Timeline for Origins of the 'editorial we' and its counterpart, the 'editorial I'
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 15, 2020 at 7:40 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| S Sep 24, 2018 at 0:40 | history | bounty ended | Dan Bron | ||
| S Sep 24, 2018 at 0:40 | history | notice removed | Dan Bron | ||
| Sep 23, 2018 at 16:20 | answer | added | Lambie | timeline score: 3 | |
| Sep 20, 2018 at 16:08 | answer | added | DavePhD | timeline score: 6 | |
| Sep 18, 2018 at 21:29 | comment | added | Robbie Goodwin | I can't give you a date or a name and I wouldn't want to. Why is it not obvious that some time after Gutenberg in the 15th Century, an author or printer or publisher or yes, perhaps an editor, realised there was a difference between his personal and his organisation's collective opinion, whose views contributed to the collective opinion notwithstanding? I use Comment, not Answer, because I don't see why I should do such basic research. | |
| Sep 18, 2018 at 21:22 | comment | added | Robbie Goodwin | Sorry, sjy, but whatever else this has nothing to do with nosism. Nosism does apply to monarchs and megalomaniacs but the editorial we is specifically designed to describe a team, as opposed to any individual. Above many another thing, an editor or his lieutenant who does not distinguish between his own personal and his journal's collective opinions is failing in his duty. For the same reasons, Mari-Lou, editorial and royal we are not the same at all. What makes anyone think there's any such thing as an "editorial I"? | |
| S Sep 17, 2018 at 21:00 | history | bounty started | Dan Bron | ||
| S Sep 17, 2018 at 21:00 | history | notice added | Dan Bron | Draw attention | |
| Jul 15, 2018 at 17:07 | comment | added | Mari-Lou A | If I were you, I'd place a bounty on this question. | |
| Jun 25, 2018 at 13:22 | comment | added | Kris | The late lamented Editorial We? "The Editorial We: A Posthumous Autobiography" amazon.com/Editorial-We-Posthumous-Autobiography/dp/B001Y0R64I | |
| Jun 25, 2018 at 13:21 | comment | added | Kris | @sjy The WP article nowhere mentions English. | |
| Jun 25, 2018 at 11:03 | comment | added | Mari-Lou A | Related: “Royal we” agreement and The Royal We: Who are “we”? | |
| Jun 25, 2018 at 8:33 | comment | added | sjy | This blog post cites an 1829 publication which referred to “the fashionable virtue of the day in nos-ism.” | |
| Jun 25, 2018 at 8:26 | comment | added | sjy | I think this is a great question about nosism in English. Given that not all languages use grammatical person in the same way as English, the question cannot be answered except by reference to particular languages. If this really is purely about journalism, and occurs in many languages, that would itself go some way to answering the question. | |
| Jun 25, 2018 at 7:34 | comment | added | Kris | Too broad, too broad. Why should the question belong to English? It's purely about journalism. | |
| Jun 25, 2018 at 5:24 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackEnglish/status/1011118011250601984 | ||
| Jun 24, 2018 at 23:38 | history | asked | Sven Yargs | CC BY-SA 4.0 |