Talk:The Times

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Times is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
June 20, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted
WikiProject Journalism
Journalism Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Journalism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to journalism. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a message to explain the ratings and to identify possible improvements to the article.
Good Job
"In the entry for The Times, for instance, you can read a cogent history from 1785 to the compact's launch, with a commendably neutral commentary and brief biographies of editors past and present." — The Times, July 20, 2004

Contents

[edit] Sources

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)

[edit] "Newspaper of record"

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)

" 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 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.

[edit] "Tabloid"

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)

[edit] "owned by Rupert Murdoch"

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)

[edit] Somthing about the typeface would be nice.

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)

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)

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)

[edit] "Quality"

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)

[edit] List of the 100 most powerful people 2005

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...

[edit] Times New Roman

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

[edit] Times Digital Archive

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)

[edit] Centrist, Centre-right, or Right-wing

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)

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)
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)
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)
Well, I'm a daily Times reader and I definitely think of the Times as centrist/neutral. Phyte 22:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] continantal sports columnist

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


[edit] E.S. Dallas

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)

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)

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)


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

This comment is not backed up by the cited source [1]. 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)

[edit] Privatized or Subsidized?

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)

[edit] New font - headlines are not sans serif

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)

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

[edit] Weekly edition?

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)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:The Times header.png

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)

[edit] Rework Supplements Section?

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)

  • 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)

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)

  • I think it's just that the sentence is (if not explicitly) only referring to the British press.--PaulTaylor (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The London Times Of London

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] Pollitcal allegiance

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
It all comes down to WP:Verifiability -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 15:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)