Talk:The Times

"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)

"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)

List of the 100 most powerful people 2005

Wikipedia have it ??? where ?

here is just a part...

• George Bush
• Condoleezza Rice
• Bill Clinton
• Barack Obama
• Bill Frist
• Donald Rumsfeld
• Mark Malloch Brown
• Gordon Brown
• Ali Husaini Sistani
• Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi
• Hu Jintao
• Kim Jong Il
• Manmohan Singh
• Thabo Mbeki
• Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
• Mahmoud Abbas
• Ayaan Hirsi Ali
• Ariel Sharon]
• Javier Solana
• John Howard
• Chen Shui-bian
• Hugo Chavez
• [[... to be continued...

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

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

continantal sports columnist

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

Political position infobox descriptor

For much of the time since at least June 2016 (Special:Diff/727943634, ten years ago), the infobox contained the political descriptor "centre-right" (with a 2020-2021 interlude of "Conservative Party"). It is also stated in the article's introduction. The infobox descriptor was removed Special:Diff/1359771620 a few days ago, with the editor noting "Uncited and citations in article body not up to date". I restored the long-standing information because

• it is cited (in the article itself)
• the same statement is retained elsewhere in the article (either it's reliable enough to be in both places, or it should be in neither!)

Qwerty123M un-restored / re-deleted "centre-right" (from infobox only: Special:Diff/1364952381) because: it was "uncited" (but it did have a source in the text); it's likely to be "WP:OR or WP:SYNTH"; and no sources are likely to be "reliable enough". Qwerty also says that editors are unlikely to accept this information in the article -- but as it has been in the infobox since 2016, and remains in the intro right now, how can that be correct?

Just to be clear: I am entirely neutral about whether the paper is described as "centre-right", "centrist", "left", "Jupiterian", or nothing at all. I merely thought consistency between the article text and infobox would be something to aim for. That's all.

If the claim of "centre-right" is not warranted, or is inadequately-sourced, can it please be removed from the leading paragraphs? If it is okay and well-sourced, can it be restored to the infobox? Thanks. ~2026-40449-10 (talk) 07:17, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I am skeptical of including this information as the source is outdated and may have changed significantly since 2009 when the source was published, but it is a high-quality source because books are usually well-researched. Broadly, I think that the other political alignment assessments by the previously cited book were accurate, except that I have not known The Times to be considered centre-right, rather its political position is quite ambiguous to me, maybe that's just because I can only listen to their podcasts. If other editors think that the information should stay, I would not have a problem with reinstating it. Qwerty123M (talk) 07:36, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your considered thoughts. Fair enough.

(Would you possibly consider striking the "unconstructive edit" template on my talk page, please?) [The editor previously known as ~2026-40449-10 ] ~2026-40782-52 (talk) 07:46, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Sure, I will add a constructive welcoming message. Qwerty123M (talk) 07:49, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I think deleting the "centre-right" description from the infobox is fine, because of the nebulous nature of that descriptor.

But then I see that there is a listing/categorization at the end of the entry, labeling the paper "centre-right" and grouping it with such outlets as DW in Germany and FT in the UK. That categorization perhaps should be rethought as well.

Given the nature of politics globally, and the nebulous shifting, and sometimes misleading, descriptors, I think it's better to leave the description out. Noting that News Corp owns The Times is the best concrete information for its politics, in my opinion, even though News Corp sometimes shifts the political focus of its properties if it serves business objectives.

FT often is surprisingly "liberal" or "leftist" these days, for some of its columns; DW has a concrete written pledge on support of Israel (the country) that some would characterize as definitely on the right.

Using concrete ownership information or examples of political endorsements, or the lack thereof, seems to be the best way to characterize newspapers globally, at the moment. Underoke (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United Kingdom, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Newspapers, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. Qwerty123M (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2026 (UTC)