Talk:World (magazine)

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Magazines Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article doesn't make sense. It is the fourth largest newsweekly in the US, but hope someday to have a circulation equal to the largest newsweeklys. Isn't this a bit circular?

It is not the fourth largest... nevermind news, it doesn't even crack the top 20 for religious, commentary, or conservative magazines either. As for weekly news magazines (I am uncertain if The World even fits in that category) after the top three: Time, Newsweek, and US News, the New Yorker, The Economist, Weekly Standard, The Nation... and many many more clearly have greater circulation numbers, subscribers, name recognition etc... I cannot even find it listed in any top magazine circulation figures (ABC etc.) Unless fourth largest is a reference to page size or font, there is no way that this fourth place claim is valid. I would like to see a figure supporting this cited in a source outside of the magazine's own web page.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.79.186 (talk) 06:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The magazine has repeatedly claimed that it is the fourth largest in terms of circulation of all weekly magazines, though its circulation is certainly lower than that of The New Yorker or the Economist... perhaps they consider those outside the category because they devote more space to editorializing rather than reporting. Anyway, you're probably right about this. Fortunately, the point is now moot because starting in January World is switching to a biweekly format, so it's definitely not in that category anymore. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 15:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Circulation figures for magazines change, but I just called 'em and they said their circulation is about 123,000, and that it fluctuates but averages between 123,000 and 125,000. I've updated the article to say that its circulation is about 123,000. I also deleted the phrase that says it has steadily grown, since it sounds like the growth has not been all that steady of late. NCdave (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the writers of World magazine cannot write a single paragraph without slandering someone who is in their opinion a liberal. the magazine writes about homosexuals as if they are living weapons of mass destruction (but it is to be expected of a small publication christian magazine.) They also have a Puritan movie rating system that belongs in 13th century europe. Also extremely anti-animal welfare and anti-environmental issues, claims there is no evidence of global warming. Claims every Muslim is a terrorist and that no christian or jew (as long as they're not an athiest jew) can never do wrong.

let's remember that we're unbiased here on wikipedia, so let's keep our articles that way. --Ancalagon06 18:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that's nice, put it on your blog. This is an encyclopedia Johnzw 23:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey look, the article on the founder of the magazine has more details about it than the article about the magazine itself (circulation and so on).

Secondly, if this is one of the largest weekly news bits in the country, it oughtta have a larger, more detailed article.

Third, how about we add a section for criticism? Isn't that typical on a lot of pages on ideologically biased media? I'm sure there has been prominent criticism against world. Phillip 20:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)c[reply]

It does not seem to be typical of articles on ideological media to have criticism sections, Phillip. I just looked at The Nation and there is no criticism section (in fact, hardly anything that resembles criticism) in the article. NCdave (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few sources that could be used to expand this article: [1], [2], [3]. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 02:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that this article is completely sourced to the magazine itself (or its on-line version). The notability of the magazine needs to be established through reference to independent sources that discuss it (whether such discussion is positive, negative or neutral does not matter... the key to estabilshing notability is referencing sources that simply discuss the topic). Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:WORLD-June-05,-2010.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 20 June 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:WORLD-June-05,-2010.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- talk) 23:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply ]

@