Jump to content

Talk:Forbes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2601:88:300:bb0:31d6:c235:dc24:5ede (talk) at 07:41, 2 October 2023. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Far-left fake news magazine

Forbes is a far-left fake news magazine that denies biological science and common-sense reality and logic: https://www.forbes.com/sites/dawnstaceyennis/2019/12/19/jk-rowling-comes-out-as-a-terf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poppahick (talk • contribs) 09:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You probably won't read this, being a banned sockpuppet and all. But since your trollish comment is still up, I may as well reply for the sake of future visitors. 1: A quick skim through the article on Steve Forbes, the editor-in-chief of this "far-left fake news magazine" shows that he seems pretty right-wing. 2: The only thing inaccurate in that article is the "RF" part of "TERF". 66.210.249.135 (talk) 09:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklist and threats to all companies

Forbes is threatening any company who hires Trump's press secretaries with permanemt persecution, unrelated to their editorial content.

"Let it be known to the business world: Hire any of Trump’s fellow fabulists above, and Forbes will assume that everything your company or firm talks about is a lie. We’re going to scrutinize, double-check, investigate with the same skepticism we’d approach a Trump tweet. Want to ensure the world’s biggest business media brand approaches you as a potential funnel of disinformation? Then hire away." TuffStuffMcG (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/randalllane/2021/01/07/a-truth-reckoning-why-were-holding-those-who-lied-for-trump-accountable/?sh=1baf52975710 TuffStuffMcG (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is forbes taking a conservative slant?

After reading some of the sections above this, I'm not so sure, but this video by Forbes on YouTube [(Biden Attacked Over Taliban Takeover Of Afghanistan In New GOP Ads) [1]] just shows some of the attack ads against Biden with no commentary. That doesn't feel typical for a news agency. Usually they play the ad and make commentary about it. This was just a playback of the ads and some of Biden's statements with no commentary by any news personnel. I've noticed other things in the past about Forbes, but I didn't pay attention too much. This just feels weird. I wouldn't say it counts as sufficient proof on its own, but it raises a few questions for me at least.Fearless lede'r (talk) 08:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC) This title is another example of something I'd normally ignore, but now I'm not so sure: ['Why Did You Abandon The Bagram Airfield?': Austin Pressed On US Moves Before Afghanistan Collapse] [2]Fearless lede'r (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

byxtzuiwqgfiuwcjm

ejfg-kqwyduosag-oicæfudskøv-ERDBVUJ-SK 188.228.18.161 (talk) 12:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Assange cover as Infobox picture?

Forbes did somewhat notably do cover story on Assange/Wikileaks but using such as the primary article photo seems needlessly polarizing. I think it would be appropriate to change the photo (perhaps to a cover from one of their signature list issues? ). GrouchDouglass8 (talk) 05:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Randall Lane is not editor in chief

The article is inconsistent, stating that Steve Forbes is editor-in-chief in the lead while having Randall Lane in the infobox. Some shallow research shows Randall Lane is the chief content officer and an editor but not the editor-in-chief. Edit happened here by User:WakeFan1991, who has a history of making unconstructive edits. The article for Randall Lane is also faulty, edit made by User:MSincccc, possibly in order to reconcile with the Forbes (this) article. Ctleans (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who owns Forbes? June 2023

Reading an article that was supposedly from Forbes magazine that was emailed to me on June 10, 2023, I find phrasing and view-point different from what I expect from "Forbes". The Wikipedia article about "Forbes" media starts with Whale Media being the majority owner - but, at the very end of the article, it says Austin Russell (young billionaire) bought it in May, 2023. Who owns "Forbes"? 2600:1700:AD47:6830:65B0:A2BE:1CFA:C351 (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted outdated info in lead on ownership and sourced 2023 info in this regard. Significant other info/sourcing in this article is outdated and no longer accurate. Moreover, as the print "Forbes" presumably moves toward oblivion, "Forbes.com" has for some years defined the brand. Yet apparently, an editor here sees this article as primarily about the print magazine, which is fine. At present (aug. 2023) it does still exist!

32.221.207.102 (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Strangely, an editor insists on reverting this article to inaccurate information based on outdated sources. The action was taken with the claim that the information was "uncited." Yet it was indeed offered with a sourcce. I will restore it and add more sources. 32.221.207.102 (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

=a solid (much needed) SOURCE dated aug. 2023

https://www.cjr.org/the_feature/forbes-big-business.php

Nice work! Here's your discount card to show your pharmacist:

Member ID: DYN6BERQJF RX BIN: 019876 RX PCN: CHIPPO RX GRP: XAF

Reply STOP to unsubscribe. 2601:88:300:BB0:31D6:C235:DC24:5EDE (talk) 07:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Forbes&oldid=1178215878"