Talk:The New York Times International Edition: Difference between revisions

Militant?

As the French newspaper Libération is currently being characterized as "militant" in its article I would like to know whether the International Herald Tribune's statement [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/899082/posts "Chirac and his poodle Putin have severely damaged the United Nations", "Chirac's Latest Ploy", WILLIAM SAFIRE] would qualify this newspaper as "militant" as well? Just a rhetorical question... Get-back-world-respect 15:12, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

William Safire is a conservative op-ed columnist for the NY Times. The IHT reprints his columns directly from there. The IHT's news reporting, on the other hand is certainly not militant. Liberation is an avowedly anti-establishment paper (it gets under the skin of both right and left-wing governments in France) and considers itself the voice of the counterculture.

Link Back to New York Tribune?

I think the histrory of the paper goes back further than this article indicates - see New York Herald Tribune The "Tribune" part of the name comes from the Paris edition of the Chicago Tribune, started during World War I. See "The Paris Edition", by Waverley Root. The two papers merged between the wars.

1958 or 1959?

John Hay Whitney's bio says he bought the paper in '58, the Tribune's website says '59... which is it? - Eric 21:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Centralist? on Centrist?

Centralism is a belief in the concentration of government power. Centrism describes the ideology of the Third Way--a belief in free markets mixed with a concern for social welfare. The article says the paper is Centralist, but it seems more likely that they're Centrist. Which one is it? -Tjss 15:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Flagrant Neutral Point of View Violation / Plagiarism

• "The International Herald Tribune is the premier international newspaper for opinion leaders and decision-makers around the globe."

This language is PR boilerplate cribbed directly from Times-Mirror corporate communications, as a simple Google search on the sentence readily reveals.

Even if it weren't, surely [NPOV WP:NPOV] would preclude editorializing about the publication's relative preeminence in its chosen market segment and its prestigious, "qualified" readership (which allows it to charge higher ad rates).

If the flacks are going to write history, they should at least back up such claims as 'premier' with hard data on circulation and reader demographics, don't you think? And if this entry is not flack-authored, then it's plagiarism.

--cbrayton

I concur with all points noted above. I'll edit this to "The International Herald Tribune is a widely read english-language international newspaper.".Patiwat 02:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Published in Dhaka - so what?

Is there any particular reason why the Introduction notes that one of the 33 international publication locations includes Dhaka? Any reason why Dhaka deserves special note? I can't imagine any, so I've removed it from the Intro. I'm not even sure if I should include mention this tidbit in the Distribution section. If anybody feels that it belongs there, say so, or make the addition yourself. Patiwat 01:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Site of Headquarters

If the paper is headquartered in Neilly-sur-Seine, why does the infobox list it as Paris? One wouldn't list Harvard University as being in Boston, or the New York Islanders as playing their home games in New York City. Wiki Wistah 21:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

IHT Melamine controversy

There is controversy around the removal of an article reporting on the melamine economy in China, which was located here:

• http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/29/news/food.php

Additive that tainted U.S. pet food is commonly used in China
By David Barboza and Alexei Barrionuevo
Published: April 29, 2007

For details:

• http://www.itchmo.com/read/melamine-spiking-in-food-widespread-for-years_20070429

What are IHT policies for removing articles from the IHT web site? Should there be a retraction notice? Do newspapers of record have an obligation to explain why they remove articles?

--jwalling 22:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Irish ?

I've read the IHT and I have detected quite a bit of Irish cultural influence. It would be good to know just exactly how Irish the newspaper is. I also noticed some Hebraic cultural influence, presumably because the IHT is an affiliate of the New York Times. [1] ADM (talk) 12:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

lgbbvgbegb k;jhgS>mncb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.185.144.19 (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

File:IHT.jpg

This image contains an advertising. It should be removed from the article.--Александр Мотин (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it is showing the whole front page of the paper. There is nothing wrong with showing how much of the front page is now dedicated to advertising. --Pmsyyz (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Press Release

This page reads like a corporate press release. Can we get some editors in to balance the tone please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisvnicholson (talk • contribs) 08:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Another Bad Redirection

Redirecting the IHT to the International New York Times is like obliterating 125 years of history. This is a very bad practice. Over time all of the information about what the IHT was will be shuffled off to the side. It would be much better to simply state up front in an article about the IHT that it was "taken over" or "rebranded" as the INYT and then have a new entry for the INYT.

This seems to be the norm now. Every time a company gets bought by another company, the old company gets redirected and all of the history of the old company quickly disappears.

Wikipedia, please stop destroying history in this manner. This is not a phone book where we want the latest number. It's an encyclopedia. Cellmaker (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

This article hasn't been redirected, but has been renamed, so the edit history is still all there. The IHT wasn't bought by another company: it's still owned by the NYT (since 2003, as noted in the article), who have renamed and "rebranded" it. But it's had several name changes over the years. Are you proposing that International Herald Tribune should be maintained as a separate article, even though the paper has been renamed as of today? I agree that the history section should be expanded. Ruby Murray 09:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess that's pretty much what I'm recommending. I realize that the NYT Company owns the paper, but I believe that's beside the point. The IHT as an idea still exists (and it wasn't always owned solely by the NYT). A corporate decision to rebrand an institution shouldn't be the overriding factor in the way Wikipedia treats a subject. The International Edition of the NYT will develop its own history now, and part of that will be that it evolved from and replaced the IHT, which can be noted in the Wikipedia entry on the INYT.

As an example, if Rockefeller Center were renamed Walmart Midtown Shopping Center should the entire history of Rockefeller Center become just the "history" subsection of the entry WMSC? My point is that the most recent incarnation of something is not the span of history that defines that thing. It's more reasonable to have a link from Rockefeller Center to the new WMSC entity (which in turn would link back to the original RC entry as part of its own history). Which entities deserve preservation and which do not may not always be an easy call, but in this case I believe that an institution that existed for 125 years, read by Hemingway and Gertrude Stein and hundreds of thousands of others during their residencies in Europe (and elsewhere), should not instantly become a footnote easily swept away. Cellmaker (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)