Talk:The New York Times International Edition

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Militant?[edit]

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.193.176.115 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link Back to New York Tribune?[edit]

I think the histrory of the paper goes back further than this article indicates - see New York Herald Tribune — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.250.112.194 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 13 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.12.150.107 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1958 or 1959?[edit]

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)[reply]

Centralist? on Centrist?[edit]

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)[reply]

Flagrant Neutral Point of View Violation / Plagiarism[edit]

  • "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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbrayton (talk • contribs) 17:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Published in Dhaka - so what?[edit]

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)[reply]

Site of Headquarters[edit]

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)[reply]

IHT Melamine controversy[edit]

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

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

For details:

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)[reply]

Irish ?[edit]

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.229.14 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"Hebraic??" Seriously???!!!

Can't you even WRITE the word 'Jewish'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.36.220 (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a "flag" option here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.36.220 (talk) 06:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:IHT.jpg[edit]

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

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)[reply]

Press Release[edit]

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)[reply]

Another Bad Redirection[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Totally agree!! Obliterating the term "International Herald Tribune" is disrespectful to people who dedicated their lives to that paper. it also clouds the difference between the IHT and the original "trib", which is mentioned in THAT article. definitely, redirect with at least a 3 second silence betwixt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.36.220 (talk) 06:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Web site?[edit]

The article says: "The IHT’s old domain, iht.com, now redirects to international.nytimes.com." This is no longer the case. While there is a link to international.nytimes.com there is no automatic redirection. The iht.com banner says "International Herald Tribune - The Best in Global Journalism" followed by "The New York Times Company now plans to use iht.com to experiment with new ways to deliver information and to learn how, you, our international readers, want to follow the news." Gentleman wiki (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no longer a website at iht.com Gentleman wiki (talk) 00:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on International New York Times. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016 rebranding[edit]

I updated the top of this article with the fact that the paper is no longer known as the International New York Times, but just as The New York Times, with the non-U.S. editions called the international edition.

I also added that many Paris newsroom operations were closed at about the same time.

I suspect some of the other information, like the paper being based in La Defense, is not correct anymore. However, I have no seen a secondary source reporting this. So i will wait to update.

Also, I made the Jonathan Spollen disappearance a separate section. It was under "columnists" before, where it did not belong. PumpkinKitten (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Under External Links, there is still a mention of international.nytimes.com. However this subdomain no longer exists. It is simply www.nytimes.com now. The old www.iht.com also redirects to www.nytimes.com. RIP to a once great newspaper. Gentleman wiki (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History section needs to be completely rewritten[edit]

As it stands now, it is in sub-literate, incorrect English, and has paragraphs and sentences out of place. Hayford Peirce (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent split of International Herald Tribune - appropriate or not?[edit]

Eli185 recently created a new article, International Herald Tribune, over what was a redirect to this page. The new article was also edited by Eachone, ‎Courtyarder, ‎Trappist the monk and Pichpich, and reviewed by Onel5969, all of whom I tag for notification purposes. Eli185's rationale was: removed redirect in order to restore the page of the IHT with its history.

As we all know, the newspaper currently known as The New York Times International Edition was known most famously as the Paris Herald and International Herald Tribune. It later came under NYT ownership and in 2013 the name was changed to International New York Times and then, in 2016, to The New York Times International Edition. Wikipedia has from 2013 until now treated the entire history, from Paris Herald to present, as being one organization deserving one Wikipedia article. Is there a broad consensus to change this?

My own feelings are split. I understand the emotional argument that the old IHT is a touchstone for Americans abroad in the 20th century, and that the latest incarnation is seen as (and named as) simply "another edition" of a New York newspaper, and not fully representing the culture of the IHT. But then there's the fact that as a matter of corporate history, this really is one organization. Regardless of whether we believe the IHT somehow "lost its way" or "stopped being itself", as far as I know each renamed edition continued with the same staff, distribution network, type of content, leadership, etc., of the most recent edition of its predecessor. That is, there's no difference between Paris Herald of 1967 and the IHT of 1967, or the IHT of 2013 and the International NYT of 2013. Wikipedia doesn't split the articles of other newspapers simply because they change their names. Should it do so in this case? I don't have an answer, but I'd be interested in hearing what others think. ``` t b w i l l i e ` $1.25 ` 20:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: (changing to separate) I don't have a strong opinion on this, and the existence of extensive material, suggests it would be better suited as separate. I naively thought merging it would allow more work to happen, before being split again. Happy to change my vote to separate.
I would merge this into The New York Times International Edition with a Help:Self link so that people know it's a separate wiki link (for elsewhere). It's a stub, and would benefit in terms of content from being merged. If the length grows, it could justify a split. I just don't see a compelling practical reason for it. Shushugah (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, please do not merge. The erasure of the history of the IHT was an odd thing to do, and it's a little surprising that it was allowed in the first place. There are many sources describing its destruction. Its staff was fired. Its name (an iconic, world famous name) was removed. Its archives sold off and not included in NYT archives and not accessible to Google. There are plenty of sources to be cited on this. The article should, I think, present the NYT version of the story - that it was the same newspaper despite all evidence to the contrary. But it should also present the many, many voices that denounced this story as false, and described the NYT's actions as an unprincipled attempt to claim the heritage of the destroyed company in a "rebranding" effort.

(Gawker still has a page, even though it was taken over, destroyed, and its archives disappeared. Why shouldn't the most beloved international newspaper in the world?)

I have more to say about the destruction of memory and history on Wikipedia, in particular of important media companies, but I'll stop here, for now. Eli185 (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep separate entry Hi $1.25 thanks for your notification. The International Herald Tribune is listed in the Library of Congress https://www.loc.gov/item/sn94021607/ Based on that combined with other references, it would appear to merit its own Wikipedia entry. For example, the International Herald Tribune has its own chapter in the robust six-volume "Encyclopedia of Journalism" which covers all significant dimensions of journalism and history. Looking thru this talk thread, it seems the topic was previously discussed by Cellmaker and Ruby Murray. Perhaps they would like to chime in on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eachone (talk • contribs) 15:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This arrangement of articles is still unresolved[edit]

It looked to me like the outcome of these discussions a year ago was that this The New York Times International Edition article would, in addition to describing the current New York Times international edition, carry the overall history of the Paris operation from 1887 to 2016, hence the bolding of Paris Herald and Paris Herald Tribune in the lede here as presumably the target for those two redirects, while there would be a separate detail article International Herald Tribune to cover the 1967–2013 paper. But the odd thing was that the International Herald Tribune article contained no link to this article at all; I only discovered this article by accident. So in an attempt to help readers navigate this arrangement, I put a hatnote on the International Herald Tribune article to say that the history of the predecessor and successor papers is here. And I promptly got reverted.

So we are back to the International Herald Tribune article not acknowledging the existence of this one. The hatnote on International Herald Tribune now says that the prior history of the Paris operation is at the New York Herald Tribune article ... but due to an unrelated change made in January, the redirects for Paris Herald and Paris Herald Tribune point to the International Herald Tribune article. Even though the lede bolds are still here.

This arrangement is untenable. My view is that there should be only one article about the Paris operation, not two, and the one article should be called International Herald Tribune, which is the final important well-known name that it had. In other words, I fully agree with those who don't want its memory wiped from Wikipedia. This situation comes up sometimes in company histories and the well-known name has been restored in other cases, see for example Talk:Iomega#Requested move 20 February 2021. This one article will include the back history of the Paris Herald and Paris Herald Tribune, including cultural references and whatnot; the full history of the International Herald Tribune; and an aftermath section that describes the name change in 2013 and the Paris closure in 2016. This one article will have the redirects and the lede boldings for Paris Herald and Paris Herald Tribune.

If a separate article about The New York Times International Edition really needs to exist, it should just cover the period from 2013/2016 forward, and not all the back history before that. On the other hand, I suspect that the material about The New York Times International Edition and The New York Times International Weekly could be merged into the main The New York Times article. The main point is, the current New York Times International Edition operation really has nothing to do with the historical Paris Herald/Paris Herald Tribune/International Herald Tribune operation.

Does this approach make sense to others? Wasted Time R (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 March 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator. This request got misinterpreted or misunderstood by most of those responding to it. It is clear that there will continue to be two articles. As for renaming to preserve the correct Wikipedia content histories, that ship has sailed, as several others started moving/adding/changing content in the current arrangement and I have as well. So it is what it is. (non-admin closure) Wasted Time R (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times International Edition → International Herald Tribune – As I indicated in the section above (and no one has disagreed with me), the current arrangement of articles is unsatisfactory and there need to be two separate articles. A) The International Herald Tribune article should contain the history of the famous newspaper that existed from 1967 to 2013 under that name, and also its famous prior history as the New York Herald Tribune European Edition and before that the Paris Herald and so on, back to 1887. Yes, we have an International Herald Tribune article right now, but it is a separate branch that was created fresh in February 2021 from a history of redirects, see here. The real history of the International Herald Tribune article in Wikipedia is here at this title, going back through several moves to January 2003, see here for the origin in the early days of Wikipedia. A renaming should be done, with the branch text then being merged into the renamed article and post-2013 material being pulled out of it. B) The The New York Times International Edition article should also exist, under this name once the move is done and this becomes a redirect. This article will contain the history of New York Times' own international editions, starting in 1943 with its Overseas Edition, continuing in 1948 with its United Nations Edition, then in 1949 with its International Air Edition, and then from 1960 with its International Edition. This paper was a competitor to the New York Herald Tribune's more well-known European Edition. It was then folded in 1967 when the Times gave up and instead became three-way co-owner of the International Herald Tribune, which this article will cross-reference to. Then this article will resume with 2013, using the material currently at this location, when the International Herald Tribune title goes away and The International New York Times name over, soon followed in 2016 by the closure of the Herald Tribune offices, the sale of its archives, and the current name The New York Times International Edition, which brings this article full circle back to 1943. C) I have lots of text and cites prepared offline in support of building up the history in both articles, and I have saved the branch text for the merge, but first this move on top of an existing article needs to be done. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cellmaker: @Ruby Murray: @Gentleman wiki: @Toll Booth Willie: @Shushugah: @Eli185: @Eachone: @Abovfold: @Jjcloudruns: Courtesy pinging past discussants and editors who have made changes material to this issue. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wasted Time R, what you propose makes more sense than what we have now. I'll just make my little objection to put it on the record: I know I was out-!voted last time, but laying aside the romantic attachment we all (me included) seem to have for the Paris Herald and the IHT of its heyday, the fact remains that the present-day NYT International Edition IS, in a corporate sense, the IHT's successor, and is NOT the successor of the 1940s NYT Overseas Edition. As you note, the NYT's international offering was later a competitor to the IHT, and was folded, with the title lying dormant for decades. Meanwhile, the IHT was partially owned by the NYT from 1967 (surely still part of its heyday) to 2002, then fully owned by the NYT from 2002 to 2013, functioning (and subtitled) as the "Global Edition of the New York Times". The name changed to International New York Times in 2013, and only later, after the name changed, was the Paris headquarters closed. So we have an unbroken history of Paris Herald - International Herald Tribune - International New York Times - New York Times International Edition, all based in Paris. The split performed on this article last year zeroed in on 2013, the year that the International Herald Tribune name was dropped. But was the Oct. 15, 2013, International New York Times a different newspaper than the Oct. 14, 2013, International Herald Tribune? Presumably it had the same staff, the same features, the same headquarters, the same subscriber list, etc. We may not like that the NYT killed a storied and beloved brand name, but Wikipedia should be describing the world as it is, and in my opinion there's no date on which you can say: "this is where the IHT's history ends -- and this is where the NYT International Edition begins as a brand-new organization". OK. I've said my piece. Again, I know mine is the minority opinion on this, so let me be realistic and restate: If we are going to split the articles at 2013, the changes you propose above make sense. ``` t b w i l l i e ` $1.25 ` 05:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Toll Booth Willie: Your points are legitimate, and the text of the articles will describe the 'corporate sense' as you call it. But brand names matter. And the corporate history is tangled beyond just the NYT involvement. In summer 1966, when the New York Herald Tribune was in danger of failing (and then did), WaPo bought 45 percent of its European edition, and it was published as The International Edition of the New York Herald Tribune–The Washington Post until May 1967, when the NYT entered into the three-way ownership arrangement (with Whitney Communications Corp. being the equal third) and the International Herald Tribune began. Clearly brand names mattered to both papers, a year apart. Until 2013, when there was a tangible change in attitude by the NYT when it took down the name, an attitude made even more clear when the NYT shut down the Paris operation in 2016. In this particular case, I think both history and readers are best served by having one article that describes all the international papers that had 'Herald'/'Herald Tribune' in their name, and another article that describes all the international papers that have 'New York Times' in their name. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Keep separate entry

Wasted Time R @Cellmaker: @Ruby Murray: @Shushugah: @Eli185: @Eachone: @Jjcloudruns:

No do not merge. Keep separate entry for the International Herald Tribune based on robust due diligence outlined in earlier discussion. From a historical standpoint, they are two separate newspapers. Rather surprised that this has sprung up again. Wondering if this intervention is perhaps on behalf of the New York Times org? Eachone (talk) 7:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Eachone: Part of my proposal is to put existing (and soon-to-be-added) material about the Paris Herald, the European edition of the New York Herald, and the European edition of the New York Herald Tribune into the initial sections of the International Herald Tribune article, so that the entire history of the Herald Tribune operation in Paris could be seen in one place. It looks like you disagree with this idea, as you have just moved such material into the New York Herald and New York Herald Tribune articles. Is that a correct assessment? Wasted Time R (talk) 14:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do not merge and do not change the title International Herald Tribune is a newspaper that was published from 1967 to 2013. The International Herald Tribune already has a Wikipedia entry. Jjcloudruns (talk) 9:56 6 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why these repeated attempts to erase The International Herald Tribune a famous newspaper, which has an important history ?[edit]

This is not the first attempt to grab the IHT history, and to place it (quite inappropriately), under the New York Times banner. A commentator in the earlier discussion pointed out that “Redirecting the IHT to the International New York Times is like obliterating 125 years of history”.

It would make much more sense to delete this dodgy ‘New York Times International Edition’ Wikipedia entirely and to create a chapter under New York Times (of which it is a part). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iconstand (talk • contribs) 15:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_New_York_Times_International_Edition&oldid=1207186512"