a disam page... the obscure disamb page (which is only found by a link at the top of the US article). It is blatently wrong." --Howrealisreal 23:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Jtdirl wrote: Irrelevant. The issue isn't size. It is international usage. It is irrelevant which of The Nations is biggest. The issue is that no one is international. It is elementary under NPOV.
(I respond): Please, please do read WP:D, Jtdirl. The issue precisely is size! Some facile pseudo-internationalist rhetoric doesn't contravene the rather sensible guidelines about most common usage. And the more discussion I see, the more clear it is that the US magazine is overwhelmingly the most common usage. Whether or not anyone outside the US reads it doesn't matter a whit if it is, indeed, the most common usage (but it is widely read outside the USA too, as it happens). For example, by way of more analogy, my Congressperson is the fairly good representative John Olver. Doing a bit of Google search, it appears there was also a John Olver who was born in 1820 in Cornwall (who doesn't now have a WP article, since he seems not to have done much besides appear in someone's geneology). I'm sure there are others too. Now in plain fact, hardly anyone outside the USA will ever care about my Congresscritter; for the most part not many people outside of Massachusetts will. Nonetheless, it would be idiotically pedantic to insist that "John Olver" must be a disambiguation page (e.g. if someone writes an article on the dead 19th C Cornwallian), and the only way to read my Congresscritter's page should be through John Olver (American politician). The one guy is the predominant usage, even if the usage isn't "international"! Or to put it in more Irish terms, if someone writes an article on Lord Mayor of Dublin Catherine Byrne, that probably takes the name, even over this moderately notable academic (if someone writes her article): [9]. But y'know what? Except the fact that I looked it up right now, not a whole lot of non-Irish people are going to care about your Catherine Byrne. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Lulu, I know where you are coming from with your concerns, and I largely share them. Yet as someone who is reasonably well-travelled worldwide and not too badly acquainted at all with the USA, I had never heard of "The Nation" (USA) till two or three years ago, at most. And when you speck of most english-specking people that is far too broad a catagory, as it is a second or third language in most countrys the world over. But it don't necessarily follow that too many of them have heard of it, let alone read it. Personally I would have voted with you had I not seen this issue from the point of view of an English specking person, who is however not English nor American, or who's first language is necessarily English. In the great scheme of things I think the way we place the article itself is less important than what we may choose to learn from these discussions. Is mise aris, Fergananim 17:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Irish provincialism. The more I examine the votes, the more this looks like strictly a matter of "Irish exceptionalism". Almost all the "rename/dab" voters seem to be Irish, and no one is sincerely arguing that the Thai or Pakistani publications are particularly widely discussed. Nor do any of the charges of alleged US-centrism really ring very true (or even sincere). Even if not one soul outside the USA read the American publication (far, far from true), it would still amount to the predominant usage; and only among a certain political stripe, strictly within Ireland, does the "special pleading" for a 150 year old discontinued newspaper deserving "equal time" make sense. And yeah, Dublin ain't only a city in Ireland, and lots of cities that ain't London, England have papers called The Times. But none of that means we should throw away WP:D out of an Irish pride.
FWIW, here's another check for you: The Encyclopedia Brittanica, 2004 Complete Home Library CD, list the American magazine as the only meaning of "The Nation", describing it as: American weekly journal of opinion, the oldest such continuously published periodical still extant. It is generally considered the leading liberal magazine of its kind. It was founded in 1865 by Edwin L. Godkin at the urging of Frederick Law Olmstead. (then another few paras). So even an encyclopedia with a more British focus finds the USAian magazine to be the predominant usage (not to say the Brits are fond of Irish nationalism, of course; but just that they ain't Americans). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Lulu. In a way you prove the point; the reason so many Irish contributors voting in this manner is precisly because we were aware of our own Nation, but not so much (if at all) of the US Nation. And despite the fact it is so long out of print, it is because of the huge role it played in cultural and political life in Ireland in and indeed long after its time.

Your equating of it with citys such as Dublin, London, Rome, etc, is'nt really correct. If you type in these words on wiki, you will be brought straight away to pages on Dublin the capital of Ireland; London the capital of the UK; Rome the capital of Italy. Yet there is a disambiguation for each of these precisly because people do recognise that there are other places of that name besides the city from which they take their name (see Dublin (disambiguation), London (disambiguation), Rome (disambiguation)). Its not our fault if the Brittanicia is not up to speed on other publications of the name, nor that inhabitants of places such as Dublin, North Carolina have no idea that there is another Dublin, in Ireland, that needs no disambiguation. Its not being amero-centric, it's just not having all the facts.

But please remember that - to the best of my knowledge - not one of the Irish voters are denying the process or validity of the eventual vote. Nor have they said that they (we) will not hold by it. Our main objection is, like the Brittanica, other voters do not seem to be aware of other publications of the name which are important (for different reasons) to different peoples. And we must keep this in mind when dealing with issues like this. Otherwise what's the point of Wikipedia? Thanks for hearing me out. Fergananim 19:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


Question: Is there any guideline or policy in place stating that a given article with an overwhelming number of inbound links should be given primacy? If there is, I'll change my vote. --Aaron 20:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the number of inbound links is one factor mentioned in the current guideline. It doesn't need to be "overwhelming", simply a "majority", but it's not by itself dispositive. The guideline reads:

When the primary meaning for a term or phrase is well known (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles, and by consensus of the editors of those articles), then use that topic for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top.

See Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic. I didn't know about this reference until your question prompted me to look for it. I was just using the links as one common-sense (and relatively objective) indication of how most Wikipedia editors (and therefore readers) use the term. JamesMLane t c 23:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the information, James. I've changed my vote above to Weak oppose; I think WP:D overrules the US-centric argument. --Aaron 18:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

History of the dispute[edit]

The article The Nation was created in June 2003 about the U.S. periodical. It stayed there, without objection from anyone, until November 2005, when one editor moved it -- a move that met with immediate objection. It's potentially confusing to refer to "de-dabbing" as if it were an assault on the status quo ante. The supposed "de-dabbing" was a restoration of the situation that had existed for more than two years, namely that the undisambiguated name is (like London or Dublin) used for the most common meaning of the term. To clarify, no one objects to keeping the dab page. No one objects to keeping the link to that page at the top of the article. JamesMLane t c 07:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

To clarify my above clarification, I'm not arguing that the earliest article should "win". I referred to the history simply to counter any false impression that might have arisen from the term "de-dabbing". The criterion I actually support is not the age of an article, or its literary elegance, but service to the readers. Most readers who type "The Nation" into the search box will be looking for the U.S. periodical. We should accommodate them. JamesMLane t c 14:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
No they won't. Most Americans will. There is a difference. Most British users who are aware of the name will mean their publication. Most Irish users will mean their historic newspapers. Many in Asia will think of the various publications in the region called The Nation. Political scientists will think the page means the political science term. Constitutional experts will look for the constitutional term. Don't presume that America = the world, and the what suits American users trumps the rest of the planet. FearÉIREANNMap of Ireland's capitals.png\(caint) 01:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The American published magazine is rather well read outside of the US too; it's not particularly provincial. But in any case, even if most of those "most readers" indeed are American, so what? Based on the google evidence above, the Thai newspaper just isn't as widely referred to (maybe in part because it's English-language, and the more popular Thai newspapers aren't). It's starting to feel, Jtdirl, that you're seeing some sort of American imperialism where it really isn't the issue (I agree it is in other contexts, as you know). In a way, it almost seems like you wish for a certain Irish provincialism, feeling some slight to the Irish newspaper (which is still hardly hidden or deleted as a WP entry; but really is not currently published, nor in the last century). WP:D really does push for the current setup... just like hardly anyone in Ontario means England when they say London, and hardly anyone in the US north-east means Murdoch's house organ when they say The Times... nonetheless, playing the odds, more readers worldwide benefit from what those link to than they would be going through a disambuation page. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Our goal should be to serve the interests of as many of our readers as possible. Each reader is entitled to equal consideration. I reject the presumptions criticized by Jtdirl because I don't believe that an American reader's interests are more important than a non-American reader's interests. On the other hand, I also don't believe that an American reader's interests are less important. If ten people are looking for Meaning A, while Meanings B, C, and D are each sought by two other people, then Meaning A is primary, even if all ten of its adherents are Americans and the six people looking for other meanings are from six different countries. JamesMLane t c 06:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be not so able to handle linking to the appropriate articles. Let's keep this civil please. --Howrealisreal 15:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Just as someone trying to manage a watchlist, may I mention how dizzying and, yes, annoying it is to see a page get renamed over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over and over and over and over and over and over again? And every rename is another operation the system has to perform before it can move the user to the actual page, even if it's just sending A->B->A->B->... 320 times before getting back to A. Good thing systems today are fast, but there's a limit yes? Anyway: Please, discuss it- don't just do it, come to a consensus, then do it or don't - and then get back to something like, I dunno, making changes in the actual article. Thanks. Schissel-nonLop! 02:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Would everybody who in future comments here please read Schissel's paragraph, and take it on board? Thanks.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Age of the Nation[edit]

Recent edits have changed from "oldest magazine in US" to "one of the oldest magazines in US". Unfortunately, I have no idea which is right; does anyone have a source for this either way? --Deville (Talk) 12:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"One of the oldest" is certainly safe; I don't know what would be older. Certainly nothing still major. - Jmabel | Talk 03:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Atlantic Monthly is from 1857; and there is at least one case of a revival of a nineteenth-century magazine as a family genealogy periodical. Septentrionalis 23:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
The Nation claims that they are the oldest continuously published weekly magazine in the US. The Atlantic article claims it is the second oldest continuously published monthly magazine in the US. Rlitwin 17:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the Nation's political philosophy, anyway?[edit]

There has been much debate in several places on the talk page about how we should describe the political viewpoint of the Nation. See Sections 2 and 4 of the talk page above for earlier discussion. As it stands, the discussions seem to ave arisen and then later petered out and it's not at all clear what the concensus is.

So, let's discuss it here. As I see it, we have four options:

  • Don't mention it at all.
  • Use the term "left-liberal"
  • Use the term "liberal" and link to American liberalism
  • Use the term "left-wing"

  1. My personal thoughts are that not mentioning it doesn't make sense. Also, although I think I know what the term "left-liberal" means, and if I do it seems to apply, that term is pretty nonstandard in my experience. I think either "American liberal" or "left-wing" is acceptable, but I do think the former is more accurate. --Deville (Talk) 18:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Liberal (with a link to American liberal), for the reasons agreed upon in the two above discussions. I don't believe that "left-wing" is an acceptable substitute. "Left-liberal" seems somewhat strange to me also, but I prefer it to "left-wing". (Hal Raglan 18:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC) I'm modifying my vote: I actually like Mantanmoreland's suggestion. If we're going to label the magazine, lets label it accurately with a "liberal" tag. If we can't do that, let's use the New Republic example and not label it at all. Let the reader decide for himself based on the info provided in the article.Hal Raglan 13:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Don't label it if we don't agree on Left/liberal (just clarifying my view here.) Rather than stick a label on the magazine's philisophy, I'd suggest simply leaving out a label entirely and use the approach taken in The New Republic, which is to describe the stance taken by the magazine and let it go at that. But if it is going to be labeled, it definitely should not be liberal, and as I indicated previously there was a lot of opposition to that label during the first discussion. Left-liberal is a good compromise and actually fairly close to being accurate. Certainly The Nation's position on most foreign policy issues, and regular contributors like Alexander Cockburn, put it well outside of the range of liberal thought. --Mantanmoreland 13:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Left-liberal was originally mine, but should perhaps be Left/liberal. Their regular contributors certainly include both some definite leftists and some definite (American) liberals. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that one of my edit summaries today was hasty and not accurate. Just to clarify -- the user did NOT say that "liberal" was the consensus, but was reverting on the basis of "left-liberal" being nonstandard. So my apologies to whoever's edit summary I mischaracterized. In any event, I have removed the label entirely until a consensus is reached. I think that is the best course of action for now and to avoid reverting back and forth. Incidentally, for what it's worth I would like to point out that The Nation calls itself the "flagship of the left" in its Amazon entry. That really settles the issue, I think.[10]--Mantanmoreland 17:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. That was my edit. Your most recent edit -- removing the label completely -- is certainly an acceptable and logical compromise for now, and in fact may ultimately be preferable if we can't come to a consensus.Hal Raglan 21:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem with those edit summaries is that one can't go back and fix. Hal, what's your view of the Amazon entry, and the publisher saying it is the "flagship of the left"? Seems to settle the issue, or so one would think--Mantanmoreland 21:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if the editor/publisher of "The Nation" refers to the magazine as the "flagship of the left", then that definitely settles the issue to a certain extent. I would still prefer that instead of using "left-liberal" (or "left-wing"), we make a change to the first sentence similar to the following: "The Nation (ISSN 0027-8378) is a U.S. periodical devoted to politics and culture, self-described as "the flagship of the left." Follow that sentence with a link to the Amazon page. Would that be satisfactory? That sentence is just a suggestion, and may read a little clumsily. If you can think of a better way to phrase it, please do so.Hal Raglan 21:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I think that would be a good of phrasing it. That way it is the self-description of the magazine, and not Wikipedia taking a position on it. Good solution! --Mantanmoreland 22:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Amusingly, I just ran across a use of "left-liberal" in The Nation, though not to refer to themselves but to the politics of West Germany: Andreas Huyssen, "High Culture, Low Politics", The Nation, May 29, 2006, p.34-40. The relevant passage is on p. 38: "...a new and no longer nationally bound understanding of culture and politics emerged that shaped a left-liberal consensus dominant in German intellectual life until 1989 and beyond." - Jmabel | Talk 16:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think left-liberal is the most accurate description of The Nation's political philosophy. It is more to the left than "liberal" (I think an example of a liberal publication would be The New Republic) and more to the center than "leftist" (I think an example of a leftist publication would be Monthly Review or Z Magazine. I think it is important also to consider the fact that The Nation has adopted a rather eclectic editorial policy, to the extent that they publish articles by people with a pretty wide range of "left-liberal" positions, including solid socialists, center-leaning liberals, and left-libertarians. I think "left-liberal" besides being the most accurate description in terms of what it specifically denotes, it can also be interpreted in a way that is very usefully vague in this case. Rlitwin 17:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Even though this has already been decided, I have come up with - I believe - the end all label and explanation for that label just in case this argument comes up again. The Nation is a "magazine of the left" because they encompass just about every faction of the left end of the spectrum. Eric Alterman, for example, is a self described liberal, and is even critisized for being too close to the center even by his Nation collegues (their name rhyms with "Bockburn"). Many other contributors describe themselves as progressive, while there are a few (past and present) socialists (Barbara Ehrenreich, Martin Luther King, Norman Thomas, George Orwell, Mike Davis) Marxists (Doug Henwood) and communists (Leon Trotsky, Fidel Castro, Alexander Cockburn and a few more I can't think of). Because The Nation encompasses the broad left it should be described as such instead of liberal, progressive, etc. And I don't think they would find such a destinction offensive with bad connotations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 06:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

"Progressive" is much more appropriate than "liberal." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

There's been some reverting going on between whether the Nation is "leftist" or "progressive". Please refer to the discussion above. To summarize, there are arguments for both (though I prefer leftist because it is a broader term and the Nation's writer have a range of views) that was ultimately settled because the magazine calls itself "the flagship of the left" an editor just removed this citation with the editor summary that the link did not support the claim. It certainly does. CAVincent (talk) 05:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

"Critical external links"[edit]

Does it strike anyone other than me as odd that all six "critical external links" at the bottom of the article attack The Nation as too mainstream or insufficiently leftist? I have three questions about this:

  1. Given that The Nation is almost universally considered to be the farthest left major U.S. magazine, if we are going to have a section like this, isn't it odd that none of the criticisms are from its right?
  2. Are these critics all really significant to belong as external links in the article? The piece on David Corn is from a site that declares "9/11 was an inside job" and also attacks (all from the left or pseudo-left), Chomsky, Alex Cockburn, Chip Berlet, and Ward Churchill. I don't believe I've ever before seen someone try to outflank Ward Churchill from the left: there is not a lot of air there.
  3. Is it at all customary to have links like this in an article on a magazine? I don't work on a lot of articles about English-language periodicals, but just for the heck of it, I looked at the articles on National Review (the nearest rightist equivalent), New Statesman (the nearest UK equivalent), Time magazine (which is to the center more or less what The Nation is to the left, and The New York Times. The Times has two such links (one from the right, Times Watch; one from the left, the Plamegate timeline). None of the others have even one. Did I just happen to hit exceptions, or is this article the exception? - Jmabel | Talk 03:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I read the articles too and I believe they should be removed because they aren't criticisms at all. The articles have hardly to do with The Nation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 25 November 2006.

While this is a kinda silly way to raise an issue, I will point out that no one has really responded to my remark on this from last July. - Jmabel | Talk 04:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the links should be removed. They may be from "the left" but do not represent any popular views on the moderate left, left, or far left (meaning they only represent the views of a small group of people, making them unhelpful to wikipeida readers looking for more information on the topic). It seems they want to be contrarian just for the sake of being contrarian. And one article features blatantly false allegations: claims The Nation only opposed and/or wrote articles in opposition to the Iraq War only after the war began. This is utterly false and anyone who reads The Nation would know that. Finally, the articles are pointless, nit-picking, aimless, not constructive and do not come from serious sources. I would suggest removing all of them and replacing them with other critical articles from liberal or left-wing sources and include conservative/right-wing criticisms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rlh 1984 (talkcontribs) 9 December 2006.

I'm going to remove these, based on apparent consensus. I would welcome appropriate critical links. - Jmabel | Talk 20:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there is room for lefty critisim of the Nation. I also concur that most of those articles were just not credible, and certianly not that benificial for someone wanting to learn about The Nation. The exception could be the critique by the socialst group that was attacked on national TV by David corn for their role (which is substantial) in the early anti-war movement in 2003-2005.

But it would only be valaubale with more mainstream critisism. I also note that the guy who posted these links spends most of his time posting 9-11 theories -- which he is entitled to -- but do not best serve this article. If it were up to me I would post back the attack on cron from the socialist site, which is indeed out of the mainstream, was reasonable. The rest were insane. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 19 December 2006.

If you think that one of these (I presume from the WWP, from what you said) has enough substance to be worth including, I imagine that would probably be fine. It doesn't sound like we are very far apart on this. - Jmabel | Talk 02:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

1934 near-trivia[edit]

I don't see the point of this insertion of a paragraph about a rather trivial matter about minimum wage in 1934. Am I missing something? - Jmabel | Talk 23:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems somewhat out of place. Is there any evidence it's a notable high point in the magazine's history? A PhD thesis is cited, but PhD theses generally focus in detail on narrow matters, so aren't a reliable guide of what should be covered in a general encyclopedia articles. --Delirium 15:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Cut. For the record, here it is:

The Nation included women's movement activists amongst its contributors. For example, on 17 October 1934 The Nation published activist Alma Lutz's response to an earlier article. In 'Women & Wages' she argued that moves to establish a minimum wage for women and children were regressive and in conflict with women's right to economic independence, demeaning women by categorising them with children. Alma Lutz also expressed concern that minimum rates locked women into subsistence wages. In so providing an avenue for publication by feminist contributors, The Nation ensured that its role as a current affairs leader was broad rather than narrowly based: Dr Jocelynne A. Scutt, 'The Struggle for Equal Pay & Pay Equity', PhD Thesis, University of New South Wales, Australia

- Jmabel | Talk 00:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Catharine Stimpson[edit]

I removed the reference because (1) the event does not appear to be notable and (2) it is only tangentially related to The Nation. Lagringa 10:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of the Nation[edit]

Considering their liberal stance, I'm surprised to see that there isn't a criticism of their practices. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 25 November 2006.

their liberal practices? what are you talking about? Palenque 07:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
There is lots, anyone want me to add them? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
There can be no criticism of The Nation because they're Left Wing. You must have confused it for an article about a Right Wing publication, for which exists the almost obligatory Criticism section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's meaningless to criticize a publication that is openly "the flagship of the left" for being leftist. It's equally meaningless to criticize an openly right-wing magazine for being right-wing. If your criticisms are political, then they are political. They don't belong in the entries on these magazines; they belong in entries on political issues or political philosophies.

New Comment: I agree with the basic premise that there should be a delineated primary section "Criticism" in the article - as in other Wikipedia Articles. It should of course meet Wiki-standards for neutrality, with references to other respected sources -- not individual opinions. (I came looking for such -- only finding some discussions here. Thanks. HalFonts (talk) 08:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Political Bias Against Rival Magazines[edit]

Calling The Weekly Standard "neoconservative" or National Review "conservative" while not giving any political affiliation to the other liberal magazines the New Democrat and the New Republic gives the article a bias. I removed the labels. If you are going to label the ideology of these magazines, then the article should also note the other magazines as being "liberal" or "progessive". Do all or none. 22:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering the term "New Democrat" describes a political perspective (ie neoliberal) and not a magazine, I assume this person doesn't know what he is talking about and I have taken the liberty of resoring the neoconservative and conservative labels to The Weekly Standard and The National Review. I have also changed the "New Democrat" label of The New Republic back to neoliberal as it used to be (I don't know who changed it from neoliberal to New Democrat and why they did it). And by the way, The New Republic is neither "liberal" nor "progressive". Rlh 1984 09:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
You're wrong. This person knew something you didn't know: "The New Democrat" was a magazine published by the Democratic Leadership Council in the 1990s and disseminated among its members. It was later renamed "Perspective" and has subsequently been integrated into the DLC website. "New Democrat" was a media phrase used to describe politically active centrists in the Democratic Party in the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s, which would have also been an appropriate description of the general political perspective of The New Republic at that time. And, yes, the New Republic is and has always been -- even in it's neoliberal era -- a liberal, left-of-center publication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Nock and suspension of The Nation[edit]

In the History section, it is mentioned that The Nation was suspened briefly because of controversial comments made by Albert Jay Nock. I have gone through The Nation Digital Archive and can't find a break in publication that would have corresponded with an article written by Nock in the year 1918. What exactley does the source given (American Quarterly) say about this event? Could the source be wrong or even made up? If it is a good source could the source have been misread? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Indeed. I tracked down the article. It was suspended from the U.S. mail, not from publication. I also found another interesting passage in the same article; I'll attend to this. - Jmabel | Talk 03:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The FBI monitoring of The Nation[edit]

I have included a brief mention of the FBI's monitoring of The Nation in the "History" section. A lot more could be added, though. Should this be mentioned in further detail at all? If yes, should it be placed in the "History" section? Or, should it be discussed at length in its own section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rlh 1984 (talkcontribs) 17 February 2007.

Certainly what you've added is good. Is there evidence that this monitoring led to any action (rather than just a waste of government resources maintaining a file)? If so, then, yes, it would deserve expansion. If not, I think what you've done is about right. - Jmabel | Talk 02:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a nit-picky detail from a total newbie: wasn't the FBI *as* *such* instituted in 1935? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Great American Novel[edit]

In the "Important Articles" section, someone added that the term was first used in The Nation in the January 9 1869 issue. There are a few problems: I have not found said article anywhere in The Nation Digital Archive and there isn't even an issue for that date. The only form of verification I could find was the article for the term in Wikipedia (but using Wikipedia to back up Wikipedia is not good research at all). I would be more than happy to have this left in (it would be a good bit of history for The Nation if it is true) but it needs to be prooven true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 05:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC).


Is there any real necessity to mention that Hitch wrote the Minority Report column in the "regular columns" section, and describe his departure therefrom, and then describe said event again in the "notable recent events" section, and list Hitch in the lede as a "notable contributor"? All of this seems like overkill. Certainly, there should be a brief discussion of his departure---actually, a bit longer than what we have currently---but the part in the "columns" section should be cut, as should the mention in the lede. Any thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 04:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Needs expansion[edit]

There's a long history of controversies and internal shake-ups that could be mentioned in the article -- such as Freda Kirchwey essentially being forced out due to excessive "anti-anti-Stalinism", the infamous 1986 Gore Vidal 120th-anniversary issue piece which said that Jewish neo-conservatives were foreigners pretending to be Americans, the Jerry Ford memoir lawsuit (Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises) which severely limited legal rights of fair use, etc. etc. By the way, in the 1940's the Nation was strongly pro-Israel... AnonMoos (talk) 05:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"Notable Events" is ungood section[edit]

The things called "notable" in this section are all events more-or-less about the current Iraq war, or at least from the last couple years. Given a 150 year history in which the journal has had a significant role in political events, this is a pretty darn heavy skew. Is one columnist quitting really as notable as Supreme Court cases the journal was in, or its position and investigation in HUAC, or its stance on entry into WWI, etc.?

A better way to approach the events mentioned is to incorporate them into the overall history (if the individual things are notable enough to merit inclusion there). LotLE×talk 20:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Being WP:BOLD, I've pulled out the WP:RECENTist items, and place them below. Let's work those that are of lasting significant into the main narrative. LotLE×talk 21:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

David Corn, The Nation's Washington Editor, broke the Valerie Plame leak scandal in the summer of 2003 in the pages of the magazine after noting that Robert Novak's blowing of the CIA operative's cover in a newspaper column could be a possible felony.

Former columnist Christopher Hitchens left in a widely publicized and vocal break with the magazine over the magazine's anti-Iraq War views.

In March 2005, the publication's United Nations correspondent, Ian Williams, was the subject of adverse publicity for accepting money from the UN while covering it for The Nation. Fox News Channel, Accuracy in Media and FrontPage Magazine criticized Williams and the publication. Williams and The Nation denied wrongdoing. [1]

In its November 28, 2005 issue, The Nation issued an endorsement policy for political candidates that stated that they would only endorse candidates who oppose the war in Iraq.

Langston Hughes[edit]

I'm no expert, but shouldn't there at least be some mention of "The Negro Artist and the Racial Mountain," an article written by Langston Hughes and published in the June 23, 1926 issue of The Nation? I would definitely classify this as an important piece, and I'm surprised it's not here already.

Support to eugenics for many decades[edit]

The article has nothing about the support to eugenics given by this magazine, for more than 70 years.Among the writers of this publication, Paul Blanshard was a known eugenist ; at least until 1950 decade.Agre22 (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)agre22

If it published some favorable references to eugenics in the 1920's, when a form of eugenics-lite was actually pretty mainstream, then that would not necessarily be too surprising (the 1920's was actually the decade, out of all the decades of U.S. history, when it was most intellectually respectable to be a so-called "scientific" racist). If you're saying that things went significantly beyond that, then you should provide some more detailed explanation and documentation... AnonMoos (talk)
It's interesting that so-called "known eugenist" Paul Blanshard isn't well enough known for that to have it mentioned in his WP biography. It most certainly doesn't seem to be the focus of Blanshard's actual published work (nor even related to any of his many books). I'm sure that writers with certain deplorable views (which may or may not be mitigated by historical context, and the widespread belief in such deplorable things at various times) have written for The Nation over the last 150 years (heck, they had Chris Hitchens for alarmingly long), but Agre22's mention seems like a very contentious effort at guilt-by-association. LotLE×talk 20:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Namedropping in introduction?[edit]

The introduction now has about 30 names, listed, of "contributors". I think this should be in a subsection, not the intro. One probe: Frank Lloyd Wright has contributed, but his Wiki-article does not mention The Nation (reducing the relevance of his contribution a bit, I think). Do we want to read the names (all blue links) who ever "contributed" to the London The Times? In the intro? -DePiep (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Liberal Jews[edit]

I know that The Nation is a liberal newspaper, but there should probably be a footnote somewhere on the significant role played by liberal Jews within the publication. There is a very similar pattern found in the New York Times, in which a plurality of Gentile editors are supported by a dedicated group of secular Jewish writers. ADM (talk) 07:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I certainly hope the above comment isn't intended in an outright antisemitic way. Even assuming not, it is misguided. The Nation has never had any specifically Jewish focus in its content or hiring policy. Certainly many individuals who have written for the magazine have been Jewish (by heritage, much less often as a religious practice, I'd guess), but I am not sure that is any higher ratio than one would get from a random sample of progressive New Yorkers (which is, after all, where and for whom it is published at first brush). Likewise, we should not try to give a breakdown of what percentage of African-Americans, or Italian-Americans, or Irish-Americans, have written for the magazine, even though members of those groups have contributed as well.LotLE×talk 18:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Important Articles[edit]

I think we should add to the link of important articles, Ralph Nader's article on the Auto Safety, first published by the Nation and later sparked the consumer advocate movement. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Persiancowboy (talkcontribs) 05:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Notable contributor Pat Buchanan[edit]

I reverted this change [11] since Buchanan is in fact credited as a (past) contributor. At the WP article on him, At The Nation: [12] (abstract of an old one; I stopped looking after I found this so there may be others) and at MSNBC: [13]. PrBeacon (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggest archiving[edit]

I think this talk page could benefit from archiving, especially the section above about a (failed) move request. I've seen other pages where there is small header box at the top which summarizes the move request & links to the full discussion, but I'm not experienced enough in the wiki-coding to do this without looking it up. So if anyone else knows how, please do so. PrBeacon (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


I sympathize with the intent of this edit, but the word "liberal" without context is a bit problematic here. As the terms are used in American politics, the Nation is generally "liberal" and "progressive", but their politics are considerably left of what "liberal" tends to mean internationally. Several of its writers (e.g. Alex Cockburn) would consider themselves considerably left of liberal, even in the American sense of that term. It would be good if we could find a description of the magazine's politics from one of its current or recent editors or publishers.

Certainly there have been times in the magazine's history when the "front" (news and general articles) and the "back" (reviews) diverged quite notably from each other in politics, with very divergent stances toward the Soviet Union. - Jmabel | Talk 01:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Your points are well-taken. Perhaps "left-wing" would be more appropriate, or is that too much of a pejorative? Drrll (talk) 11:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Important articles[edit]

I suggest, that if we have such a section, it should only list articles that are referenced by other publications, which discuss The Nation's coverage. Otherwise, the floodgates are open to countless stories. Independent sources are especially important if there's a claim that The Nation was the first to break a story. --Rob (talk) 03:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Otherwise there could be hundreds of entries in the section. If The Nation did break something, it should be fairly easy to find secondary sources. Drrll (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I've started looking for citations. With the Plame affair, I can't find an independent source to say they were the first. And I think the claim here is somewhat misleading. As I understand it, at best, The Nation was the first to allege the leak was potentially a felony. Everyone who read the Novak article already knew a CIA operative was outed, and could speculate as to the legality of that. To "break" a story, you need to reveal some surprising new facts, that the public wasn't aware of. Putting a few public facts together, to make an obvious conclusion isn't a "break". Now, I may well be missing something, since the link to first article in The Nation is not working, which is one reason I haven't yet altered this article. --Rob (talk) 07:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I removed the section. It can be added back with 3rd party sources. It's simply original research for us to pick out what we think are "important" articles, out of the thousands of articles. What's needed is stories where The Nation's role in developing a story had such an impact, The Nation itself was covered by other publications. As it stands, we're simply repeating The Nation's own claims of self-importance. I'm sure these 3rd party sources are out there, and plentiful, but they're hard to search for, to get the needed type of coverage. --Rob (talk) 07:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Circulation against The Weekly Standard and The New Republic[edit]

I don't find comparing the Nation's 2004 circulation against two seemingly arbitrarily picked other magazines relevant. Firstly because the information is six years out of date and secondly there is no reason to include what amounts to a popularity contest between magazines of which their comparability has not, and probably could not be established. This is in reference the second sentence of the second introductory paragraph "The circulation of The Nation was rising and measured 184,296 in 2004 more than double that of The New Republic and higher than conservative paper The Weekly Standard." Michael Keith Jewitt (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

More to the point, why is roughly half of the lede about finances? This is a magazine with 145 years of history, surely there are more important things to highlight. - Jmabel | Talk 17:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
That seems like a reasonable point. Michael Keith Jewitt (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


I know this has been discussed before (with what appears to be little to no consensus), but I think the political ideology of The Nation needs to be clarified. The National is to the left of "liberal;" I'd describe it as social democratic, or even democratic socialist. For what it's worth, I read The Nation. Peacock28 01:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Problematic sentence[edit]

"This pamphlet was endorsed by an Advisory Council that included US Congresspersons and a Senator (eg. Helen Gahagan Douglas, Thomas H. Eliot, Joseph F. Guffey) distinguished attorneys and civil rights leaders (eg. Thurman Arnold, Roger Nash Baldwin, Walter White), investigative journalists (eg Jay Allen), authors (eg. Thomas Mann, Erskine Caldwell, Eugene O'Neill, Lillian Hellman, Lewis Gannett, Reinhold Niebuhr, John P. Lewis), and others.(ref)The Higher Arab Committee: Its Origins, Personnel and Purposes; The Documentary Record submitted to the United Nations, May, 1947, by the Nation Associates, (NY: The Nation Associates; 1947), end page(/ref)"

This is problematic for several reasons. The back page of the document contains a list of all 41 members of the Advisory Council but it doesn't say they "endorsed" the content, which sounds like they personally confirmed the truth of the content. Presumably they agreed to their names being there, but more cannot be said without a reliable secondary source. Identifying some of them as "investigative journalists" etc serves to artificially enhance the credibility of the content but, again, nothing in the given source indicates that any particular member of the Advisory Council had any particular role in the compilation of the content. The actual provenance of the content is known (though I've lost the source at the moment so I can't edit): a sympathetic archivist stole the documents from the US National Archivists and gave them to the Zionist Organization. How it got to be published by Nation Associates rather than by the Zionists, I don't know. Zerotalk 09:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
The Nation prided itself on its investigative journalism, and Jay Allen (as one example) was a very famous and influential investigative journalist (and is still still studied in J-schools). The conventional understanding of an 'Advisory Council' listing individual names is that they have been called upon to 'advise' and have consented to add their names as an endorsement. The collective gravitas and credibility of this group is an essential aspect of this document, and their collective endorsement no doubt caught the attention of the UN delegates. The WIkipedia reader should know about this Advisory Council to provide context. This was not a document prepared by a pro-ZIonist hack who'd been bought-out by Jewish under-the-table money. This doc was (at the least) reviewed by the founder of the ACLU, an NAACP leader, Presidential Advisors, Congresspeople, a Senator, etc. and it is very relevant to point this out so that the Wikipedia reader may properly consider the integrity of the pamphlet and of the people who reported the information. Now for the really interesting part of your posting: Please try to recall the source that you lost 'at the moment' that discusses the 'actual provenance' of the documents. Does the source imply any reason to believe that any of these documents could have been forged? Does the source discuss the possibility that the documents are just drafts (other than the drafts the Mufti proposed to Hitler, etc., which were not adopted since -- according to the Mufti's diary -- the time for such a declaration would have to wait until German had taken the Caucasus, as noted within the Nations Assoc. doc). For instance, does any source claim the message to the Hungarians (which recommends sending Jews to Poland, where they'd be under positive control, rather than have them emigrate to the Mid-East) is a forgery? Seriously, I'm very interested in any source you may have on this subject, and thank you in advance for providing your references Ronreisman (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
"The collective gravitas and credibility of this group" was an essential part of the propagandistic nature of the document. This document was produced for a serious, specific, political purpose. It was not investigative journalism!! Please provide a source suggesting that Jay Allen played any part at all in the preparation of the document. It is pure original research to suggest that his skills as a journalist were relevant, rather than his political support for Zionism. This group, especially Kirchwey, were engaged in political lobbying, as witnessed by the large number of petitions, letters to politicians including the president, etc etc.. It wasn't me who proposed that it was funded by the Jewish Agency, it was a peer-reviewed academic paper that quoted the Jewish Agency archives.The documents themselves, and many similar, are extremely well known and discussed by many actual historians. Start with books of Elpeleg and Achcar. The mufti's meeting with Hitler is one of the most investigated events in Nazi-Arab history; your opinion of the Mufti's diary (you can read Arabic?) is inadmissible. Besides that, it is quite improper for you to fight the Israel-Palestine conflict on this page. Zerotalk 01:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
The meaning of 'wartime propaganda' infers that lies are being perpetrated, and that later -after some 'cooling-off' period usually - these revealed to be propagandistic lies. Your accusations may have some plausibility if a reliable secondary source demonstrated that 'The Arab Higher Committee' was full of forgeries and falsifications. In fact, I can't find any source that makes the claim that there are any forgeries or falsehoods, other than the Mufti himself who claimed all evidence against him were Jewish lies and falsehoods (and I don't think anyone is proposing that we accept his statements on this matter at face value ;-). There *was* a proposal drafted by the Mufti that was proposed to the Foreign Minister and which was then presented to Hitler, who declined to make the announcement until 'the following year' when the Axis had reached the Caucasus and could move South. The essential points covered in the Nation Associates pamphlet are backed up by the German records of meetings with the Mufti that were published in 1964 by the US Archives in "German Foreign Policy 1918--1945." The photographs included in the pamphlet are similarly authentic and legit, insofar as no trick photography or tinkering of them was done, and they are truthful documentary evidence. If this was really a work of 'propaganda' then these facts would not be substantiated after all these years. THere may be cases of honest mistakes that occur in every piece of Journalism (eg: I've *never* been quoted entirely correctly in *any* journalistic piece that's included even a single quote :-), though that is entirely different from intentionally spinning lies in a document that was composed to be primarily deceptive, In other words, this document meets every criteria as 'Journalism' -- and that's why the members of the Advisory Council lent their names and reputations to this work, and that's why their signatory endorsements must be considered relevant. No one is claiming that the great Jay Allen personally prepared this document. It is evident, however, that he put his name and rep behind the doc when he permitted his name to be cited as a member of the Advisory Council, and also that neither he nor anyone else associated with that doc every repudiated the truthfulness of the contents. The fact that he was one of the most accomplished journalists in WWII makes his association with the pamphlet relevant, insofar as he is obviously qualified to distinguish 'propaganda' from 'journalism' -- particularly on WWII matters. The articles you cite, incidentally, don't contain the extreme accusations you've made about the pamphlet being pure 'propaganda' -- ie lies, forgeries, and falsehoods. Again, if you have any source that demonstrates that the contents are intentional propagandistic lies that have been fully discredited by subsequent scholarship -- PLEASE share those sources with us. I'm sorry to say that so far you appear to be grinding your own ax and making unsubstantiated claims that conflict with legit sources that were published long after the 1947 pamphlet. Everyone stipulates that the Nation Associates folks were anti-Nazi and that they were very opposed to having Nazi collaborators (eg Rasem Khalidi, who is shown in photo between the Mufti and Rashid Ali) presenting themselves to the UN as legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, There were Nazi supporters and collaborators were (as I'm sure you know) at that very time preparing to fight a war to prevent the establishment of the State of Israel. The folks at Nation Associates wanted to bring some of these facts to the attention of the UN delegates who were considering the Partition issue. This is NOT propaganda by any conventional definition. It may be properly considered activist journalism -- the same kind of work that was performed to expose racial injustice (eg lynchings, the Klan, etc.) in the Nation's many articles where they took a similar editorial position promoting Civil Rights in the US. Yes, the reporters had a point of view -- eg they opposed racist lynchings. This, again, is not conventionally considered 'propaganda' since they were reporting facts, not fabricating lies. In other words, there are no grounds for consigning this pamphlet to the same category as (for a random example) the reports in the Egyptian press in 1948 that they'd taken numerous Jewish settlement and won many great battles against the Zionists in the opening days of the 1948 War, since the falsehoods that were contained in those Egyptian press and radio reports have been amply proven to be true 'propagandistic lies' and therefore *would* fall into the category of sources that should not be cited uncritically in Wikipedia. Wartime reports that publish the actual facts, however, are not in this same 'propaganda' category. The Wartime reports that the Normandy Invasion began on June 6, or that the Atom bomb had dropped on Hiroshima, are *not* propaganda. If UN delegates were influenced by learning about the pro-Nazi activities of the people who claimed to lead the Palestinian Arab cause, then that's the result of their reflection on the facts, not an example of being deceived by propagandistic lies. You appear to want to suppress the legit information because it may not support a political position that you hold. Please reflect on this; do you really want to do this? Do you really want to put your efforts and talents to suppressing the truth, or would it be more beneficial to discuss these facts openly for the sake of truthful education and debate? To sum up, please provide a source that backs up your claims that Nation Associates 'The Higher Arab Committee' contains a pack of propagandistic lies that were discredited and disproven by subsequent legitimate research. If you can't, then I suggest you reflect on whether you are trying to push your own 'original research' into a WIkipedia article, which -- as you yourself have written -- is inappropriate. Ronreisman (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Regarding Zero0000's suggestion that the Nation Associates 'The Arab Higher Committee' is discredited in "a peer-reviewed academic paper that quoted the Jewish Agency archives" or that "many actual historians" such as "Elpeleg and Achcar" discussed the documents in a way that contradicted the presentation in the Nations Associates pamphlet: The article (Giora Goodman (2011). "“Palestine’s Best”: The Jewish Agency’s Press Relations, 1946–1947". Israel Studies 16 (3): 1–27.) does not state that Nation Associates were liars or forgers or falsifiers. It does state that they were fervent supporters of Zionism, just as they were fervent supporter of Civil Rights. I just checked Elpeleg's biography of Haj Amin, and I don't see anything there that contradicts any of the major statements in the Nations Associates pamphlet. Achar, incidentally, is a very curious choice, since IMHO he critiques anti-Zionists who try to suppress facts of Arab--Nazi (and fascist) collaboration. He points out (many times) that suppressing these facts is counterproductive to anti-Zionist and Arab Nationalist goals. He is, of course, an ardent anti-Zionist himself, and he may be more famous for his arguments against Zionists who claim to use WWII Holocaust history as false argument for justifying the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine. I may not always agree with Achar's politics, and we may nit-pick about how even he seems to shy away from some of the more disturbing aspects of Arab--Nazi history, though clearly he's making a reputable attempt to approach the issues in a reasonable -- if partisan -- fashion. Although he's no friend of Israel, he's still regarded highly there for attempting to be even-handed. In any case, I haven't seen the Nation Associates' documents mentioned in Achar's work. ::::Regarding their take of the 'documents themselves' -- i.e some of the same docs that were presented in 'Documentary Record' in the Nation Associate pamphlet, there doesn't seem to be major disagreements between the contents of the 1947 pamphlet and the work published over a half-century later by Achar & Elpeleg. If anything, their reviews of these docs make the case for the veracity and reliability of 'The Arab Higher Committee'. If I've missed any published negative comments on the pamphlet we're discussing, please inform us and direct us to the sources. Again, please reflect whether your position may be a deeply held belief based on your own conclusions, rather than a position that may be properly bolstered by reliable secondary sources. Thank you for your time and consideration, too. These are important issues, and it is good to see people take them seriously and join in the work.Ronreisman (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC) originally posted as:v67.188.100.227 (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
One last comment: I just surfed the web looking for on-line sources of Achar comments, perhaps with some mention of the 'The Arab Higher Committee' doc, in respect for Zero0000's suggestions. I found this quote from an interview with Gilbert Achar, which I think it pretty pertinent to this discussion:
"One must note in passing that Amin al-Husseini's memoirs are an antidote against Holocaust denial: He knew that the genocide took place and boasted of having been perfectly aware of it from 1943 on. I believe he is an architect of the Nakba (the 1948 defeat and the departure of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians driven off their lands) in the sense that he bears a share of responsibility for what has happened to the Palestinian people." ( )
I don't think this statement makes Achar a pawn of the Zionists, nor does his work qualify as 'propaganda' because he's opposed to Nazi collaborators and those who cover up history. Ronreisman (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC) originally posted as: (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
You don't have a clue what my opinion is. You wrote 1600 words of blah blah blah and you think I should read it? Read WP:NOTFORUM. Zerotalk 00:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


Is there any source which credits The Nation with backing the suffrage movement from 1865 to 1920 and after? Since it took over from Garrisson's The Liberator I assume it would have, but there is no mention on the page of suffrage. Thanks. Randy Kryn 20:26 8 May 2014 (UTC)

If we are talking about Black suffrage then the book "Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution" has several quotations from The Nation on on suffrage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidr222 (talkcontribs) 03:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia[edit]

Search: "a nonprofit organization"

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 08:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Nation Associates and the creation of Israel[edit]

I removed this section, as it's a violation of WP:NPOV. First, by word count it's about 20% of the whole article, which is extreme undue weight to one incident in the almost 150 years of The Nation's existence. Second, it's incorrect, as it represents its main source (Ronald and Allis Radosh (2008). "Righteous among the Editors — when the Left loved Israel". World Affairs: 65–75.) as saying exactly the opposite of what the source says actually happened. In other words, the Wikipedia section says: "They pressured the United Nations over the composition of the Special Committee on Palestine.[16] They lobbied all UN members to promote a UN vote to establish a Jewish state in Palestine, without a corresponding Arab state." In fact the reference (here: states clearly that The Nation supported a two state solution: "On September 1st, UNSCOP submitted two reports to the General Assembly: the majority report called for the establishment of two independent states, Arab and Jewish; the minority report called for Palestine to become a federalized state. Kirchwey promptly dedicated herself and The Nation to the cause of the former. To move the administration in the direction of the partition plan, Kirchwey convened a special meeting of The Nation Associates with members of Congress, briefing them on the state of play at the UN and passing along data to use when marshalling their own arguments in favor of partition."

The misrepresentation of events, combined with the undue weight of this section, indicates that the whole section is an NPOV violation.QuizzicalBee (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

You can't delete an entire section because you disagree with one sentence. About that sentence, it is a mistake and can be fixed. The source says "Kirchwey also rejected the demand for an independent Arab state in Palestine." but comparison with the the document being discussed ("The Palestine Problem and Proposals for a Solution") shows that it refers to an Arab state in all of Palestine. The document also argues against a Jewish state in all of Palestine and supports partition even though "there is little enthusiasm in Jewish circles for a partitioned state" (p114). Thank you for pointing out this error. About the size of the section, it is probably time to create an article on Nation Associates where the details can go, leaving a smaller mention here. Meanwhile, we don't go mass-deleting properly sourced text without a better reason. Zerotalk 00:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I did give a valid reason for deleting the section--it's undue weight on one specific area. That is a significant, excellent reason for removing content. Being "well sourced" isn't the sole criteria in determining what should and shouldn't be in an article. I turn the issue back onto you. Good Wikipedia editors don't go around turning 20% of an article into an extremely detailed, specific focus on one particular issue, without a valid reason. What is your reason for putting this into an article about The Nation? Why does this issue merit 1/5th of the article? If you believe it should be its own article, then go create an article--if you believe that it should have its own article, then you've just agreed it's too specific to retain in The Nation's article. If so, then for what purpose would you restore a section that you have agreed is too specific? As for being well-sourced: almost the entire section is from one short article about one moment in the history of some of the leaders of The Nation, and so narrow of a sourcing is frowned upon by Wikipedia and often a hallmark of Undue Weight. Yes, a couple other articles are mentioned, but it's essentially just a reworking of one article, plopped into the middle of an otherwise quite general Wikipedia article about a magazine--a classic example of NPOV violation and Undue Weight. I'm not sure what your point is in saying this: "The source says 'Kirchwey also rejected the demand for an independent Arab state in Palestine.' but comparison with the the document being discussed ('The Palestine Problem and Proposals for a Solution') shows that it refers to an Arab state in all of Palestine. The document also argues against a Jewish state in all of Palestine and supports partition even though 'there is little enthusiasm in Jewish circles for a partitioned state' (p114)." But since none of that comment of yours has to do with The Nation, I again say that this just provides evidence that what the section is about isn't the magazine, but about esoterica about the debates preceding the establishment of the state of Israel, which is what you'd really like to be talking about, which is why you inserted that section and have been virtually the exclusive editor of it. If that's what you want to talk about, then go make an article about it, but don't usurp an established article for that purpose. QuizzicalBee (talk) 05:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
To delete something which is policy-compliant and properly sourced you need an argument that it shouldn't be in Wikipedia at all. You didn't provide such an argument (your mention of NPOV does not include any evidence except one error that I fixed). You only argued, with validity I am not disputing, that the weight is too great in this place. That is a standard argument for a fork, which is what I will do soon. The material is not marginal but is discussed in many eminent sources, and it only ended up here because Nation Associates doesn't have its own article. I'll remedy that soon. Your second revert is getting close to edit-warring; I consider it quite improper but I won't match your behavior. Zerotalk 07:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Glaring factual omission[edit]

I haven't tried to read more than a tiny fraction of this Talk area, but I doubt that anyone has made this comment before. Otherwise, I wouldn't have to make it. It is that the eighth paragraph under History begins, "The magazine's financial problems in early 1940s prompted Kirchwey to sell her individual ownership of the magazine in 1943...." This sentence is the first mention in the entire text of the article of anyone named "Kirchwey." (She is listed in the info box as "Freda Kirchwey," one of the former editors, but that's all.) Of course, I could dig and research a bit and find out more about Kirchwey, who she is or was, and how, when, why, or under what circumstances she came to be an owner of the magazine, but, quite obviously, I shouldn't have to. With all the arguing about philosophy and so on, how is it that no one has even noticed this glaring defect and made some effort to fix it? I have only a passing interest in the subject and will not make that effort. Wikifan2744 (talk) 11:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

NOT done. Your conclusion above (...make that effort)— silver spoon much?
Wait, what? History..eighth paragraph, first mention— and the Info box does not count as first? Even though it also was her biographical link? As can be seen as of this Sep 2014 version of this article that you complain of, there are 5 refs to "Freda Kirchwey" and 9 to "Kirchwey". Old revision of The Nation. WurmWoodeT

The Nation's rampant anti-Semitism[edit]

Shouldn't The Nation's extreme anti-Semitism be mentioned in this article? For example, it publishes articles by the anti-Semitic propagandist Charlotte Silver. Look at this article where she defends an Arab terrorist who murdered two Israeli Jews then lies about Israel torturing her. She also posted this article at the anti-Semitic propaganda site Electronic Intifada.[14] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Read the two Silver articles linked to and saw absolutely nothing derogatory or defamatory about Jews in general. Not particularly good journalism and clearly examples of advocacy but not anti-Semitic in the least. Except, of course, by the standards of the dominanat ultra-nationalist faction among Israeli citizens and supporters which tries to treat any criticism of the actions of the Israeli military and Israel's political leadership as anti-Semitic by definition. This simultaneous mudslinging and whitewashing is a familiar and tired political tactic that simply does not wash and is itself defamatory. In any case, if any contributor wishes to add a section they are free to do so, but there is of course no guarantee that it will not be challenged, as the proposed addition certainly would be if this is the best supporting evidence the writer can provide. If they can find a "reliable source" (according to the standards of the Wikipediaverse) that provides evidence that The Nation is rampantly anti-Semitic they will have a case and not just a point of view. (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

"The Nation" as Successor to "The Liberator"[edit]

This is an intriguing thought and probably a valid point that is only briefly alluded to in the lede with an obscure 150-year-old publication as sole source. I think this connection should be developed in the history section (where there is a reference to William Lloyd Garrison's son serving as an editor of The Nation) but with a bit more detail and one or more more recent and accessible sources provided. (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Publisher-editor in defense of RT[edit]

This is worth keeping an eye on. --Webverbesserer (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC) Webverbesserer (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Alyssa A. Lappen, Another U.N. Scandal, March 16, 2005. Accessed 27 June 2006.
    Cliff Kincaid, Journalists Exposed on the U.N. Payroll; George Soros, Ted Turner Pay for Journalism Prizes, Accuracy in Media, February 15, 2005. Accessed 27 June 2006.
    U.N. Reporters Group May Have Violated U.S. Immigration Law, Accuracy in Media press release, February 22, 2005. Accessed 27 June 2006.