Talk:In These Times (magazine)

Notoriety

The article states 'During the 1980s In These Times won notoriety for its investigative reporting of the Iran-Contra scandal'. Notoriety infers disrepute or dishonour, assuming the magazine exposed the scandal using honourable investigative reporting, would ’won notoriety’ be better replaced with; 'was celebrated', 'was prominent', 'was distinguished, etc. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 08:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Conservatives?

There is the unreferenced claim that ITT ran work of conservatives. Perhaps the editor was referring to the work of John B. Judis. He was an exception to the main trend of the writing, which as definitely left-wing or progressive. Judis is a leftist that has gone to the center. Reputedly, his work was published because of his friendship with publisher Weinstein.Dogru144 (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on In These 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/20070112051311/http://www.utne.com/issues/2006_139/features/12378-1.html to http://www.utne.com/issues/2006_139/features/12378-1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060207014213/http://www.fireontheprairie.com/ to http://www.fireontheprairie.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 4 July 2024

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: not moved. No consensus that the magazine is the primary topic. However, rough consensus to move to "magazine". (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

---

• In These Times (publication) → In These Times
• In These Times → In These Times (disambiguation)

– The article about the nearly 50-year-old magazine was unilaterally moved without discussion in June, 2023, with no apparent consideration of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: I argue the magazine still is the primary topic. The only other 2 articles called "In These Times" are a recent, humdrum album by Peter, Paul, and Mary, and a recent, even more obscure album by lesser known artist Makaya McCraven. Over 250 Wikipedia articles currently link to the magazine (now given the unconventional disambiguator "publication" rather than "magazine"), while roughly 50 link to the PP&M album and only 4 non-disambugiation pages link to the McCraven album. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 03:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Chicago, WikiProject Socialism, WikiProject Illinois, and WikiProject Magazines have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 07:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Albums has also been notified of this discussion. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Not sure I see a case for the magazine being PTOPIC here though. Having a lot of incoming links isn't that impressive a stat, especially when it's a publication which will be linked to from many sources which reference it. And being around a long time doesn't do anything for notability. What else does it have going for it? And I would object to calling the Makaya McCraven album "obscure"; you may not have heard of it, but the article makes plenty clear that it was critically acclaimed by several significant publications and sold well enough to chart in six different countries.

I will support moving to In These Times (magazine) if this proposal is rejected. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Just gonna make it clear that I oppose this. Wasn't 100% at the time I left my comment, but looking back at it I don't see this making any sense. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I think I can support this proposal. The magazine doesn't trounce pageviews of the albums in the past 90 days, but it for a long time has consistently been viewed 2 or 3x more often. SWinxy (talk) 04:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. No primary topic. But move to In These Times (magazine). -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2024 (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.