Talk:Financial Times/Archive 1

Talk
Though the paper is expensive on the newsstand, you can get 6 months delivered to your door for 1000 Worldperks points through the Northwest Airline Worldperks program. For the past three weeks it has come to my working class surburb of Detroit (i.e. not what one would consider a prime market) doorstep by 6:30am.

Take a look on the german vers of the text. The Creation is totally different. In the German text it says the the FT was renamend and originally named FInancial News.

Curious....

Moreover, the James Sheridan the article links to certainly did not found it. The article on Horatio Bottomley states that he founded the paper. Burschik 08:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC) The German article seems to be based on this page, and a James Sheridan is mentioned here. Burschik 08:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I used to work for the FT and the version that all employees are told is that the current Financial Times is descended from the Financial News. However when the two papers merged, it was decided to change the name to Financial Times

Talk 2
I was wondering, how would we include the fact that the FT Group also owns other magazines such as The Banker, fDi Magazine, FT Mandate, PWM, etc. which all caome under the heading of FT Business Publications? I'm tempted to create an article for The Banker, although am wondering whether it may be a better idea to create one article which houses all FT Business Publications magazines. Any thoughts on this? -- (User:A.szczep) 20:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Each pub should have an article. lots of issues  | leave me a message 21:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ftlogo.jpg
Image:Ftlogo.jpg 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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 08:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

dax 20.08.2007
only gemany prices "Deutsche Bank", no europe, no world? 194.100.52.2 17:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Why would?
You have a picture of the USA edition of a British Newspaper? Surely a picture of the proper British edition is available.....? 217.43.177.129 (talk) 22:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Second Largest Financial daily claim
Economic Times from India makes the same claim. I've cited a reference there. some needs to have a look and decide how to handle this. I've marked it as "Citation Needed" for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChiragPatnaik (talk • contribs) 14:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * oops! Forgot to sign! --ChiragPatnaik (talk) 14:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Trivia, Pop culture
Does anyone else think there might be merit in putting a section in regarding the FT's appearance in Pop Culture? For example, Spike Lee's "Inside Man" has Christopher Plummer's character reading an FT. Being a movie about New York, one would have expected a Wall Street Journal instead! I can think of loads of other movies with the FT featuring prominently. However, is this just product placement, or a choice made by the movie-makers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.210.171.33 (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I noticed a Financial Times featuring in a lot of movies recently, for instance The Visitor (2008 film). 216.94.11.2 (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please god no. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Pink
The reason for this change? Whose idea was it? Have any other newspapers been published in this color? Drutt 02:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Various evening sports newspapers (mostly defunct since the advent of the internet) were published on pink paper; I believe the Sports Argus in Birmingham was one. 86.136.250.154 (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * According to this, the Sporting Times (1865-1932) was also published on pink paper. Drutt 09:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whose idea it was, however the FT has fought two court case at least to seek to prevent other publishers using pink stock for city pages - one with the Evening Standard which is lost and the Standard proceeded to print its city pages on pink page and one with an indian publisher. The FT failed to establish the pink coloured paper as a signficant enough to trademark.

As an aside in the late 90's the sister site FT.com was blocked by the networks of some City banks on the basis that the pages contained so high a percentage of flesh pink that the blocking software deemed them pornographic.


 * Ha. I'm wondering if there was originally some budgetary reason for the decision to print on pink paper - maybe cheaper than white? Drutt 00:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I remember reading in the FT about the paper's colour. I think it was in an edition of the paper which was celebrating its centenary.  The article said that at the time it was cheaper to dye the paper pink then to bleach it white.  Nowadays it is cheaper to bleach it white than to dye it pink.  The paper has stayed pink out of tradition.  Sloman 17:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason I looked up this article was to see whether it would tell me why the Financial Times is printed on pink-colored newsprint. I was disappointed not to find an answer. I do think I've seen references some British newspaper, quite possibly the Sporting Times, called "the pink 'un" in old British novels. 72.224.75.45 (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Format
Is it me, or did the FT change from a broadsheet to something smaller like a Berliner sometime this week, when no-one was looking? If so that'll need to be reflected in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.93.164.23 (talk) 09:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason for the forced space at the top of the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.205.22.18 (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

How Spend It
How to Spend It is a monthly magazine usually published with the Financial Times Weekend Edition.

Usually? To my knowledge it has always been so. Anyone knows otherwise? Gentleman wiki (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

James Sheridan
Removed James Sheridan internal link as it links to article about Scottish MP James Sheridan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uranium grenade (talk • contribs) 21:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This appears to have been reverted. Anyway, isn't the founder Horatio Bottomley? Drutt (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

So was it founded by Sheridan or Bottomley - article now contradicts itself. Or was the owner Sheridan and the first editor Bottomley? Could someone clarify this? Drutt (talk) 12:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have fixed the Sheridan link again. Do we have a WP article on him? Drutt (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Why this boring front page picture? (File:Financial Times New.png)
It's really humdrum. Certainly there are many more recent and notable events from the late-2000s recession, like the subprime crisis, the housing bubble, the spike in food prices, and many other that would be more illustrative? walk victor falktalk 08:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ walk victor falktalk 13:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Computimes
Computimes redirects here, but is not mentioned at all. --94.216.75.7 (talk) 06:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

FT and WSJ
I don't want to get into a revert war here. IP editor, will you be happy with a reference from David Kynaston's history of the FT? Barnabypage (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Euroscepticism
In the paragraph "Editorial stance" it is stated that the Financial Times is "strongly Eurosceptic"; however just a few lines below it is noted that in the UK elections the newspaper "backed the Conservatives, though questioning their Euroscepticism". We clearly have contradictory statements here. I guess that the expression "strongly Eurosceptic" might be too strong (pun unintended) however I would like to hear from others about that. Mastazi (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC) As one would expect from an establishment publication, the Financial Times newspaper supports, and has always supported, the European Union.90.194.155.89 (talk) 12:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a Very Crude Article - There's Not One Whiff of Criticism!
It used to be that one could approach the financial times for an unbiased, and relatively apolitical commentary on how the economy is performing, and likely trends, etc... But now, I believe that the reporting has become extremely biased, and that the Financial Times very probably does not provide anything like an objective assessment of economic facts, etc... I can certainly list several criticisms (without going into the detail of criticising inadequate information, errors and mistakes that occur within the Financial Times), but I shall refrain from doing so in order to find out what others believe.

ConcernedEconomist 20:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting, in whose interests is it now biased? When did this change occur? Drutt 00:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

There is certainly anti-Israel bias and a general pro-Arabist approach in its editorial line. Sources are referenced within the opinions section but the references keep getting deleted by people who don't like this being highlighted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cestor (talk • contribs)
 * Properly sourced material should not normally be blanked. I'll bookmark this article now and keep an eye on it, but if it recurs, and an edit war develops, drop a note to any admin's talk page asking for help. Don't fall foul of WP:3RR, as there's a fine line between what editors often perceive as vandalism prevention and what admins perceive as edit-warring. The former is exempt from 3RR, but the latter is not and blocks are sometimes handed out for people that cross the line. --Dweller (talk) 08:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Having not read the actual FT newspaper for a long time, I read the comment in the FT article's Opinions section that the FT has a "strong anti-Israel editorial policy". This is supported by two references, [17] & [18]. According to the above 'talk' comments there is a difference of opinion amongst editors regarding these references. I do not know if the article's comment is correct or not but on reviewing the two references I found that they lack credibility as Just Journalism and The New Republic appear to be pro-Israel. Credible references should be substituted otherwise this comment may be viewed as the personal opinion of the original editor, and should be removed, rather than a widely held and accepted view.210.17.218.172 (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A picture describes the paper as a business-staple. A lot of the history is PR-style POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)  The anti Israel bias in the Financial Times newspaper (which is obvious if one actually reads the newspaper) is very unlikely to be formal anti-Semitism. It is simply a matter of Middle Eastern oil and gas interests being financially very important - it is the function of the Financial Times newspaper to support establishment economic interests, and (in modern times) Middle Eastern oil and gas interests are more important, it is nothing more sinister than that. Israel is just less important than the oil and gas interests in Muslim hands - so it is logical, from the establishment point of view, to sacrifice the former for good relations with the latter. It is not hatred of Jews as such, or anything like that.90.194.155.89 (talk) 12:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Political Affiliation
I suggest removing this from the bar in the right, it's unsourced and is not suggested in the newspaper.24.107.115.178 (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to source the political allegiance of newspapers except blatantly obvious ones such as the Mirror or the Telegraph, however it's widely accepted among other media sources that the Financial Times is a liberal paper. I think that the allegiance should just say liberal. It can't really be described as an economically liberal paper, it opposed much of Margaret Thatcher's economic policy in the 80s and recently called for the nationalisation of Northern Rock. It also can't really be described as a socially liberal paper, it rarely gives opinion at all on social issues. Sneyton (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

How are the Financial Times an economic intervention newspaper if they supported Thatcher and free markets? --IQfreak7 (talk) 13:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Actually the Financial Times opposed many of the economic policies of Mrs Thatcher.90.194.155.89 (talk) 12:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to put this as Conservative, seeing as they expressely endorsed the Conservatives here: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bd4e693c-56df-11df-aa89-00144feab49a.html 87.194.30.99 (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Chomsky quotation
According to the article, "Noam Chomsky has said that it is "the only paper that tells the truth". The citation is to Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media.  This has been disputed on Democratic Underground, where a contributor wrote: "Video of his statement can be seen on Manufacturing Consent. He said that financial publications are the only ones that tell the truth, not that the financial times exclusively is the only paper that tells the truth."  Can someone check this? JamesMLane t c 10:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

-I didn't check it but I doubt he was speaking about financial publications in general. It's no secret that the Wall Street Journal is one of the most biased newspapers in the world. Surely he could not have been speaking positively about the WSJ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.210.171.33 (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky has described the FT as his 'favourite newspaper' in interviews, so it's safe to say that he was referring to the FT is the only paper that tells the truth. http://www.democracynow.org/2010/3/15/noam_chomsky_on_obamas_foreign_policy

Postpunknewwave (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Given Noam Chomsky's practice of lying (see "The Anti Chomsky Reader" for examples of this) his praise of the Financial Times is not exactly a sign of its truthfulness.90.194.155.89 (talk) 12:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

UN-Affair: Journalism for another World War?
Ban Ki-Moon protested against the manipulated report of the FT of an interview (which was recorded by UN) by an official letter as of the 8th February.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/02feb2e6-cc0c-11e5-be0b-b7ece4e953a0.html#axzz3zCH2t1ji

Before you raise your nose about RT reporting this, look at the the letter of the UN in this article below:

https://deutsch.rt.com/international/36781-vereinte-nationen-rugen-financial-times/

The NYT excused itself for its pro-Iraq-War-reports in 2004, FT does not even publish a correction though Ban Ki-Moon, head of the UN(.org) requests it? I consider the NYT co-responsible for hundred thousands of death in Iraq and a destabilised region, likely to create more wars. A we preparing a real world war again? Are we doing war-propaganda? Does Sam Jones, the journalist heavily critisized of manipulations by the UN, want to be responsible for heating up for another hundred thousands of death? I want this Affair inserted as "UN-Affair" in the article. Please advise.

88.130.37.230 (talk) 08:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)