Talk:The Times

message: Right now the homepage of The Times online outlet ( 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)
thread_title:  Fairness of The Times Online 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "Newspaper of record"

message: 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)
thread_title: "Tabloid"

message: 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)
thread_title:  "owned by Rupert Murdoch" 

message: Rich Farmbrough 14:44, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somthing about the typeface would be nice. 

message: 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)
thread_title: Times Digital Archive

message: 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)
thread_title:  E.S. Dallas 

message: This comment is not backed up by the cited source . 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)
thread_title: ..."Come to stress Murdoch's 'neo-conservative' views"

message: 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)
thread_title: Privatized or Subsidized?

message: 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)
thread_title:  New font - headlines are not sans serif 

message: 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)
thread_title: Weekly edition?

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:The Times header.png

message: 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)
thread_title: Rework Supplements Section?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It all comes down to WP:Verifiability -- John (Daytona2 ·  Talk ·  Contribs) 15:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pollitcal allegiance 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Steam Powered Press of 1814 

message: 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.  ADM (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Christian newspaper ?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Editorial on 31 July 1914. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Mideast conflict

message: 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)
thread_title:  Thunderer 

message: 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: . 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Critics of Wikipedia 

message: 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)
thread_title: Reason for naming

message: 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)
replies: text: Read Times Roman#Other typefaces used by The Times -- 92.29.28.127 (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Times New Roman 

message: 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:  go to 2:45. 109.176.233.46 (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: 1982 Christmas Strike

message: 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)
thread_title:  Date Bought by Lord Thomson 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Secrets of the tax avoiders 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Circulation figures 

message: " 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)
thread_title:  Times 2 

message: ...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)
replies: text: , 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)
thread_title: If ''The Sunday Times''

message: *FYI, per the ongoing RFC at Talk:New_York_Daily_News#Request_for_Comment it appears possible this article might be moved to The London Times despite this not being the papers actual name, because people often call it that.  I assumed there would be a precedent for newspaper naming specifically but it has not emerged yet.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The London Times 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110317185723/http://journalism.winchester.ac.uk/?page=353 to http://journalism.winchester.ac.uk/?page=353
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110317185723/http://journalism.winchester.ac.uk/?page=353 to http://journalism.winchester.ac.uk/?page=353
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Font vs. Typeface 

message: 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)
thread_title:  “Times of London” 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sultan Choudhury 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Masthead