Talk:Reason (magazine)/Archive 1

Archive 1

2005

Reason claims to be nonpartisan. --Theaterfreak64 07:25, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Reason doesn't necessarily support the Libertarian Party (or any other), but it does support libertarianism as an ideology. So in that sense it is nonpartisan. -- Scott e^iπ 07:27, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

• While we're at it--and, yes, I realize that these two messages above are from more than a month ago--I know that Ayn Rand denounced libertarianism, and many agree that she was not a libertarian (although I'm sure many others feel the opposite way, too). While it was reason's choice to put her on the cover and write an article about her, there are probably more neutral covers we could put on here. Also, I'm not sure what the official title of the magazine is, but it seems to always refer to itself (albeit, not in official enviroments) using a lower-case r.

I clarified the picture a bit. You're right that it's confusing. I'll look into the capital-lowercase thing. Dave (talk) 15:45, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that, while clarification is good, changing to a more neutral cover is still the better solution. I'd suggest the "Database Nation" cover (http://reason.com/june-2004/samples.shtml) as one of the most talked-about (if also a bit counterintuitive for Reason), but any recent cover would probably do. Also, I don't think one company's complaint about their advertising policy is relevant enough to include, let alone devote that much space to. I'm deleting it for now. Though if the article gets big enough I'd have no qualms with a section on criticism.

--Our Bold Hero 06:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

It looks like they're inconsistent about the capitalization. See their front page, for example. http://www.reason.com Dave (talk) 15:48, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

2008 comments

Can the Reason Mag fan club readers here establish the arm's length separation from its corporate funders, giving rise to conflict of interest? One can say that Reason Magazine is GOP Party Lite minus Christian Right Values and military Keynesianism. --220.239.179.128 (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This would be analysis and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. If you would like to talk about politics, there are other forums for that. Jbmcb (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Nonprofit venture?

So, given that it's run by the Reason Foundation, this magazine is a nonprofit venture? (Unlike, e.g., High Times which is run by Trans High Corp.) Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Reason, like most political magazines, does not make a profit and is subsidized by its publisher, the non-profit Reason Foundation. —D. Monack ^talk 17:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

so what's the magazine about???

This is an awful description of the magazine. Free minds and free markets? What the heck does that mean??? Is this libertarianism? Is it anarchism? Is it conservatism or progressive? What is it? Left wing, right wing. If not a label, how about a comprehensive description about the ideology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.228.15.21 (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The first line in the article (as of now) describes it well: Reason is a libertarian monthly magazine from the Reason Foundation. I think to quantify it anymore than that is very difficult if not impossible. 24.144.53.105 (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Free minds = not necessarily Conservative Christian moralist/theocrat; free-markets = "uber-Republican-style"/laissez-faire capitalism; yes it is U.S.-style pro-property "libertarianism"; no, it is "not quite" anarchism (not hardly); it can be thought of as being "secular conservative" (not necessarily religious, but not necessarily pro-separation of church-and-state either); no it is not progressive in any sense; definitely not left-wing; essentially it is right-wing (pro-capitalist/pro-corporate), albeit mostly without the usual flag-waving and God-talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.124.196 (talk • contribs) 19:32, July 2, 2009

Please stop injecting your personal and misleading views. I trying hard not to start a debate here but I feel I must comment a little. Reason is libertarian, specifically the pro-property rights variety also known as laissez-faire, market liberalism, neoliberalism or classical liberalism, all with subtle variations in meaning. Reason isn't so doctrinaire that it can be pinned down so precisely (hence, "free minds" as in open minded). Libertarians are definitely in favor of the separation of church and state. They are pro-capitalism, but I would argue not "pro-corporate." I'm fairly certain Reason has never published anything that could be described as Christian Conservative or pro-theocracy. —D. Monack ^talk 08:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from using talk pages to express your personal opinions. This page is for discussing the article itself, not the subject of the article. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. —D. Monack ^talk 22:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I would not describe them as libertarian. WizarDave (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Then what would you? Of course they are libertarian. But they cater more to the individualist, secular, moderate right wing. Although I saw a CNN interview once, where two Reason editors admitted they were closest to "conservative democrats" than anything else.

Libertarian = unlimited personal freedom / unlimited economic freedom

Liberal = unlimited personal freedom / limits on economic freedom

Conservative = limits on personal freedom / unlimited economic freedom

No matter how hard you try you cannot be pro capitalist, yet NOT pro corporatist. Period. The corporate state is nothing but a manifestation of no-holds-barred capitalism. If you support limiting corporations from having too much power through the government, you are talking about PEOPLE POWER regulating BIG BUSINESS through government intervention.. putting limits on their economic freedom, which is absolutely and positively NOT libertarian.. Libertarians would criticize you and deem you a "STATIST" for even suggesting taking such a liberal position. This explains why libertarians will almost always lean to the right by nature, but certainly not always (ie Chomsky) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.144.46 (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Calling them libertarian than would be highly arguable. As to most of the world, libertarian is anarchist. Minarchist sounds about right.99.54.188.176 (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The statement that you can't be pro-capitalist without being pro-corporatist is one of the most hilarious, poorly-argued lines of crap I have ever read on this site. That being said, it is not nearly as funny as the notion that "Liberals"(in the American sense of the word) are for "unlimited personal freedom". That must be a description of the Liberals that live in a fantasy-land version of the United States. Moreover, the ludicrous distinctions in the above comment are meaningless because it is simply not possible to wholly separate so-called "economic freedom" from "personal freedom". However, as this talk page is not supposed to be a place for political debates, I will move on to the point I want to make: when classifying the politics of the magazine for descriptive purposes, deference should be shown to those responsible for producing Reason, not some random editor who probably knows next to nothing about the magazine or libertarian politics. When describing their politics, the words of those who produce the magazine ought to suffice and shouldn't be replaced with a description that I am sure will amount to nothing more than asinine psychobabble along the lines of "libertarianism is anarchism".74.134.145.218 (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Reason magazine and free speech

See the article Wow, Just Wow – Government Demands Identity of Website Commentators Then Issues Gag Order To Stop Public Knowledge… about a subpoena demanding the records of six people who left hyperbolic comments at the website of the magazine, and an order of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York barring the magazine from speaking publicly about a grand jury subpoena that court sent to Reason.com. Mateat (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

How is this info related to article improvement? – S. Rich (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand this question. It's an event related to this subject. It's gotten a lot of attention; I think the point is that it might be worth adding this event to the article. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I think some mention of the incident should be added since it received a good deal of coverage. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Some links to coverage are here: [1]

1976 "Historical Revisionism" issue

There's an article about "Reason's" magazine's infamous 1976 "Historical Revisionism" issue here, where I sourced the articles:

http://pando.com/2014/07/24/as-reasons-editor-defends-its-racist-history-heres-a-copy-of-its-holocaust-denial-special-issue/

79.97.164.232 (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

There are several discussions about the Mark Ames articles about "Reason's" 1976 issue online, including this one: http://s-usih.org/2014/07/roundtable-us-foreign-policy-and-the-left-chapter-9.html

Reason magazine's response to Ames' criticism is here: http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/26/did-reason-really-publish-a-holocaust-de — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.164.232 (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Great work. Thanks for adding this content. Steeletrap (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

This seems like a lot of attention to a subject that's notable primarily because a minor online 'zine ran a story about it 38 years after the fact. Man from Nephew (talk) 05:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraphs related to the "special issue". Here is the rationale: 1. From the start, Pando.com is a technology-focused website, not academic or policy or history, etc. focused. 2. The author Mark Ames is not the ex-pat Mark Ames (his WP article does not mention Pando and I find no connection via other sources.) 2.a. In fact, Pando.com is more of a blog, not WP:RS. 3. The focus on a single issue, published 39 years ago, is UNDUE. 4. While the first 3 reasons are sound as is, the paragraphs may have BLP issues as well. 5. I removed the super glue mention too. (See the point – magazines talk about a lot of stuff. They may (for better or worse) be sources we use for WP articles. But the individual issues or articles they publish are not WP:NOTEWORTHY in and of themselves.) – S. Rich (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

″The author Mark Ames is not the ex-pat Mark Ames.″ Right!? And Pando contributors John Dolan/Gary Brecher, and Yasha Levine must not be the same people that worked with the real (former) ex-pat Mark Ames over at the now defunct NSFWCorp, or The eXile back in Moscow. ~~ David Hays

S. Rich, I agree with your decision, but do note that the Mark Ames who wrote the Pando piece is in fact the same "ex-pat Mark Ames" on Wikipedia; notice that his photo on Pando matches that on Wikipedia and his Twitter says "PandoDaily, ex-The eXile." Openmikenite (talk) 00:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Libertarian?

Would it be correct to define the magazine and youtube channel as libertarian?

And shouldn't there be a section about political views in the submitted articles and discussions, throughout the various election cycles?

That is information I want to see when I go to WP. I was watching something and was not familiar with ReasonTV. Came to WP, to understand the channel's position, and had to infer for myself from the list of writers which included Milton Freedman etc.

Thank you פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed the discussion above. Sorta same question by mine's simpler. Just a Yes or No. Thanks פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes.

Reading the answer and looking again at the header of the article, it seems I had banner blindness. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Chicago Tribune Award from 2004

Is a Chicago tribune award that says it’s one of 50 best magazines really a notable enough award to put in the intro? Sounds like that was a feature article/infotainment masked as an award. Also it’s from 15 years ago. Tooting horn about that is embarrassing.Rich (talk) 05:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Undated comment

why is 'history of reason magazine' above what it's current incarnation? People who look up usually want to know the present before a history.

"Zach Weissmueller" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Zach Weissmueller and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 14#Zach Weissmueller until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I am removing self-sources self-promotions

A magazine cannot be a source for an article on itself, especially self-promotional material. Removing all sentences without sourcing or sourced by Reason magazine. These are no more than advertising. MBUSHIstory (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)