Talk:The Irish Times

Title
It is important to leave the 'The' in the newspaper's name, as it itself uses it as part of its full title and name. JTD 23:43 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)

Infobox
Under "political position" is it really necessary to include every position ever held by the newspapper during its existence: "originally Protestant Irish nationalist, became Irish Unionist, now left Liberal". What's wrong with specifying its current political outlook, and leaving the rest to the "History" section in the article? --Ryano 10:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Alec Newman
Alec Newman (editor) link points to the wrong person. At least, I presume he wasn't also the Scottish actor who played Paul Atreides. Perhaps I am underestimating the man's versatility.

Page 3
somehow i think the following is incorrect;
 * '1875 it became the first newspaper to feature a "Page 3 Girl"'


 * Lol, sadly this policy has been discontinued. I think it can be left out!AleXd (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Irish Times Trust article merge
The result was merge into The Irish Times. With more content the article can always be re-created later. -- Debate   木  01:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added a merge tag to the Irish Times Trust article, suggesting that it should be merged into the main Irish Times article. Flowerpotman talk|contribs 20:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

With this little content, it would fit easily, and I am not clear that the mechanism is distinct enough to be notable for a separate article. However, if someone could expand it enough. Comarison with the Scott Trust - Guardian situation seems a good test. SeoR 09:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

M3 Motorway Controversy
There's mention of "an independent opinion poll by Red C Market Research for the Sunday Business Post", and then "Both surveys". I don't see the other survey. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.203.54.200 (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Alleged 2007 bias
Re: However with regard to the 2007 General Election the paper has come under severe criticism from all quarters[citation needed] for its strigent anti-Fianna Fail stance, with many questionining its abitity to provide balanced journalism. is this, added just a couple of days ago, a valid item for an encyclopedia. "All quarters" seems too sweeping, and I am not aware of any such allegations. I suggest deleted this sentence. Feedback?

The next paragraph seems in need of a little work also. SeoR 12:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No neutrality
"The paper is generally perceived as liberal, socialist and neutral on Irish unity, in contrast to the Irish Independent, which is perceived as populist and economically right wing and the pro Fine Gael Irish Examiner."

"As examples of alleged bias, The Irish Times was seen by some as supportive of Mary Robinson's campaign for the presidency of Ireland (a claim the newspaper disputes), and of legal changes to Ireland's divorce, contraception and abortion laws. It also opposed the 2004 referendum on Irish citizenship."

(Where is the citation for this and evidence?)

The Irish Times Trust (1974) mandate is: " ... to publish an independent newspaper primarily concerned with serious issues for the benefit of the community throughout the whole of Ireland, free from any form of personal or party political, commercial, religious, or other sectional control ... " (Irish Times, 150 anniversary supplement magazine, Friday, March 27, 2009)

I recall the last Irish times opinion poll before polling day saying that 54% of people were going to vote yes for the changes to the constitution with the citizenship referendum. 79% of people voted yes. What kind of margin of error is that? They obviously either fiddled the figures or only polled people in areas of the country which they knew were far left-leaning.


 * The IT, no more than any other paper, does not do surveys itself but commissions them. So any issues with numbers are rather more to do with their agency than the paper. SeoR 19:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"..becoming a more radical voice in the Irish media.

(Where is the citation for this and evidence?)"

"Today, its most prominent columnists include controversial former Sunday Tribune editor, Vincent Browne... " (Where is the citation for this and evidence?)

The following entire section is biased, and contains no citations:

"M3 Motorway Controversy The paper has been on the receiving end of veiled criticism from Kells Chamber of Commerce and the NRA in December 2004 who both publicly accused the general media of unbalanced reporting in a Meath Chronicle article and in a full page counter argument advertisement respectively. An article search for "M3 Motorway" at Ireland.com returns 327 references showing The Irish Times to be one the most negative sections of the media regarding the route of the M3 motorway in County Meath. Of the 327 results the vast majority of these are opinion pieces and articles critical of the planned road.

The paper has included satirical sketches and editorials (A Wrong Road) against the M3 and in the 8 publishing days from December 28th 2006 to January 6th 2007 ran stories referencing the Save Tara "anti-M3" campaign on 5 of those 8 days.

However, in contrast to the criticism, an independent opinion poll by Red C Market Research for the Sunday Business Post, carried out nationally, showed a big majority in favour of preserving the historical and cultural sancity of the Gabhra Valley by re-routing the motorway.

Both surveys were commissioned by groups with polar opposite views and agendas and so the impartiality of both in regard to what questions were asked is equally questionable, however it is important to note that the 2005 Meath bye-election went ahead at the height of the controversy. Its finding of 71% support for political parties supporting the current route of the motorway is unquestionable as transport was widely reported to be the key issue of the election at the door steps."


 * Glad this has been raised. Also in other newspaper articles? SeoR 07:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The newspaper is generally perceived as pro-Protestant. It has Protestant roots and features Church of Ireland, Methodist and Presbyterian (but not Roman Catholic) Notes. Apart from the Roman Catholic Pro-Cathedral of St Mary, all the church service times it gives in its Saturday edition are of Protestant cathedrals and churches. It gives a high profile to Church of Ireland prelates and activities in the same way as the Murdoch press favours the Roman Catholic church. And a leader a year or two back referred to the "scandalous" decree of Ne Temere. Millbanks (talk) 07:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the text on the Lisbon Treaty as it was completely biased, including accusations of bias on behalf of the paper because it printed the results of opinion polls unfavourable to the No side - opinion polls carried out by reputable organisations, which would not be contradicted by the No campaigners if they reported the result they favour. The Irish Times (in common with any other newspaper, the Independent group in particular) does have an editorial line, but unlike most other Irish newspapers allows opposing opinion pieces to be printed, these have included pieces by Declan Ganley and other prominent No campaigners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.147.141.242 (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Circulation
The article does not give details of circulation. However, talking to someone who used to work for the Irish Times, he told me that in the last two decades it had made considerable increases, largely amongst Roman Catholic readers: the southern Protestant market was already saturated. Getting sales in the North seems more problematic, even though the newspaper is priced substantially more cheaply there (£1 as opposed to €1-80). Certainly there are not many letters from northern readers. One suspicion is that northern Protestants have reservations about buying a (southern) Irish newspaper, and Roman Catholics in the North still preceive it as Protestant. Millbanks (talk) 09:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Reorganisation of Article
I think the article needs to be restructured a little. The lead section contains much opinion and unverified claims, rather than summarising the article below. The sentences about promient columnists could be moved down the article. I also doubt whether Miriam Lord merits special mention. Nor would I describe her as a "satirist". The History section also contains material which is relativly recent and merits at least some subsections. The Content section could also be further divided into the main paper and the supplements. Finally there should be a new section including its auxilary business, such as myhome.ie and Irish Times Training, which isn't mentioned.AleXd (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"The Irish Times is the only newspaper in Ireland, and one of only a few worldwide, to be protected in this way."
The German version was translated from this article and, consequentially, contained this sentence. I deleted it from the German version, since this is not true. There are still examples of newspapers which are still independent and owned by their readers or cowokers, so they can't be sold without their permission, these are die tageszeitung, junge Welt, jungle World (Germany) and Die Wochenzeitung (Switzerland, no English article available yet). Historically it was also the case with Il Messaggero (Italy) and Libération (France). And these are only the examples I know by heart and for Europe. --Marcus Schätzle (talk) 01:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Marcus. It's refreshing to get a view from beyond the anglophone world. Dunlavin Green (talk) 01:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, true indeed! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Irish Times political stance on economics
This edit was reverted because 89.204.203.159 has a very short history, most of which consists of dubious edits (i.e. the comments about "lazy chestnuts").Autarch (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have twice reverted edits relating to the paper's political stance on economics since they are lacking in support from third party sources. As per WP:Sources, they must be from reliable publications, external to the subject preferably academic books and articles. This is a fundamental principle of wikipedia. The editor who has classified the paper's opinions has cited editorials written in the paper, this means he is the one interpretating the paper's point of view.


 * The reference for the Kevin Myers story in section 1.4, does not set a precedent. That article is from a seperate publication, and the wikipedia entry does not make judgement (such as the rightness or leftness of the event) it simply reports the fact that the column was not published and its writer was irritated. That sad, the source in question is barely passable, the use of "spiked" for example is unclear. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The reference to the paper being right wing on economic issues should obviously be deleted. In what way is arguing that spending needs to be cut in order to protect our economic sovereignty right wing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.101.227 (talk) 03:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Irish Times Trust: much more info needed
This article badly, badly needs more information on the Irish Times Trust. Why was it set up/ Why did the owner surrender his ownership for nothing, it seems? How many people are on the Trust? How are they appointed? How often are they appointed? Is there a religious bias in such appointments? How can the Trust influence editorial policy, if at all? What are the benefits of The Irish Times being governed by a Trust rather than by a privately-owned company? What are the pitfalls of the Trust? Could this type of newspaper ownership be a serious alternative to the current abuses of power which are ongoing in O'Reilly and O'Brien-dominated media in Ireland? I realise the last question is not directly linked, but the reason I want to know more about the Irish Times Trust is to see if it could be used in other newspapers to counter the current abuses of power there. 89.101.59.188 (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Your keen interest in these questions and your evident detailed grasp of the range of issues to be addressed suggests you are strongly qualified to research the Trust and to add your discoveries to the article. O&#39;Dea (talk) 07:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Kate Fitzgerald
This article needs to mention the role of The Irish Times in this scandal. Editing the final testimony of a now deceased 25-year-old lady, conflicts of interest between its journalists and the employer whom that lady made serious allegations against. It stinks. This morning it published an "apology" not to Kate Fitzgerald for editing (on 28.11.2011) the letter she wrote (published on 9.09.2011) before her death but to The Communications Clinic, where they essentially called Kate Fitzgerald a liar. This is not the last we'll hear about The Irish Times' shameful behaviour here. Fyodor Dostoevsky (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Bernard Share
For some reason the Novelist Bernard Share's page redirects here even though he's not even mentioned in the article. Rather than do that, I will edit his redirect to a stub article which hopefully can be further expanded. zadignose (talk) 06:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The redirect was created in 2008 with the edit note "(reviewer for the Irish Times; perhaps not notable enough for his own article)". I've expanded it slightly, but there's clearly scope for much more. Pam  D  08:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Irish 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.abce.org.uk/cgi-bin/gen5?runprog=abce%2Fabce&type=page&p=news_200706.html&menuid=news%7Cn1%7Cnews_200706%7Cnews_200706
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150220225616/http://www.ilevel.ie/media-blog/print/abc-morning-newspaper-circulation-july-december-2014 to http://www.ilevel.ie/media-blog/print/abc-morning-newspaper-circulation-july-december-2014
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150906174223/http://www.ilevel.ie/media-blog/print/abc-circulation-jan-june-2015 to http://www.ilevel.ie/media-blog/print/abc-circulation-jan-june-2015
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.irishtimes.com/150/articles/the-editors.html

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) 15:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Irish 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/20140826160959/http://www.ilevel.ie/media-blog/print/morning-newspaper-circulation-jan-june-2015 to http://www.ilevel.ie/media-blog/print/morning-newspaper-circulation-jan-june-2015

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) 16:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The Arnotts
[moved from the WikiProject Ireland talk page]

The lead sentence of section 1.2 The Irish Times was a disaster.

Talk: The Irish Times appears to be dead. So you who know Ireland officially should have a look at my two "short but MAJOR EDIT" (difference). --P64 (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The sentence was not a "disaster". It was poor editing. There is a difference. The first sentence in that paragraph was originally added as a caption to a now-deleted image, and repeated what was said in the paragraph proper, i.e. that the paper (post-Arnotts), was unionist in outlook and closely allied with the Irish Unionist Alliance. Removing it was perfectly correct. But what you added here was original research. The preceding sentence only says that the paper reflected Knox's (conservative) politics. We cannot conclude from that that it supported an Irish parliament. We would need a reliable source to say so. I don't believe there are any reliable sources, because I don't believe it ever did. Scolaire (talk) 10:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking. From wiki-linked articles I inferred the Irish Parliament to be the essential difference between Home Rule League and Irish Unionist Alliance, the party that the newspaper shifted to support after Knox's death --ie, remain in the UK with Irish Parliament or with continued rule by one Parliament in Westminster. (Could there be Home Rule from Westminster?)
 * There may be a more basic problem, I see on second glance at linked articles: Home Rule League established as a political party only November 1873, the year Knox died, with its first general election probably in 1874 (Home Rule League). Even if Knox stood (is that possible) for the informal "pressure group" Home Government Association 1870 to 1873, that must be so late in the history of the newspaper under Known (1859 to 1873) that some careful statement is needed. --P64 (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I find no obituary(!) in The Irish Times and Daily Advertiser but there is a death notice 1873-01-25, page 8. "At his residence, 53 Fitzwilliam square, North, on Friday 24th instant, aged 36, Major Lawrence E. Knox, eldest son ..." --P64 (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, . I did a search and I found this. Knox contested a by-election for the Home Government Association (or at least on their platform) in May 1870. Also this: in November 1868, he was elected in Sligo Borough as a Tory candidate, but was unseated. So I agree with you that his late conversion to home government has no bearing on the editorial outlook of the early Irish Times, which would have been common or garden Tory. I'm going to take the home rule bit out of the article altogether, and put it in the Knox article instead. Scolaire (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Needs review
91.193.179.238 (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not controlled by some conspiracy for first 127 years
 * Too much and too high in article about controversies, not enough on basics
 * What about the Weekly IT, Pictorial, etc?

Political alignment
The political alignment section is ridiculous. The Irish Times is not pro-austerity, pro-Fine Gael, or right-wing libertarianism. It has writers who expouse those views but that is not the slant of the newspaper. I don't know who wrote that but that is a serious tankie point of view and there are a lot of analytical newspaper balance metrics that classify the Irish Times and it would not fall under those lines.Aerchasúr (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I see Political alignment has been changed by DublinDilettante to neoliberal. Calling the Irish Time neoliberal seems like quite obvious page vandalism Aerchasúr (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Not read the property supplement lately, I take it? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Normally people point to privatisation as evidence of 'neoliberalism' which is of course not even an ideology but a pejorative term for market-driven economic policy, not property markets.I certainly dont think they would use that termAerchasúr (talk) 08:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Maybe try reading it, so. Promotion of REITs and criticism of opposition to selling off public land to developers at knockdown value is completely neoliberal. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: It seems like there's some WP:OR going on here if we're getting into the weeds about how their coverage of REITs/sales of public land might potentially be neoliberal in nature. Regarding the above, do we have external reliable sources that define the political alignment of the paper? This seems like the sort of material that we'd need an inline citation for, given that it's being challenged. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. There seems to be some glibness above. Ceoil (talk) 05:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

If no one can find a reliable citation to it being neoliberal, then the term should be removed. It is worth bearing in mind 'neoliberal' is like an exonym, which is against the rules. It isnt used by anyone to describe themselves, bar the occasionally publicity stunt. You want find right wing economists calling their work neoliberal. Aerchasúr (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)