Talk:Newsweek

Gazetta Berlusconi Kommunisto

roumours typed - since the italian politics is not without using hand while commication, the gazzetta berlusconi said Buds Spencer is not a Film Star anymore to italia the bella in the roma editon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.234.209.215 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hitler diaries

Where is the "Hitler Diaries" scandal and the role Newsweek played in it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.0.30.103 (talk) 09:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Claims of bias

An editor has been inserting a section called "Claims of bias." Another editor has been removing it. Frankly, there is only one claim of bias there, so it's pretty much just one person's opinion. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Croatia World Cup

I reverted this. User:United Union uses the argument on my talk page that "Author did use that headline". That's wrong, journallists don't write the headlines, headline writers do (hell, I've never been a journalist but I wrote headlines for the Miami Herald when I was a PA to the city editor). We've discussed headlines at RSN, they aren't reliable sources. I'm also told that Newsweek retracted it, although I searched for a retraction before I reverted and couldn't find one. I also found sources with the same claims. And as I said in my edit summary, Croatia's president denies it but then "she has openly associated with Ustasha sympathisers,". Obviously I could have missed something but I think we should have other eyes before reinstating this, and of course better sources. Doug Weller talk 08:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that it matters who wrote it, journalist or headline writer, but rather who published it, and in this case it was Newsweek. If this was article about the C. Maza, then it would be relevant, but it's not. Headline, and a text, later removed, can be seen in the screenshot. The correction notice is under the article. Can Thompson be considered a controversial figure? Yes. But did he start this particular performance by screaming Ustashe battle cries with audience making Nazi salutes as implied in the article? No. I somehow doubt they would agree to make any change in the article if it was correct in the first place, but they did, so yeah... United Union (talk) 12:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Birther Conspiracy

Is it notable that this magazine ran an editorial defending an opinion piece they ran, which claimed that questioning whether Kamala Harris was eligible to run for VP on the grounds that her parents we immigrants, saying it was not racist birtherism? 38.65.100.100 (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

That sentence makes no sense. Try again, and with a citation. O3000 (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/08/the-wikipedia-war-over-kamala-harris-race/615250/ is probably relevant, —PaleoNeonate – 08:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Newsweek and the Rise of the Zombie Magazine: How a decaying legacy magazine is being used to launder right-wing ideas and conspiracy theories.

Lots of new information about Newsweek and how it is used to spread conspiracy theories here https://newrepublic.com/article/158968/newsweek-rise-zombie-magazine

Thanks

. John Cummings (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

3.2: Factual Errors

"In August 2018, Newsweek falsely reported that the Sweden Democrats, a far-right party, could win a majority in the 2018 Swedish parliamentary elections. Polls showed that the party was far away from winning a majority."

I don't think you can call it "false" that the Sweden Democrats "could win a majority" in what was at the time a future election unless there was no mathematical way for them to do so. Could someone knowledgeable about Swedish elections weigh in on whether or not that was the case? (Side note: The party's Wikipedia page indicates that there's not a consensus on whether or not it should be classified as "far-right.") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oooooooseven (talk • contribs) 22:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I see it has been removed, but still. I am Swedish but no expert. They finished third and from what I have read that was a great success (https://www.svd.se/a/0EyBe0/varldens-finanspress-om-valet-sd-riktiga-vinnarna) for them - I counldn't find anything that suggest people thinking they could win. 2806:266:480:8DB3:8C50:9E04:767C:1AD4 (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Sponsored the RAM team in Formula 1

The RAM team ran a March 821 car in the 1980's. See the Newsweek sponsorship.

www.grandprix.com/sponsors/history-of-sponsorship-in-formula-1.html https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_821#/media/Ficheiro:Ram-March_821_Mont-Tremblant_03.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.72.221 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Contradicting readership numbere

"In 2020, Newsweek's website hit 100 million unique monthly readers, up from seven million at the start of 2017. In 2021, its revenues doubled to $75 million and traffic increased to 48 million monthly unique visitors in May 2022 from about 30 million in May 2019 according to Comscore"

Am I missing something here? One says 100 million "unique monthly readers" in 2020 and another 30 million "monthly unique visitors" 2019 and 48 million in 2022. It seems the 30 and 48 million claim comes from Wall Street Journal (I dont have an account there) and the 100 million claim is less reputable and should be removed. The same 100 million claim is repeated in the intro, and should be removed? It is the first hit on Google and the owner Dev Pragad has it as his first claim on his Wikipedia page. 2806:266:480:8DB3:8C50:9E04:767C:1AD4 (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I removed "In 2020, Newsweek's website hit 100 million unique monthly readers, up from seven million at the start of 2017." since it was contradicted by the newer and more authoritative Wall Street Journal article (https://web.archive.org/web/20220807145818/https://www.wsj.com/articles/newsweek-engulfed-in-legal-drama-as-co-owners-sue-each-other-11659096002). The 30 million and 48 million claims are in the WSJ article.

Newsweek also only has 135 million total page views (not unique visitors - google for example has 135 billion page views), https://www.semrush.com/website/newsweek.com/overview/

I think someone should look into this "100 million unique monthly readers" claim in the intro too and related Wikipedia pages. 2806:266:480:8DB3:8C50:9E04:767C:1AD4 (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

What is a "unique reader" any way. Is somebody seriously suggesting there are people who read Newsweek and nothing else? Come off it.Spinney Hill (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The term refers to a single reader regardless of how many times that reader reads. It is contrasted with "reads." For example, if person A read once and person B read fifty times, you have two unique readers and fifty-one reads. Kdammers (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

"Unique" is therefore incorrectly used. They are "readers. One reads it once. The other reads it fifty times. They are not unique because they both read Newsweek like many others. Spinney Hill (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Maintenance tag and controversies section

A tag questioning the article's neutrality was added a few months ago with the comment "Added maintenance template". Was there any discussion about this? I can't find anything. Cortador (talk) 06:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't look like it; the tag was placed by Isi96, but no discussion ever opened.

I'm removing the tag. Isi96, feel free to reinstate it in tandem with opening a discussion explaining your position. TJRC (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing

"In two lawsuits filed in August 2025, previous owners and investors in Newsweek accused CEO Dev Pragad of "fraud, theft, and a calculated effort to seize the historic brand for himself, while siphoning millions of dollars out of the company and living a luxury lifestyle." In addition to accusations to lying about co-investors about statements made by a district attorney, Pragad is also accused of paying himself more than $4.7 million in salary and bonuses in a single year without board approval, and using company resources to acquire a $3.3 million mansion, a $100,000 Tesla, a $30,000 Rolex, and designer clothing from luxury brands such as Gucci. Pragad had not responded and no trial has yet taken plkace as at the date of the source cited" has recently been deleted from this article. The paragraph details a court case that has been brought but which has not yet been heard . It explains the fact that allegations have been made but does not say that the allegations are true. By its nature it cannot say it is true. The reason for deletion that was given was that the source was unreliable. Can somebody explain to me why it is unreliable? It is also described as primary and "COI." The source was a web page which is called "International Buisness times" Can somebody explain to me why this site is considered unreliable. I am not familar with the publication.There used to be a page which set out examples of unreliable sources (the Daily Mail ,a British newspaper, was in the list.) but I cannot now find the list.Can somebody explain to me what "COI " means? I know what a primary source is but this does not appear to be a primary source ( unlike the court papers which were originally also cited.) Spinney Hill (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Your edit was reverted by BlueTurtles, who can explain whether "COI" meant conflict of interest. I don't know about that, but another article claims that IBT Media runs International Business Times, which is your cited source. They sued Dev Pragad in 2023. As for a list of unreliable sources, I know of none, but you might have stumbled across the essay-class page that accuses some sites of being "generally" unreliable: WP:DEPS. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

My bad, that was a edit summary that compressed a lot into a few words:

• Yes, the "COI" I mentioned referred to conflict of interest. IBT is not an impartial source to report this news as there have been previous conflicts between both parties.
• Yes, the "unreliable" was referring to WP:DEPS
• "Primary" source was referring to the court filing documentation that was initially cited.

~ BlueTurtles | talk 02:58, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Thankyou. I think that covers everything so if the paragraph is re-instated it will need another source-maybe The Wall Street journal or the Financial Times or the New York Times or Times (of London or a specialist press magazine.It might also need the title changing to "allegation of dishonesty by owners" or something similar Spinney Hill (talk) 08:39, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that’s where I’d start. ~ BlueTurtles | talk 09:45, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Newsweek Publishing LLC (2018–present)

I've made one edit which might make this more understandable but what is "programmatic channels?" Can anyone explain to me what this means? Spinney Hill (talk) 09:20, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

The acquisition included a demand-side platform and data services intended to support targeted advertising across Newsweek's healthcare content. The move contrasted with broader industry trends of divestment from adtech and aligned with Newsweek's strategy to increase business-to-business revenue through its health vertical.[56] seems to me to be inpenetrable. Can anyone explain what any of it means?Spinney Hill (talk) 09:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)