Jump to content

Talk:The Times

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateThe Times is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 20, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 1, 2013, January 1, 2016, and January 1, 2020.

Fairness of The Times Online

[edit]

Right now the homepage of The Times online outlet ([1] has the headline titled "Chinese mob seeks revenge against Uighurs" and click it the title becomes "Chinese Han mob marches for revenge against Uighurs after rampage.' Reading through this "report" and several previous related pieces, I find high bias. For example, Han Chinese are "mob" and Uighurs are "protesters" or even "victims". The second paragraph of this "report" says "Men and women of all ages, girls in high heels and young men in smart white shirts, brandished wooden staves, billiard cues, iron bars and even machetes as they surged towards the main city bazaar." and yet on the 6 images accompanied it, I can hardly identify any woman among the "mob" and further, where were the girls in high heals? Four of the 6 images are "mob" Han Chinese "well-armed" with "wooden staves, billiard cues, iron bars and even machetes" and other two are Uighur women bravely/boldly defying or confronting [those two mostly likely from unrelated incidents from the riot reported by this one]. Enough being said.

Being a Han Chinese livng in U.S.A. seeking the truth of the event, I hate the Chinese government controlled "news" media and other brainwashing machines and I highly doubt anything from those washing machines. The professional and ethical standards exibited from this Times Online article and other related reports are no better than those by the controlled media and washing machines. Very disappointed. "Newspaper of record"? That's ridiculous. --Minimeme (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

This article seems to be quite sparse on sources especially in it's coverage of the paper's early history. It would be very helpful if these could be added. 212.219.220.116 (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a interesting query (to a "better late than never" addenda), shouldn't this article be (and begin and continue with) "the Times", without a capital "T", or is this simply ignorance talking here? What do the editors of "The Times" think...?

"Newspaper of record"

[edit]

Have deleted statement that it is "preserved in the British Library's newspaper library in that capacity". It has no special status amongst all the other newspapers in the library <http://www.bl.uk/collections/newspapers.html>. Devoxo 12:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

" It was purchased by Rupert Murdoch's News International in 1981. The Sun, being part of the same stable (having once featured a topless model on page three), the first News International Times featured a full-page Spirit of Ecstacy Rolls-Royce advertisment on page three."

Seems to be a grammatical error or something, that sentence doesn't make sense to me.

The Sun featured a topless young woman on Page 3 on most days from 1970 to 2015. The Spirit of Ecstasy is a statuette of a scantily-clad, windswept (but not actually naked) woman on the bonnet of Rolls-Royce cars. NRPanikker (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Times is not so easily categorised as reflecting the conservative views of its proprietor, Rupert Murdoch. In its general worldview it certainly reflects his economic conservatism, but in terms of British politics it has supported Tony Blair and New Labour at the last two elections. This may be a reflection of the extent to which, under Blair, the Labour Party has drifted to the right, or it may reflect Mr Murdoch's desire always to be on the winning side. Either way it is becoming increasingly known in national political circles as being the in-house journal of New Labour.

"Tabloid"

[edit]

As far as I know one can still choose to buy The Times standard broadsheet size. The 'compact' edition hasn't yet replaced it altogether.

It has, as of 1st November 2004. You might be thinking of the Sunday edition, The Sunday Times, which remains broadsheet. As far as I am concerned, the broadsheet is a sad loss. The Times is still a good paper, but has so less authority as a tabloid. From a commercial point of view, however, you can't argue with Murdoch's decision. All of the old Times correspondents are there, which means he only lost around 15,000 readers to the Telegraph. Personally I read The Times, Telegraph, Guardian and FT, and out of those, I think that the FT is the best quality with the other 3 about the same.--Mrclarke 17:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"owned by Rupert Murdoch"

[edit]

Actually, The Times is owned by Rupert Murdoch, Stan Zegel, and several (million) other shareholders. While Mr. Murdoch may own more shares than me, I own more than some others. It would be just as accurate to say it is "owned by Stan Zegel" but even more accurate to say it is "owned by News Corporation, headed by Rupert Murdoch."--StanZegel 05:10, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Somthing about the typeface would be nice.

[edit]

Rich Farmbrough 14:44, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes--I'd like to know what typeface they are using now that they aren't using Times New Roman; I can't seem to find this information anywhere. Rdr0 21:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TNR, designed by Stanley Morrison I think, was only used for a year, 1931-32, and was replaced by Europa. Not sure if this is still is being used since the newspaper turned "compact". I think these details inclusion would be comparatively trivial while the article is still at the embryonic stage, comparatively speaking. Philip Cross 21:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They are using a variant called "Times Classic" which has been bespoke designed for them and not released for general sale. Haddocky 09:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Quality"

[edit]

I disagree that the term "quality" is appropriate without qualification in the opening sentence. ABC is not a repository of standard English, and to me the term "quality newspaper" means "a newspaper of high quality". It is certainly debatable that the Times is of high quality (personally I'd say that its quality has suffered a steep decline during Murdoch's reign and that it is a mediocre publication nowadays). In the interests of NPOV, I will therefore excise this word from the opening sentence again in a few days time unless I am convinced that this is a bad move. Lupin 15:11, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Times is a quality newspaper in the same way that The Guardian, Financial Times and Daily Telegraph are quality newspapers. ABC are responsible for classification of newspapers - i.e. it would be appropriate to write 'The Sun is a national popular daily' or 'The Express is a national middle-market daily'. What is POV is to remove an appropriate piece of classification. Perhaps later in the article there could be a clarification. However, we have to remember that in comparison with other publications, The Times is clearly one of the highest quality publications. --Mrclarke 16:02, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If we are to use the word quality, it must be crystal clear that this is a piece of industry jargon and we must make reference to the ABC when doing so, to avoid this word being misconstrued. How about moving the word quality to later in the article, where we could say "According to the ABC classification, The Times is a quality newspaper" or something similar.
I also find myself unable to agree with your statment that "in comparison with other publications, The Times is clearly one of the highest quality publications". This is a subjective statement which is certainly debatable (and cannot be objectively verified). Lupin 16:17, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What about saying 'The Times is a British compact newspaper' at the start, and mentioning the ABC classification like you said later in the article. The word 'compact' has some upmarket implications without expressing any opinion whatsoever. (Out of interest, which newspapers do you think are higher quality than the Times? I'd agree on the FT and perhaps The Guardian but not the Telegraph / Indy and certainly not the Mail/Express/Sun/Mirror/Star) --Mrclarke 07:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I approve of your proposal - describing it as compact is objective. I prefer the Guardian myself and rarely read other papers (besides which I don't read them any more as I'm no longer living in the UK). So perhaps I'm not the best person to make these subjective statements -- my point was really that such (apparent) subjectivity doesn't belong in the articles anyway. Lupin 18:30, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Done. (Anyway, I must admit it was better when it was a broadsheet) --Mrclarke 16:37, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As an American who has never spent much time in the UK, I have always assumed that the Times was pretty much the national "newspaper of record" similar to the New York Times in the United States. I was somewhat taken aback to read an online Times article with a sentence fragment. I was also very intrigued, but surprised, find a formal, written, social [?] classification scheme set forth that Wikipedia's NRS entry.

After I finished reading the Wikipedia article on the Times I did not have a clear impression as to its position on a newspaper quality scale in the UK in 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.66.43 (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After I finished reading the Times itself I did not have a clear idea as to why it is not printed with a big red top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.174.80 (talk) 05:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of the 100 most powerful people 2005

[edit]

Wikipedia have it ??? where ?

here is just a part...


I'm fascinated. Gordon Brown is more powerful than Tony Blair, eh? And Barack Obma outweighs Vladimir Putin...

Times New Roman

[edit]

On the Monotype / Linotype question, I am fairly sure that the relevant company is Linotype (whose machines could produce a whole line of type at a time - important for high speed newspaper production) but the history of the two companies is a bit intertwined and confusing.

One thing I am sure of is that The Times was instrumental in the development of the typeface and the key designer was employed directly by The Times

Times Digital Archive

[edit]

Note the 'Times Digital Archive' from 1795-1985 is online and available by subscription. Many local authorities in the UK have subscribed to the archive for their public libraries and ayone in possesion of a library card can access the archive from the comfort of their own home. Jooler 11:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centrist, Centre-right, or Right-wing

[edit]

Until the 10th September, The Times was classified as centre-right, when it was changed by Bergenhaus to centre. I think that, overall, it is centre-right, so have reverted the change. (By the way, I mistakenly pressed "save page" too early - I meant my edit-comment to be "The Times is not centrist overall - it is centre-right".) Ojcookies 04:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The Times definitely is a centre-right newspaper, and I would say its editorials very much reflect this.
-- (A.szczep) 17:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Times tend to be as critical with the Conservative Party policies as with the current government under Labour. Also, the Times ::has actually openly supported the Labour party in the last general elections since 1997 - and Labour is centre-left. So I think that ::it would be more accurate to say that the Times hold a centrist position. Monsumo
That would be true if not for the fact that Labour under Blair has transformed itself into a centre-right party. — Red XIV (talk) 06:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to say that the paper is centre-right (at least) and is generally conservative (though not Conservative). Papers in the UK, as opposed to the Continent, don't 'belong' to a particular party and will support and oppose parties based more on individual policies and people based on the editors own beliefs. Given the paper is owned, along with the Sun, by Rupert Murdocch, I can't believe that the paper would be called 'centre'.I have changed it back to centre-right. 143.167.42.90 11:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm a daily Times reader and I definitely think of the Times as centrist/neutral. Phyte 22:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian is considered to be the preeminant centre left newspaer in Britain, the Times is not on the same political wavelength as this - more centrist/centre right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.66.216 (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

continantal sports columnist

[edit]

guillem balague writes for the times, i included him in th list at the bottom.


E.S. Dallas

[edit]

The addition of E.S. Dallas's three years as a "special correspondent" for The Times isn't really significant in the newspaper's history. Given that the only other journalist mentioned in this section is W.H. Russell, the first dedicated war correspondent, Dallas would have to have achieved something very special to warrant a mention. I will remove the addition tomorrow unless someone can produce evidence of his historical significance. (There is scant evidence of this in the Wikipedia stub on him. He appears to be known principally for having written for The Times.) Le poulet noir 21:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I agree with you and will remove the reference to E. S. Dallas. I was looking for a way to reverese link The Times with E. S. Dallas and came up with this insertion. Perhaps what is needed is a seperate article listing like Journalists of The Times? In other words, a place where we could reverse link articles about journalists indirectly with the main article of Tne Times. Aletheia 16:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to suggest a separate section (or, possibly, a separate entry) myself. It would be useful to find a bank of worthy names to help get it started. Any suggestions, anyone? Le poulet noir 19:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


..."Come to stress Murdoch's 'neo-conservative' views"

[edit]

This comment is not backed up by the cited source [2]. It claims that Murdoch interfered with the editorial line in the early days, and it claimed that the Sunday Times had a Pro-Conservative editorial line imposed upon it. The comment relates to the Sunday Times, Pro-Conservative is very different to NeoConservative, One cannot infer from the actions of Mr Murdoch in the past what his actions of the present may be. As such the comment is un-encyclopedic and reflects a POV. --Chopz 18:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Privatized or Subsidized?

[edit]

This is a question that I was just wondering in my AP Politics class. Is The Times subsidized by the British government, after the free market reforms of Thatcher, or is it privatized? Vagrant

The Times is not, and never has been, subsidised by any government. No national or regional newspapers in Britain are subsidised by the Government. You seem to be confusing Britain with the Soviet Union and The Times with Pravda. Le poulet noir 15:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New font - headlines are not sans serif

[edit]

The article currently has the line:

In November of 2006, The Times began printing in its new font, Times Modern. It changed its entire format, including printing the headlines in a sans-serif typeface.

In all the images I see of the paper at timesonline.co.uk, the headlines all appear to use a serif font.

Can somebody verify this? - Dharris 15:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most headlines are serif, but there's a bit of a mix. Soaringgoldeneagle 12:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Weekly edition?

[edit]

Has The Times ever published a weekly edition for the ex-pat market? I've read about "weekly Times" being sent out to the Far East from the UK in the late 40s: is this the Times proper or another (perhaps local) paper going by the name? If the former, I was surprised by this as I thought the weekly Guardians etc were a relatively new development. 217.155.195.19 15:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:The Times header.png

[edit]

Image:The Times header.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rework Supplements Section?

[edit]

Rather than just a list of the supplements, I'd suggest it'd be more useful for a general 'Layout' section. As it stands, all the supplements are described, but you get no description of what the actual papaer looks like (news with comment in the middle, world news, business, register, sport - pretty standard though this is) and no room for mention of, say, the Times Crossword (only mentioned in this article currently as a contrast to the times2 crossword). I might have a crack at this myself in a bit.--PaulTaylor 19:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Had a go at this. I think it's more sensibly arranged now, and I don't think any information's been lost, but it's not a fininshed product so a little tweaking of it would be appreciated.--PaulTaylor 22:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THE TIMES OF EARTH <http://www.timesofearth.com>. is a leading Internet destination dedicated to bring you World News, World Business ,Science / Technology ,Sports, Health,Weather and Horoscope/Photos/Video. Our primary objective is to bring "news as it happens"quality news which is impartial, timely and independent. Our equally important other objective is to make this a web community for all people around the world .


Not sure what is meant by the Books remark: "The only supplement with a quality newspaper devoted to book reviews, features and interviews." Is the article's author unaware of the New York Times' Book section, or is this intended to imply something about it? Just inquiring. RayEtheridge (talk) 13:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The London Times Of London

[edit]

I wish intellectual Americans would stop referring to The New York Times as "The Times" and The Times as "The Times Of London" or "The London Times" - there are no such papers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phyte (talk • contribs) 22:28, 27 July 2007

By pure coincidence I happen to have tracked down all inappropriate references to the "Times of London" and the "London Times", and I'm changing them to refer to The Times. I'd never heard of Americans referring to the New York Times as "The Times". Is that true? --Tony Sidaway 23:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Americans do sometimes refer to The New York Times simply as "The Times"; it's a logical enough bit of shorthand, since Americans read the NYT more frequently than The Times by a ratio of, what, many thousands to one, at least. Also, when for example the Wall Street Journal refers to "The Times of London" (as it has done when reporting the News Corp./Dow Jones deal) it is not because the Journal's excellent reporting or copy-editing staff are unaware of the literal name of that venerable newspaper. Rather, it's like saying "Richard Burton the actor" or "Richard Burton the explorer" -- just for clarification, not because the latter's formal title is taken to be "The Explorer." Yes, it's a national newspaper, which the article here rightly points out, but The Times *is* headquartered in London, therefore it is hardly ridiculous for an educated American to refer to it as "The Times of London," simply for the sake of clarity and convenience. No philosophical position is implied by it, and the name does not (necessarily) emerge from ignorance on the part of the speaker. Timwalkerjr 13:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These usages are almost unknown in the country of publication, so I've removed the reference from the lead. It may be true that New York people refer to the New York Times as "The Times", but this doesn't mean that we should refer to The Times as "The London Times". To put it as politely as possible, the term betrays a deep ignorance of the nature of The Times, which is not in any way a regional or city newspaper. --Tony Sidaway 18:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your point but disagree with how it applies to the article - Abroad it is referred to as the Times of London or the London Times, descriptions that were sourced. The article was not saying 'This is what we call it', the article was saying 'This is what some others call it.' Nevertheless, removing that section entirely was probably a good choice as there's no way of forming a sentence that is concise or relevant enough for the lead. No more bongos 20:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a good point. The usages were correctly sourced. They can be used in a section about those usages, if appropriate. --Tony Sidaway 21:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Abroad it is referred to as the Times of London or the London Times". No, only if abroad only means the United States. Nobody in Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Norway etc. etc. has ever referred to it as anything else than The Times. In those countries, when a clarification is deemed necessary, they may refer to it as "The British/English newspaper The Times". Thomas Blomberg (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.boursier.com/vals/fr/france-telecom-orange-tiendrait-la-corde-pour-les-jo-de-londres-rumeur-2882.htm - French reference to "le Times de Londre"
http://blogs.smh.com.au/entertainment/archives/fashion_season/006687.html - Sydney Morning Herald reference to "Times of London"
http://www.thestar.com/World/Columnist/article/297611 - Toronto Star reference to "Times of London"
http://newscontrol.repubblica.it/item/398456/anche-il-times-di-londra-dolce-vita-addio-italia-depressa - Repubblica (Italian newspaper) reference to "Times di Londra"
It took me only a couple of minutes to find those examples, which does suggest that the "Times of London" formulation is quite common outside the U.S. Barnabypage (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I challenge all your quotes, which in fact show that most international media respect the exact name. The first one refers to "le 'Times' de Londres", which is very different, and (30 words later) directly to " 'The Times' ", in English. The second says "The Times of London", again showing the correct emphasis. Even your third citation, a North American paper, correctly uses (italicised) The Times through the article body. The fourth link is broken, but a search of La Repubblica (Yes, we know it's an Italian newspaper) finds that it too refers to "Times di Londra" (and to "Times" thereafter), as here.
Even the New York Times apparently respects the correct name. It does not italicise publication names (at least online), but uses 'The Times of London' only at first reference, and 'The Times' thereafter. It may be simply referring to the place of publication, as suggested by Timwalkerjr.
Since the paper has a clear, single name, and the use (misuse?) of these two variations is substantially restricted to the United States / North America, we should not suggest here that any secondary name is more widely used, without reference.
Earthlyreason (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pollitcal allegiance

[edit]

Changed pollitcal allegiance from 'Centre-right (in recent times more centre-left)' to 'Centre-right (in recent times more central)' Given that the Guardian and Independent are described as centre left I think this reflects the position of The Times better. 90.199.47.138 (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

imo that's a contentious change which requires a high quality source, which you haven't provided. Have you got one ? See Wikipedia:Citing sources. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 16:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No citation, so undone. Having said that there doesn't appear to be a citation for the existing text, so unless one is provided, it can be removed. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 20:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would questions whether the paper has ever been centre-left. My personal view is that Murdoch decided to support Labour as a matter of political expedience rather than for philosophical reasons. Add in my extreme dislike of the Left/Right dichotomy and I would prefer something like "Traditionally centre-right, but has been supportive of Labour since 1997" if that isn't too much of a mouthful :-). Pontificake (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think its particualy contentious to say that the guardian and independent are to the left of the times, and as they are descriped as centre-left, that would put the times at centre or centre-right? as you said there's no citation for it being centre left and i cant imagine anyone claiming that the times is to the left of those two papers 90.199.47.98 (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It all comes down to WP:Verifiability -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 15:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steam Powered Press of 1814

[edit]

There's no mention of the Koenig & Bauer steam-powered pressing of The Times in (November) 1814 which ostensibly heralded the start of mass media printing. This is noteworthy but my lack of academic historical rigour precludes me from doing the honours and adding it. Who cares to assist? --John Gibbard (talk) 13:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This, and further printing innovation at The Times, does seem relevant and important. See John Walter (third). Probably the Walter Press deserves its own article. Earthlyreason (talk) 04:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian newspaper ?

[edit]

The Times does a lot of coverage on Christian issues and news. Does it claim any particular christian heritage in its editorial identity ? It has more than one religion reporter. However, some apparently feel that it has an anti-Catholic slant. [3] ADM (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Gledhill is an Anglican who seems to have a bit of a reputation as being down on the Catholics, and I guess that as (historically) the newspaper of the Establishment it wouldn't be much of a surprise if The Times had some bias in favour of the Established Church. Certainly, it never felt surprising to read Simon Jenkins extolling Anglican institutions on the opinion pages in the same way that it might be unexpected to find someone taking a very pro-Roman view. But having said that, I certainly don't think the paper would claim any specific sectarian position. I believe in the nineteenth century it was quite in favour of Catholic emancipation. Barnabypage (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial on 31 July 1914.

[edit]

I've deleted the purported quotation from The Times editorials of July 31 1914, since I can't find it in the online facsimile of the Times for that day (which I've been looking at for other reasons). The quote would be startlingly different in style and tone from other contemporary editorial content in The Times, whether or not it reflects Steed's actual views, of which I'm afraid I'm ignorant.

According to Defries: Conservative Party Attitudes to Jews, 1900-1950, the phrase was used in a conversation between Northcliffe and Steed, not in the paper itself.
See: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0n86OzGH4nYC&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=a+dirty+German-Jewish+international+financial+attempt+to+bully+us+into+advocating+neutrality&source=bl&ots=AtuJC6GKDY&sig=CWjXiK-raW-AL0Fa_AGMJZSJ33o&hl=en&ei=6hWgSaHSHYiyjAeXje3rCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result
Possibly either Ferguson misunderstood this or Rangoon1 misunderstood Ferguson. Barnabypage (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mideast conflict

[edit]

Like many other newspapers, it would be a good idea to note what positions The Times has taken in the Mideast conflict. I don't think I would be mistaken if I asserted that Rupert Murdoch is on the record as being a supporter of Israel. ADM (talk) 04:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any sources for their views? it would be original research for us to characterize them on our own.   Will Beback  talk  16:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderer

[edit]

According to this article, which appears authoritative, the nickname "The Thunderer" dates from a particular incident in 1830. This doesn't seem quite compatible with the version given here, especially the quotation. Astarabadi (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Critics of Wikipedia

[edit]

I have removed the Category:Critics of Wikipedia, I have done this because it appeared that the category was placed here as a result of one source: [4]. The times its self is not a critic of wikipedia, rather, the journalist who wrote the source: Alexandra Frean is. As such I have removed the category. Please do not undo my edit without prior discussion here, regards SpitfireTally-ho! 16:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She also said that Wikipedia "is banned in a number of newsrooms, including that at The Times." --84.67.150.75 (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merely means that the times does not view wikipedia as being a reliable source for their news articles. This does not instantly mean that they are critics of the project. Is this not correct? Furthermore 90.241.201.166's suggestion that Doc Tropics has a conflict of interest is unacceptable, I ask them not to make such unfounded accusations in the future, best wishes SpitfireTally-ho! 10:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for naming

[edit]

I would have though that the reason the newspaper was called The Times would have been mentioned in the article somewhere. It was given that name because it originally published the times of things like the tides and thus shipping arrivals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.249.90 (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Times New Roman

[edit]

No mention of Times New Roman in the article, nor even what font is used at The Times now. Can someone help? --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read Times Roman#Other typefaces used by The Times -- 92.29.28.127 (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1982 Christmas Strike

[edit]

Could someone add info about the strike which occurred in 1982? I remember being told this years ago (as it happened when I was born) and was reminded it when seeing this: [5] go to 2:45. 109.176.233.46 (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Date Bought by Lord Thomson

[edit]

This happened in 1966, not 1967 as in the article. I was working for the Times Bookshop, and the morning after the story broke we were greeted by the Assistant Manager John Edgecombe with "Good morning, Lord Thomson's minions." I had left by the end of '66.

Rogersansom (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Secrets of the tax avoiders

[edit]

I think that there needs to be some material on their 2012 campaign on tax avoidance. This had a significant impact on British politics. Amazon, Google and Starbucks were subjected to questions in Parliament over their tax affairs. David Cameron condemned Jimmy Carr. I remember reading about Anne Robinson, ASDA, Chris Moyles, etc. in The Times. I think that this deserves a paragraph in the article. Epa101 (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Circulation figures

[edit]

Is there any problem with using News Works as a source for circulation statistics? I believe that it's seen as a neutral organisation, as all the leading newspapers have a stake in it. See these figures for The Times and The Sunday Times. It's interesting that the Sunday Times has a significantly higher circulation. It even sells more copies than the Sunday Telegraph. Epa101 (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Times 2

[edit]

" Its previous incarnation began on 5 September 2005, before which it was called T2 and previously Times 2"

Should we not have dates for T2 and Times 2 as well? A look through the online archive gives me a date of 20/7/1999 for Times 2, coinciding with a Times 3 launch, but this date could simply be a return date after another period of being rested, so I don't want to change it incorrectly.

Also when was the first supplement separated from the main paper? 92.21.212.196 (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If The Sunday Times

[edit]

...is actually a separate publication with institutional firewalls, separate history, management, &c., and merely owned by the same umbrella corporation, then The Sunday Times Travel Magazine isn't actually an imprint of The Times, is it? Shouldn't this be with the other publication? — LlywelynII 02:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LlywelynII, three years too late but I have deleted the section which is copied on The Sunday Times#The Sunday Times Travel Magazine --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The London Times

[edit]
No, the title The Times is correct name for the newspaper and there is already a redirect from The London Times. It is not up to any editor to change the correct, given, name. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, that doesn't seem to be the sentiment at Talk:New_York_Daily_News#Request_for_Comment.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Times. 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:

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) 05:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Font vs. Typeface

[edit]

I know that font is used loosely by many people; but as I understand, in terms of printing (which is what is being discussed here), a font is, strictly speaking, only a typeface of a particular size (and style?). Therefore, should not most occurrences of font in this article by replaced by typeface?

Paul Magnussen (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

“Times of London”

[edit]

Clarification on how official this name is and whether it is proper use would be helpful. It seems to often be used to distinguish the paper from e.g the New York Times Fabius Planciades Fulgentius (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Choudhury

[edit]

I note that the reference for this successful libel action against the Times was removed today by someone who has replaced it with "citation needed." That was more than disingenuous. NRPanikker (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Masthead

[edit]

As with the case with The New York Times whose masthead is visible despite it appearing on the frontpage of the sampled clip, so too should the masthead for The Times be present on infobox 223.25.62.113 (talk) 07:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They just endorsed starmer

[edit]

Today 68.199.243.137 (talk) 02:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No they didn't. The Times has different editorial staff and can have differnt positions than its Sunday partner. Regards, David David J Johnson (talk) 12:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Times&oldid=1236619810"