Talk:Focus (German magazine)

Untitled

expand article using German Wikipedia (or other language versions) - User:Heikoh 19 November 2006

BND

I am unsure as to why this issue has not been referenced in this article. Someone do it, and soon.  Esper  ^rant  02:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It is now, 8 years later! : Focus_(German_magazine)#Infiltration_by_Germany.27s_secret_intelligence_service.2C_the_BND_exposed_by_WikiLeaks!!!--Elvey^(t•c) 11:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Focus Money

There are two papers, "Focus" (general) and "Focus Money" (concerning money, finances, economy, markets, stocks, law, taxes, and so on). From the internetwebsite from "focus" you can also go to "focus money". They do not take care if the information they give is "political correct" or if the information pleases the gouverment oder the society or the so called intellectuells or the mainstream or the establishmement. That is it what makes them strong and really interesting.--91.52.165.218 (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Reputation section needed? Do they do formal third-party fact checking?

I noticed that they sometimes delete articles and then create a new version of the article, with major factual changes and a new URL - it's not the old article yet there's no indication that the revisions have been made- it's all surreptitious. I can prove this. To my eye, Focus' behavior is very reminiscent of Winston Smith's work in 1984's Minitrue. Legit news journalists/sources don't surreptitiously edit articles post-publication. Specifics partly fleshed-out here. Seems like quite a scandal to me, but I wonder if they have a reputation for reliability in the first place. Is "facts, facts, facts" just a slogan, as it seems? Or is it something typically taken seriously and my findings are anomalous? For example, attributing some salacious information to two sources in one article, and then attributing to two different sources in another - very very sour taste in one's mouth. (It would be difficult to put much of what I found in the article without violating SYNTH, so I don't plan to try. Anyone good at that sort of thing.)--Elvey^(t•c) 11:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

A start: see #BND, above.--Elvey^(t•c) 11:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Focus (German magazine). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402165145/http://www.revistas-ari.com/attachments/209_WMT_2010_2011_Europe.pdf to http://www.revistas-ari.com/attachments/209_WMT_2010_2011_Europe.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)