Talk:Manchester Times

Merger with Manchester Examiner
There is something odd going on here because we have used the British Newspaper Archive to demonstrate that this newspaper continued to be published until 1922 but impeccable academic sources cited in the Manchester Examiner say that the Examiner was shut down in 1894 after being bought by Thomas Sowler, owner of the Manchester Courier. I am wondering whether this is demonstration of why we should not synthesise sources, which is what we appear to have done by using the BNA in the manner which we did. Whether I am right or wrong, something, somewhere is definitely wrong! - Sitush (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Please also note what we say about the merger situation at Empire News. I think this Manchester Times article should end in 1848. - Sitush (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

And the reference to it becoming the Manchester Weekly Times seems to be dodgy, per Stephen Koss's The Rise and Fall of the Political Press in Britain, vol 1 p 291-292. While Koss notes that the Manchester Times was absorbed by the Manchester Examiner in 1848, he says that in 1888 a business bought both the Manchester Examiner and the much stronger Manchester Weekly Times, ie: the ME and the MWT were separate titles, not one. Furthermore, the Manxhester Examiner was a daily paper from 1855. - Sitush (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

as the creator and pretty much only substantive contributor. - Sitush (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I have just updated the BNA url to a version that actually works. I am in a considerable quandary now regarding what should happen because I think the BNA is backed by the British Library. We appear to have wildly different statements of "fact" from reliable sources. - Sitush (talk) 12:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * As the author of some of these newspaper articles, including the Manchester Courier, I know how difficult it can sometimes be to recocile sources, so I'll try and find the time to have a root around myself. Eric   Corbett  16:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Blimey, a blast from the past. Welcome back, hope you're doing ok and thanks for taking the time.
 * It was not my intention to criticise anyone, so apologies if it has come across that way. Stephen Koss has got to be to go-to source for many newspaper articles, provided you have the strength to lift the 1200-page book off the shelf, but his approach was not that of writing a comprehensive history for each newspaper. I would say that if something is in Koss then that should probably be considered as the most acceptable version, not that I think it gets us out of this particular quandary. - Sitush (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Not qute the past, I've been around for a while again now. Last year I had some health issues I won't bore you with, so I had to take some enforced breaks, but I'm well on the mend now. I hope your own health at least isn't any worse than it was when we last met.
 * As for criticism, I can't speak for others, but I regarded your observations as nothing more than fair comment. I remember being rather confused about when the South Manchester Gazette closed its doors because various sources seemed to disagree, so it would be good to sort these articles out. Eric   Corbett  18:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I think we may have another problem with the claim that the Manchester Times has some relationship to the Manchester Weekly Times, an article which presently redirects to this one. According to, "Established in 1857, the [Manchester] Weekly Times was the largest penny weekly paper in the country, equal to twelve pages of the London Times. It considered itself a politically neutral family newspaper, with a supplement full of features and high class serial stories; and its eight page format included, foreign and. local news, chess and draughts, and the "Latest Gossip" from the "Labour World". Its editor in these years was B. S. Attwood, who had. started his career on the [Manchester Evening] News, and had succeeded to the editorship when Dunckley and Croft objected to the Liberal Unionist line in the late 1880s."

I will see what Koss says but prima facie this suggests that the MWT was a new enterprise, not a rebranding. It is an interesting article. - Sitush (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)