Talk:Time (magazine)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Political Views?

I removed the segment that said TIME magazine's disposition is "generally liberal" as this is certainly open to interpretation and lacks any citation.

66.188.208.180 15:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC) What do you mean "open to interpretation"? You probably think TIME is conservative? Read a couple of articles from there and you will change your mind Sasha best 21 October 2006

EDIT* I also agree that this article should include the fact that TIME is VERY liberal and leftist. As a former subscriber, i must admit that although initially it was a normal newsweekly, it is now definately biased and leftist. Not including this fact is wrong, and misinformation! (P.S. why else is there a RED border to almost every issue?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.105.165 (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if one is to take seriously the constant whining about "the liberal media," it's downright ludicrous to refer to Time as a "leftist" publication. Would you like me to list a few hundred actual leftist publications for comparison? Mjj237 00:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is it ludricrous? Listing "actual" leftist publications proves nothing, because very few of those publications are "mainstream". TIME is. And it seems the only ones that don't take the "constant whining" about the liberal media seriously are liberals themselves. Either way, the TIME article could use a criticism section - as it has been accused of liberal bias, but it needs to be sourced better than something open to interpretation or lacking citiation. Equinox137 07:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how stating that time is liberal is "open for interpretation". they ahve proved time and time again that they're leftist in their articles. Also the 'hundreds' of actual leftist things aren't mainstream and TIME is mainstream as well as leftist.Dappled Sage 04:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

What constitutes "mainstream"? Is it circulation or memetic consciousness or what? If you mean mainstream by dumbed down then I heartily agree. --Fang Teng 05:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Time magazine has spent the last few years firing journalists and replacing them with opinionators. Who are they publishing? Margret Carlson, Sen. Fred Thompson's f-buddy; Charlie Krauthammer, considered a wingnut, even by other wingnuts; Bill Kristol, unaccomplished son of Irv Kristol is wrong about everything all the time, but somehow on all media at all times. On the "Liberal" side they offer Joe Klein, best known for writing (and often making up out of whole cloth) about how wrong liberals on every and any issue in our national discourse. Michael Kinsley can be considered center left, but he hasn't written about politics for TIME. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.217.236 (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms?

I know that TIME has oft been accused on manipulating statements (Dustin Hoffman) and drawing sharp divisions where they may be inappropriate (the recent Hillary Clinton cover). In addition, it's been somewhat criticized for its occasional blitzkrieg of god-based and religious issues which are seemingly out of place. If anyone more articulate than myself could write this up and find sufficient sourcing, I think their discussions or explanations may be worthwhile. --AWF

Edits

In the 1930s, Luce felt strongly that America was not doing enough to arm itself for another World War, that Franklin Roosevelt was doing a shameful job avoiding his duty.

This seems to me to be rather out of place and unrelated to anything around it, so I'm removing it. -- bdesham

---

Since the name of the magazine is "Time," shouldn't this article be titled "Time (magazine)" ? -- isis 10:06 Dec 13, 2002 (UTC)

Actually, the magazine is called TIME magazine, but I don't know if the wikipedia naming convention allows for naming it that here. Kingturtle 17:31 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

---

Regarding the cover picture, it is a copyrighted material for sure but isn't it a fair use? -- Taku 18:04 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

1) Fair use is a more restrictive policy than the GFDL; in other words, it goes against the purpose of using the GFDL, which is to let anyone reuse Wikipedia content as they see fir (as long as they allow redistribution).

2) It's a defense, not a presumptive right--that is, AOL Time Warner could get an injunction on Wikipedia for having use the images, and we'd have to take them down whether or not we went to court to defend our use of the image.

So fair use is generally not a good idea, especially when it comes to things like full-size copies of TIME Magazine covers, which probably wouldn't be defensible under fair use doctrine even if we tried to use that defense in court. --The Cunctator

You think fiar use is not a good idea and you have a right to insist it, but it is not our agreement at all. The picture used under fair use is not covered by GFDL. And I know some people, particulary Larry back that we should avoid possible legal suits as much as possible. They have a point but it is not a settled agreement either. -- Taku 18:14 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

Ask yourself, is the image VITAL to this article? No. So let's play safe. :-) -- Tarquin 18:17 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

Not it is not, but then you think we shouldn't put a cover picture for movies or albums? We can remove pictures always after copyright-holders started to complain. Let's stop copyright paranoia. -- Taku 18:28 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

It's not copyright paranoia to avoid sticking copyrighted images all over Wikipedia. It's respect for users of Wikipedia. Including copyrighted images and calling it "fair use" prevents (or at least places unfair burdens on) people using Wikipedia content for commercial purposes, which we otherwise allow. And there's a big difference between a thumbnail image and a full-size copy. You'd have had much better luck if you had put in a itty-bitty Time magazine cover. --The Cunctator 18:56 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

There you go - it is now 200 px wide. --mav 19:20 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks Mav and sorry about the size. I don't have a decent tool to resize the picture. It is preferable in wikipedia that people cooraborate rather than speak out responsibility. Actually I am little confused what is your opinion. It seems there three ones now:

• Fair use should not be applied in wikipedia
• Imagies with fair use should be only used for vital purpose
• Imagies with fair use should be used with decent picture size.

Which one? Anyway, at least to my knowledge there is no policy to ban uploading imagines under fair use. Of course, we can discuss any time we should put a picture or not but sysops should not act based on their belief but on consensus. -- Taku 19:39 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

A small image like the one now displayed in this article cannot be used to print out a decent reproduction of the cover. It's only possible use now is to illustrate how the cover looks. This makes the argument that our use is fair that much stronger. Thumbnails are almost always fair game - otherwise Google's image search utility would not be able to exist (they do not pay royalties to the image's copyright holders or even ask them permission to index and store thumbnails of the images). --mav

I see. Your arugment makes much sense to me. -- Taku

Why that cover? How about a more famous one, like the Hitler Man of the Year cover, or the OJ Simpson cover? Kingturtle 20:05 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, that was also my concern. I avoid famous one because we don't have a particular reason to choose Hitler over OJ Simpson. So I simply choose one that is put in the article. -- Taku 21:03 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

Great montage of covers. Thanks a lot, User:Minesweeper. -- Taku

Article title

How about moving this to TIME? --`Jiang 06:30, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I thought this would be much better @ Time(Magazine) Ilyanep 22:33, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Why? The title is usually capitalized. --Jiang 23:33, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Wasn't there a naming convention against all caps. Ilyanep 00:25, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms). TIME is not an acronym so it should not be capitalized. Either Time (magazine) or the old title Time magazine would be better. --mav

I would perfer Time magazine... Ilyanep 01:13, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's not us deciding to capitalize it. Go speak to the folks at Time Magazine on why they want the name of the magazine capitalized on every issue. This is their name. People have a right to mess with the capitalization in their own name. It's like asking to move CamelCase to Camel Case because we abolished CamelCase. --Jiang 01:59, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The names of many things are very commonly in all caps. The names of shows like Star Trek or all the Star Wars movies for example. Just because they capitalize their name as part of their branding does not mean that we should follow suit. Should we exactly reproduce the font type as well? --mav

Star Trek and Star Wars are not capitalized in normal print, while TIME is always capitalized [1] in letter to the editor, within articles, etc. where special formatting would not be allowed. The TIME is the articles is in a standard font different from the TIME in the logo. --Jiang 09:12, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Not always [2] (esp for Time Inc.). But I concede the distinction. Thank you for clarifying. --mav

The correct name of this article is TIME. —Lowellian (talk) 04:40, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Not according to the manual of style.

Follow our usual text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment:

• avoid: REALTOR
• instead, use: Realtor

Same situation.

– flamurai (t) 06:57, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Actually in the MOS:TM article, it actually says to capitalise trademarks, and only avoid using the capitals, as a NOUN, like in normal sentences; otherwise let the article title be capitalized. I see no reason why we shouldn't move it to TIME in that case.--EclipseSSD (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Left of Center

I removed the reference to Time being a left of center newsmagazine, since referring to it as such is a violation of NPOV (See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) At the point that what is the "center" changes as society changes, it would be impossible to classify Time as being left of center. Was it left of center in 1940? Will it be in 20 years? 100 years? If you must classify it, do so later in the article, and say something like "Time was/is considered by some to be left of center in the late 20th early 21st century" Theon 06:42, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

This does not violate the NPOV. TIME magazine (to which I subscribe to), is both openly liberal and widely percieved as such. If stating one publication or another is not of political affilation "A," you have to go through the entire Wikipedia ripping out quite alot. Also, one of the advantages of Wikipedia is that entries can be modified as circumstances dictacte. Ergo, one can state "X is Y" now, but easily change to "X is Z" in the future.

MSTCrow

Some people think "Time is very much down the middle of the political spectrum."[3] You can't put something like that in without a source, and even then it shouldn't be in the lead like it's fact when it's about perception. – flamurai (t) 08:59, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

The other magazines that you cite are pollitical magazines, and as such either advertize their leanings or are specifically designed to have a specific slant that is generally accepted, even by their own publishers. Time is not a pollitical magazine, and does not advertize itself to be a pollitical magazine. To state that it has any leanings, left or right, is therefore completely subjective. A communist might consider Time to be conservative, a republican might consider it liberal. Wikipedia cannot take a stand on wether TIME is left or right of center. If you feel that stating time is left of center is essential to the article, state it as "Some people feel that time is a left of center newsmagazine" or something to that affect. We cannot state the pollitical leanings of an admittedly general newsmagazine as fact. Theon 17:49, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Theon, TIME is left of center. End of discussion. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 04:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Since you're all of a sudden on an NPOV patrol, you might want to go try and argue that Rolling Stone isn't left of center either. Good luck with that. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 05:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion is not a citable source. Redxiv 16:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Time is Right of Centre. Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Joe Klein (on everything except Iraq), goddamn do you have a brain and/or objective bone in your body?

Time is 'Politically Left' only to Americans who are under-educated and over-propagandized by their corporate owners. One only need fact check its foreign policy stories, the academic and journalistic credentials of its contributors, and its own ties to institutional investors, and how this adversely impacts content and hiring decisions, to see this fact. Of course, for many Americans anything to the left of fascism is "liberal." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.238.145 (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Amen!

NBahn (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"Under-educated"???? More like un-brainwashed. You wouldn't know "fascism" if Mussolini himself shoved it up your ass. Equinox137 (talk) 05:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Now, now. There is no need to become uncivil merely because you are hot under the collar.
--NBahn (talk) 11:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hot under the collar? I'm not the one throwing insults such as "under-educated" and "over-propagandized" at those I disagree with. Who got uncivil first? Amazing political double standard that exists here. Equinox137 (talk) 03:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Time is left of center except to the people who actually think the Daily Show is real news and those who are still trying to prove that 9/11 was an inside job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.2.110 (talk) 03:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

From RFC

Hmm... it seems to me that if someone's trademarked name is TIME, we should use TIME. I read the style manual's reference, and earlier comments on REALTOR v Realtor. But someone's brand name is a different matter than someone on the 25th floor in the marketing department of an accounting company who decided to send out a press release with "Our AcCountants! are ready to serve you!" I agree that in that case we wouldn't parrot "AcCountants!" just because that's the way they chose to spell that common word. But there are other instances where Wikipedia has honored the capitalization irregularities of a brand name -- such as iPod. The i is capitalized in the header, but only because of the limitations of Wikipedia... in the article, it is referred to as iPod. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:38, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

But of course "iPod" is a case onto its own because it uses mixed caps, and glues together separate words (if you can call "i" a word, that is). Compare CamelCase, which is neither a brand nor a trademark, but is just spelled that way (and it would indeed make no sense whatsoever to use the regular capitalization rules). Similarly, the iPod is not the "Ipod"; this is not merely capitalization, but loses semantics. This change would be quite a bit more drastic than changing TIME to Time, so I'm not sure the comparison is valid. That said, I personally couldn't care less where the article ends up, and neither, I'd wager, would most of our readers, as long as the article can be found from all of Time and Time magazine and TIME magazine. JRM 21:02, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Wiki in TIME

Interesting that Time did a big feature on Wikipedia. I wonder if people are discussing this anywhere? :) Krupo 04:12, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

No Trekphiler 16:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Stuff TIME

Came across this: in 3 March 1923 debut ish, there was an obit of the last survivor of Cardigan's Light Cav from Balaclava, Thomas Shaw. Trekphiler 16:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Capitalize it already!

TIME is the name of the magazine; the article title and references to it should be capitalized as such. I was sort of OK with the title "Time magazine" (since that is the most common way for other media to refer to the magazine), until I noticed that was just a redirect to the article Time (magazine)! (As if it sits opposite Time (concept).) The "REALTOR" case mentioned in the guidelines is quite different from the case with TIME - REALTOR holds the same meaning in written and spoken English as Realtor. With TIME, however, when the word "magazine" is left out, the capitalization distinguishes it from any other use. The bottom line: the title is the name TIME, not the word Time. -- Renesis13 07:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was not to move --Lox (t,c) 20:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Time (magazine) → TIME (magazine) – {TIME is the name of the magazine} copied from comment above

Voting

• Oppose per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). Dragons flight 09:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dragons flight and MOS. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Support JSIN 10:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• No vote Sorry, I should point out my submission to requested moves was not a support, but prompted by comment above. --Lox (t,c) 11:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support On the basis that TIME has always referred to itself as "TIME" and that BYTE has been moved --Lox (t,c) 20:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support That is the publication's proper title, in full capitalization. Author782 03:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Companies can put their names in all caps; we shouldn't necessarily indulge them. Gamaliel 20:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. Jonathunder 20:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment While this is a CapitalMove, I feel it may be controversial, so I am listing is as a requested move --Lox (t,c) 09:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Please Note If necessary, I also propose a slight change to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). This change would be to allow stylized capitalization of trademarks that would be wrong or harder to understand if trademarked capitalization is not followed (e.g. TIME, but not REALTOR, because TIME does not equal "Time". REALTOR does equal "Realtor"). See my proposal on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (trademarks)#TIME_magazine -- Renesis13 15:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Help me!

For the article Glenn Curtiss an editor deleted the cover of Time magazine I uploaded and wrote: "The fairuse criteria is to illustrate the publication of the issue in question, the article this is used in is not doing this. Deleting." Does this mean covers can only appear under the Time (magazine) article, and not under individual biographies? Should I start deleteing every Time cover not under this article? I see 30 and counting. Someone let me know what the correct answer is.

The same thing happened to the Robert E. Gross article. I don't believe that the deletion was appropriate, but I want to see what other Wikipedians think before doing anything. Willy Logan 16:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer. but the way I understand the fair use policy in Wikipedia is that a "fair use" image can be used only where the imjage itself is discussed in the article. I have used a "fair use" image of an album cover in an article about a band, and justify it by including a discussion, based on a published source, of how the picture on the album cover shows the band leader "shooting the bird" at the audience, as an illustration of the "unacceptable in polite society" status of the band in the 1950s and 1960s. In any case, simply using a Time cover image to illustrate an article about someone is not "fair use", unless there is something signicant to say about the cover that would substantially benefit from showing the cover (being "Man of the Year", for instance, wouldn't be enough reason in my opinion). -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 18:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

TIME 100

Below a list of the people in the TIME 100 (http://www.time.com/time/2006/time100/) Probably these people are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia-page. (At the moment 10% is still missing) Donar Reiskoffer 07:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

   * J.J. Abrams 
   * George Clooney
   * Dixie Chicks
   * Ellen DeGeneres
   * Nicolas Ghesquiere [4]
   * Wayne Gould
   * Philip Seymour Hoffman
   * Arianna Huffington
   * Ang Lee
   * Renzo Piano
   * Rain
   * Rachael Ray
   * Jeff Skoll
   * Kiki Smith
   * Will Smith
   * Zadie Smith
   * Howard Stern
   * Meryl Streep
   * Reese Witherspoon
   * Rob Pardo
   * Daddy Yankee
   * Tyra Banks
   * Dane Cook
   * Matt Drudge
   * Stephen Colbert
   * Mike Brown
   * Kelly Brownell [5]
   * Nancy Cox [6]
   * Richard Davidson
   * Kerry Emanuel
   * Jim Hansen
   * Zahi Hawass
   * Bill James
   * John Jones
   * Ma Jun [7]
   * Jim Yong Kim [8]
   * Steven Levitt
   * Jacques Rossouw [9]
   * Andrew von Eschenbach
   * Jimmy Wales
   * Geoffrey West
   * Muqtada al-Sadr
   * Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf
   * Hugo Chavez
   * George W. Bush
   * John McCain
   * Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
   * Ayman al-Zawahiri
   * Hillary Rodham Clinton
   * Pope Benedict --> Pope Benedict XVI
   * Condoleezza Rice
   * Wen Jiabao
   * Ehud Olmert
   * Pervez Musharraf
   * John Roberts
   * Ismail Haniya
   * Angela Merkel
   * Jigme Singye Wangchuk
   * Archbishop Peter Akinola
   * Junichiro Koizumi
   * Oprah Winfrey
   * Bill Gates & Melinda Gates
   * Bono
   * Michelle Wie
   * Wynton Marsalis
   * Angelina Jolie
   * Bill Clinton & George H.W. Bush
   * Steve Nash
   * Orhan Pamuk
   * Elie Wiesel
   * Jan Egeland
   * Joey Cheek
   * Chen Guangcheng [10]
   * Ian Fishback
   * Wafa Sultan
   * Pernessa Seele [11]
   * Ralph Lauren
   * Mukhtaran Bibi
   * Paul Simon
   * Al Gore
   * Katie Couric
   * Vikram Akula
   * Tom Anderson & Chris DeWolfe [12]
   * Franz Beckenbauer
   * The Flickr Founders [13] --> Caterina Fake & Stewart Butterfield
   * Sean Combs
   * Jamie Dimon
   * Brian France [14]
   * Tom Freston
   * Huang Guangyu
   * Omid Kordestani
   * Eddie Lampert
   * Patricia Russo
   * Sheikh Mohammed
   * Anne Mulcahy
   * Nandan Nilekani
   * Jim Sinegal
   * Steve Wynn
   * The Skype Guys [15] --> Niklas Zennström & Janus Friis
   * Dieter Zetsche

• It looks like "The Skype Guys" each have their own article: Niklas Zennström and Janus Friis (from Skype) -- Renesis13 16:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Bias

How about a section that exposes the blatant liberal bias of TIME? You don't think so? Go to their website and browse the cover stories over the past 10 years. Oh yea, that also makes this article POV. Where's the tag? --Haizum 22:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes because this cover is so ultra-left-leaning it's hard to understand. 67.181.63.245 08:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Great job; you went back 16 years to find one that isn't blatantly liberal! Even then, it' still a picture of a deposed Republican president. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 05:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

How is Time magazine biased? --Lincoln F. Stern 21:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Haizum, you are a goddam IDIOT. TIME is right of centre, they've got Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Joe Klein (on everything except Iraq).

Just because someone and/or something is to the left of you (ie. not a neo-con, religious zealot, idiot Republitard) makes them automatically a leftists POV.

It just makes them normal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.67.78.252 (talk) 13 March 2007

Haizum, you have to cite reliable sources to show this alleged "blatant liberal bias". Creating a section along those lines based on your own personal assessment of the magazine would be original research. Redxiv 21:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You might try doing a search now ... I remember recently reading an opinion piece in a major newspaper (maybe The Dallas Morning News?) complaining that the 2007 edition of the TIME 100 showed a distinct liberal bias by leaving out several people the author argued were unquestionably more influential than those included. Note that I'm not supporting or refuting the argument, but merely pointing out that there is a published source to cite as an example of this criticism. Lawikitejana 15:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: Some published material is mentioned in the article Time 100 under "Controversies." On the same topic, conservative media watchdog group Media Research Center heavily criticized TIME's omission of George W. Bush from its 2007 list of the "100 Most Influential People." The 2007 list also was criticized from a point of view of being overly celebrity-driven (read: heavy with figures from arts and entertainment), including a Bob Gorrell editorial cartoon arguing it was "not a serious news magazine."

Excuse me,

Hello, suppose one were searching for an article by Time from the '40s (interview with Gladys Aylward by Theodore White) how would they go about trying to find this article?Jim Bart 15:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Time has an excellent archive of articles available online. Here is an article on Lyndon Johnson from 1958. I don't know how comprehensive it is or far back the archive goes, but it might be worth mentioning in the article. Good luck. --Tysto 18:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Saddam cover

I understand the parallel between Saddam and Adolf and how well it fits into the collage, but isn't that the exact reason why it shouldn't be in there? The entire "Hussein is the Hitler of the Middle East" propaganda campaign makes it POV - I should think something like having multiple persons of the year, that collage (I can't find it) of TIME covers, a significant event and famous cover, or even a particularly clever Saddam-related cover would better go in its place. 67.181.63.245 08:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

it's illustrative of Time's POV which I suppose is acceptable in a sense JHJPDJKDKHI! 06:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Calling "Hussein is Hitler" a propaganda campaign is indicative of your point of view. Time is making the comparison for it's own reason and it says a lot about both the magazine and the now dead dictator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.2.110 (talk) 03:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Circulation?

The US News and World Report and Newsweek list current circulation. Does anyone have the circulation numbers?

Time isn't centrist

How can you say that Time is centrist? Please, sorry me, but it is nonsense.

Time is Conservative. They're just not crazy about it.

BTW Bill Kristol has been writing a lot of articles for Time recently, should we put him up in the 'notable contributers' column?

removing spam paragraph

Controversy involving Time arose in the summer of 1994. After O.J. Simpson was arrested for allegedly murdering his wife and her friend, multiple publications carried his mugshot. Notably, Time published an edition featuring an altered mugshot, darkening his skin and reducing the size of the prisoner ID number. This appeared on newsstands right next to an unaltered picture by Newsweek. Outcry from minority rights groups followed. Time illustrator Matt Mahurin was the one to alter the image, saying later that he "wanted to make it more artful [sic], more compelling."

A similar paragraph appears in the photo manipulation article. See my notes in the talk section there. Andyohio 14:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Person of the Year online voting

I removed the paragraph re: online voting for person of the year. Being that this voting is only for the interest of users and has no bearing on the actual selection, as well as the fact that a prior user had chosen to make this paragraph pro-wrestling-centered for no apparent reason, I deleted it. Stacker 17:35 EDT 21 Nov 2006

2006 Person of the Year

In my opinion, all reference to the 2006 Person of the Year ought to be removed. It's blatant recentism and is unnecessary for the main Time article. Mention of the pick should be reserved for the Person of the Year article (which, unfortunately, is also falling victim to recentism). -- tariqabjotu 08:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It's short, and I don't see any problem with listing the most recent year's POY. After all Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia, and even the World Book publishes an addendum every year. Besides, I went and properly sourced that paragraph and everything today! :) — Renesis (talk) 08:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think POY does help explain Time's influence on American and world culture. Naming "you" as the POY definitely made it into practically every media outlet in the US and this section should stay. And since I'm supporting this, I might as well say that there should be a section for their Inventions of the Year too. Herenthere 00:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Added a section

I titled it "Joe Klein Controversy". I copied it from the "Joe Klein" article. I'm new to this sort of thing, so comments and criticisms are requested and quite appreciated!<br. />--Nbahn (talk) 10:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

your edit summary partially reverting my edit: "no explanation provided for removal of links by anonymous editor -- plz discuss/explain on talk page"

First of all, please don't distinguish between anon and registered users. Just judge the edit on its merits please.

I copyedited this section, italicizing Time per Wikipedia's manual of style and taking out POV phrases such as "admission" and the word correction with sarcastic scare-quotes around it, and probably some other stuff. I then removed the last line, mainly to make the section shorter. It seems obvious that the current editor would be involved if something contentious is published in his publication, so no great loss.

The reason it would be good to make this section shorter, as short as possible really, is to avoid giving this recent spat undue weight in an article about Time in its entirety. 86.42.83.73 (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, so what do you propose?<br. />--NBahn (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If I was to propose anything, I would probably propose either 1) deleting it altogether from the article as being a mere speck in the history of the magazine, 2) merging it into a controversies section, presuming there are other notable controversies the magazine may have been involved with in its history, 3) condense it to a one or two line summary "Klein yadda FISA yadda Greenwald", or my current pick, 4) leave it be as it is, and leave it to other editors to ascertain if this incident's importance grows or lessens with - you guessed it - time. 86.42.83.73 (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I like your humor!

:-)<br. />--NBahn (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I was editing the Priscilla Painton article and I decided that the material that I was taking out of there belonged here, instead. I guess that this shows where my biases are. I am working on another article that may make all of this moot by Monday. We will see.<br. />--NBahn (talk) 10:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I see you went ahead and made this section bigger. The article now suggests that one Klein column and its limited fallout is, for example, 150% more important to know about Time than their famous Person of the Year feature.

Do you not see that this issue is not that important to an article about a magazine that has an 85 year old history? 86.42.83.73 (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This section does not belong in this article, as per 86.42.83.73 and others. I moved the whole thing over to the Joe Klein article. Madman (talk) 04:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed this sentence

I removed this sentence from the article:

During the 2007–2008 U.S. presidential election, Time at time.com in partnership with CNN ran a headline: "Attention Women of Iowa: Oprah!!!".

While probably true, this sentence has nothing to say about Time in general, nor does it tie into the "Style" section. Time runs many headlines weekly and this is just another one. Thanks, Madman (talk) 14:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I found that quite puzzling myself. I presume it was to do with the use of three exclamation marks, in regard to style and standards changing/slipping or some such. (It was true, I followed the link.) 86.42.83.73 (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The only thing missing was all-caps SHOUTING. Forgive me, this is old-school Internet-speak. Poor editor. I would guess not. -Susanlesch (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"Legal controversy"

Not sure why only one item is mentioned there; the 1983 Sharon libel suit was very famous, and there were many years of wrangling over "The Cult of Greed and Power". AnonMoos (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Public domain issues

Works copyrighted before 1964 had to have the copyright renewed sometime in the 28th year. If the copyright was not renewed the work is in the public domain. Time magazine was not diligent in renewing the copyrights of their early issues. The first renewal was filed in 1962 starting with the January 29, 1934 issue. Time failed to file any renewals in 1963, 1967 and 1972.

The following issues of Time magazine are in the public domain.

• March 3, 1923 to January 22, 1934.
• January 7, 1935 to June 29 1936.
• July 3, 1939 to May 13, 1940
• January 7, 1945 to January 29, 1945.

The table below shows the copyright registrations and renewals of issues up to 1946. The information is from the Catalog of Copyright Entries, published by the US Copyright Office. Online page scans can be found here: http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/ Use the "Renewals for Periodicals" section near the bottom of each year.

Notes: Time magazine has two volumes of about 26 issues a year. The copyright records use a date format of day, month, year.

Renewal Year	Volume	Number	Issue	Copyright	Renewal
1962	23	5	29 Jan 1934	26 Jan 1934 B214218	25 Jan 1962 R289538
-	24	27	31 Dec 1934	28 Dec 1934 B246496	2 Feb 1962 R290021
1963	25	1	7 Jan 1935	NA	1963 None
-	27	23	29 Jun 1936	NA	1963 None
1964	28	1	6 Jul 1936	3 Jul 1936 B306035	2 Jul 1964 R340442
-	29	26	28 Jun 1937	25 Jun 1937 B342541	27 Oct 1964 R347559
1965	30	1	5 Jul 1937	2 Jul 1937 B343591	28 May 1965 R362618
-	31	26	27 Jun 1938	24 Jun 1938 B383181	5 Nov 1965 R372855
1966	32	1	4 Jul 1938	1 Jul 1938 B381891	15 Jun 1966 R387504
-	33	26	26 Jun 1939	22 Jun 1939 B421278	11 Jul 1966 R389156
1967	34	1	3 Jul 1939	NA	1967 None
-	35	20	13 May 1940	NA	1967 None
1968	35	21	20 May 1940	16 May 1940 B456211	2 Jan 1968 R426124
-	38	7	18 Aug 1941	14 Aug 1941 B509211	13 Nov 1968 R448117
1969	38	8	25 Aug 1941	21 Aug 1941 B509413	10 Jan 1969 R453485
-	40	15	12 Oct 1942	8 Oct 1942 B559908	29 Oct 1969 R471757
1970	40	16	19 Oct 1942	15 Oct 1942 B561315	28 Jan 1970 R478766
-	42	9	30 Aug 1943	26 Aug 1943 B598217	28 Aug 1970 R490503
1971	42	10	6 Sep 1943	2 Sep 1943 B598856	1 Jan 1971 R498608
-	45	1	1 Jan 1945	21 Dec 1944 B660596	3 Jan 1972 R520136
1972	45	2	7 Jan 1945	NA	1972 None
-	45	5	29 Jan 1945	NA	1972 None
1973	45	6	5 Feb 1945	1 Feb 1945 B663703	31 Jan 1973 R545536
-	47	25	24 Jun 1946	20 Jun 1946 B26468	23 Oct 1973 R561566

-- SWTPC6800 (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This table has been copied over to Wikisource, where it will be improved and used as a basis of bringing the actual text of the articles to wikiland. Thank you. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Current Cover Controversy and Stengel's Views on Journalism

For only the second time in the history of Time Magazine, Richard Stengel approved the changing of the emblematic red cover to green. Stengel also approved the use of the Battle of Iwo Jima photo, by war photographer Joe Rosenthal.

The April 21st issue of Time was entitled How to Win the War on Global Warming. Donald Mates, an Iwo Jima veteran, told the Business & Media Institute on April 17 that using that photograph for that cause was a “disgrace.” Stengel supported the use of the image and exposed his point of view on journalism. “I think since I’ve been back at the magazine, I have felt that one of the things that’s needed in journalism is that you have to have a point of view about things,” Stengel said. “You can’t always just say ‘on the one hand, on the other’ and you decide. People trust us to make decisions. We’re experts in what we do. So I thought, you know what, if we really feel strongly about something let's just say so.”

Time for Kids

This sentence is unclear to this reader, at least: "The publication hardly ever reaches above fifteen pages front and back."

Should it read "The publication hardly ever exceeds 16 pages in length"? (You can't have a 15-page magazine!)

I'm not changing it because I don't know the publication and can't confidently guess what the editor who contributed this sentence meant. Perhaps somebody who does could tidy it up. Barnabypage (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Time or Time?

Why does the page use "Time" in so many places, and "Time" in a few others? MOS:TM seems to indicate that it should be "Time", doesn't it? shreevatsa (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Unique and notable TIME Magazine covers?

One that comes immediately to mind is the 9/11 special issue cover. That was the only time since the magazine started using the red border that it used a border color other than red. That issue had a black border. When was the red border first used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 23:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

TIME Magazine is Politically Biased

Obama has been cover photo, and cover story SEVEN times in 2008. McCain TWO times. The magazine pushes priority in political bias to an absurd level... at the management editorial and ownership level of the rag, I mean mag. In a similar way, the same political pandering (showing gross favor, and exposure to Democrat Presidential candidates – notably less coverage of Republican candidates) confirmed the reputation of the New York Times to the average reader. Time magazine has once again, proven itself as a (irresponsibly) left-leaning “news magazine”. This (Obama-ism) isn’t the first time. Bwebb00 (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Needs a Critism Section

I agree with Bwebb00---this article definitely needs a criticism section, or at least say something regarding the fact that TIME has taken a distinct and recognizable left turn in recent years. I have read TIME magazine a great deal recently and the magazine overall can't called politically neutral anymore. 152.23.74.94 (talk) 02:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Cato

I disagree -- Time was merely pandering to a probable future president; they pander very well. To illustrate my point, I direct you to these sections here and here.
--NBahn (talk) 04:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Man Booker Prize

It was quite extraordinary to see that Aravind Adiga, for three years a TIME correspondent, won the 2008 Man Booker prize for fiction. I cannot recall the Man Booker ever being won by anyone from the TIME staff, and was going to post that fact on Adiga's wikipedia entry. Does anyone know if any TIME staffer ever won the Man Booker? (I seriously doubt it.) Thanks and regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Red boarder cover image needed

It's how just about everyone alive today visualises TIME - I'd apply the same train of thought and Wikpedia policy of the titles of articles being a person's most well know name rather than anything else to this and suggest a red boarder cover should be the one in the info box and the first issue cover moved down the article. If that is not popular, at least have an image in the article with a red boarder. Syferus (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

user:Syferus, I realize that I'm almost quibbling here.....

.....however, when you replaced

As of mid-2006, Richard Stengel is the managing editor.

with

Richard Stengel is the current managing editor.,

you did everyone a disservice because with the former, everyone knew just how old the information was, and that is not the case with your version. Will you please revert it?
Respectfully,
--NBahn (talk) 05:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Knowing how old it was, perhaps you should have fixed it rather than trying to present a 'gottcha'. If you really wanted to contact me, it should have been done on my talk page. Also, it should be clearer which Time edition is being talked about. Syferus (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

And on a different subject.....

.....if you're looking for uncopywrited front pages, may I refer you to here?
--NBahn (talk) 05:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Whither the newsweeklies?

When Luce and Hadden first began publishing their take on a journal that would wrap up the week's events, little did they know that one day bloggers would sit with laptops a'twitter, and that the 24-hour news cycle would make daily newspapers on paper seem quaint and archaic, much less the newsweeklies, traditionally printed at week's end (TIME gave up on this recently) and distributed lethargically through the mail. All three newsweeklies have struggled to find a place in this new world -- and all three have watched their circulations slide. This fact, which may mean the eventual demise of the category, is the single most important issue facing the magazines, and as they say in the news business, should be covered more in-depth in this piece, and certainly moved closer to the lede. Just my opinion, as an newsweekly staffer.Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 11:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

To what extent is this a U.S. phenomenon, and to what extent a global one? Are the same struggles being experienced at Maclean's, The Economist, L'Espresso? These aren't rhetorical questions - I'm wondering where best on Wikipedia to address the issue. Barnabypage (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent question. The questions confronting the media landscape are now global, thanks to the internet's sway. The announcement today by Newsweek of a major restructuring, and attendant layoffs [16], demonstrates that this downturn, unlike previous ones, is a game-changer. Where best to address these questions? I have wondered this myself, and have raised the same issue on the talk page of The New York Times. What do you think? Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, did you see this interesting recent column from The Financial Times? [17] MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)2021/18：15Cosaic000075269607@gmail.com

Position on Israel

I think the original question was a reasonable one. Does Time have a pro-Israel policy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.107.238.150 (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)82.7.192.163 (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the articles in the magazine? Read, and judge for yourself. --Ericdn (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not like Time magazine - but I have certainly never seen any pro Israeli bias in its news coverage. If anything there is an anti Israeli bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.107.238.150 (talk) 11:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There have been recurring allegations of explicit anti-semitism and anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian bias. Would be interesting to see how regularly they visit the Gulf... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.156.14 (talk) 23:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Whither the newsweeklies

Per a prior discussion on this page, an interesting piece from The Washington Post's media critic Howard Kurtz on "Do Newsmags Still Matter?": [18] MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Move to Time Magazine?

Could we move this article to Time Magazine. That is what it is usually called and just looks better than Time (magazine). --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

According to the article here in Wikipedia, the magazine is trademarked under the name TIME. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to title the article "Time Magazine", as that is not the official title of the magazine, regardless of popular useage. --Ericdn (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't it therefore be renamed TIME (magazine).--Ezeu (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep. The title is correct without the word "Magazine". TIME refers to itself (in the magazine) as TIME, not "Time Magazine". I'm undecided on the capitalization issue. Rolling Stone refers to itself in its articles using capital letters, too. (Small caps actually. See the article on Small caps-- apparently, Newsweek does too.) Blackplate (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Support I support the move to "Time Magazine" as fitting better with WP:COMMONNAME. Articles as much as possible should be in common, not official, formal or trademarked, name. See for example the Big Dig. And it does look better. The small all-caps is a common practice of magazines. Has any article outside of the magazine used all small caps? --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that Time's own website refers to the magazine as "Time Magazine" where as the main page for Time Inc is headlined just as "Time". --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Move it since whenever possible, we should avoid parenthensizing. Red Slash 19:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. the official name is just plain Time. Gamaliel (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. The magazine's name is Time. Binksternet (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. It seems like it definitely should be written in capitals though. The correct name is TIME, not Time. Tiggum (talk) 07:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose and comment. See WP:TITLETM: "Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark. Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalization (Invader Zim)". Time magazine can refer to itself as TIME all it wants, but we use normal capitalization rules until other sources predominantly use TIME. Holy (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. The current title works fine. Rjensen (talk) 08:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Support I support the move to "Time magazine" or "Time Magazine", in accordance with the WP:TITLEDAB policy (natural disambiguation is preferred over parenthetical disambiguation) and the WP:TITLETM policy ("Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalization (Invader Zim)"). (Related: "TIME" is specifically mentioned in the MOS:TMRULES guideline). The official name is irrelevant -- the WP:COMMONNAME policy specifically says "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used". --DavidCary (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Note that a related discussion continues below. — WFinch (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Reporting on the Catholic Church

I noticed that TIME has been reporting on the Church since at least the 1920s Progressive Era, often with its associated progressivist (and critical) ideological bent. For instance, if you look at the newspaper sources for the article on 1920s Cardinal George Mundelein, they all come from TIME magazine. It would be interesting to find out why TIME has done so much reporting on the subject. ADM (talk) 05:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It is no secret that Time magazine hates both Roman Catholic doctrines (such as the Catholic opposition to abortion and Catholic teaching against homosexual acts) and hates the Roman Catholic church as an institution - and hates the present Pope personally (see the recent cover article "being Pope means never having to say your sorry", which was part of general media smear campaign implying that the present Pope covered up child sex abuse - which he did not).

However, the First Amendment means that a newspaper or magazine can have any opinions they want. No one is forced to buy Time magazine - and those who do buy it know that they are getting a "liberal" left view of the world, and there is nothing wrong with a magazine providing that.91.107.238.150 (talk) 11:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No, Time Magazine continues to brand themselves as mainstream when they are clearly not. There are political publications like the Nation and Rolling Stone which calls themselves liberal and the same with conservatives with publications like the National Review and The Weekly Standard. Time Magazine is pushing a biased publication while calling themselves mainstream. They should call themselves what they are. There are laws against misleading the public.2602:306:CC42:8340:3957:5DC7:970E:A4F6 (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Time Lapse Video -→ 85 years (1923 - 2008^AD) of TIME Magazine's Front Covers!

Should that be included inside this article? 118.107.241.2 (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Time Top 100 Hack

http://musicmachinery.com/2009/04/27/moot-wins-time-inc-loses/

http://musicmachinery.com/2009/04/15/inside-the-precision-hack/

Wouldn't this be note worthy on the Wiki Page of the time? It's a fact that the letters spell out what they spell out so at least a note would be good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveClement (talk • contribs) 09:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

TIME Magazine editions in public domain: external www.time.com links

According to what has been detalied in an archived section of this talk page, I am putting bellow the links from the time.com archive search engine results that match exaclty the covers of the editions of the magazine that went on public domain:

• 1923-1934
• 1935-1936
• 1939-1940
• 1945

That’s it.--MaGioZal (talk) 06:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Circulation.

Time Magazine's circulation for 2009 is not given in the article - an update is clearly needed.91.107.104.32 (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Do it then. raseaC^{talk to me} 20:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

---

I note that an update has been given, but it states that Time magazine circulation is 3.4 million for 2009 - the same number as for 2008, and 2007. It does not seem likely that the magazine would have the same circulation three years in a row - and giving the same number does not fit with the massive decline in newsstand sales (are we supposed to be believe that lots of extra people have taken out a subscription to Time?).

It is time for an investigation into possible circulation fraud.91.107.238.150 (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

What happened in 2010 for circulation to jump massively by seven million copies? It's not clear in the article. BillyH 18:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

"As of 2012, it has a circulation of 3.3 million doctor offices and various reception rooms... As of 2014, its circulation was 3,286,467.[1]"

The reception circulation matches total circulation. This suggests "Time" has no non-reception subscribers. Even in a straitened publishing environment, that seems unlikely.

bias?

Anything about Time's political bias? Junuxx (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I must say. Why is there no discussion of TIME Magazine's bias? That seems to be a form of bias in and of itself, not shining an opposing viewpoint on their journalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.173.24 (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue of biased should be addressed. Time has come out with many cover stories that some people feel are controversial or hold a leftwing bias such as: Why are Obama's Opponents so Stupid, Does it Matter Anymore? (in reference to the US consitution), Is your Baby Racist?, and Were all Socialists Now. These controversial articals should at least be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.198.54.206 (talk) 23:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. Since Time is a magazine, it should be obvious to anyone with a brain that its articles include editorializing. Since its articles are written by different writers (and signed) and submitted to different editors and the magazine has a very long history, the editorializing does not present a single monolithic point of view. Even within a single news article, in fact, Time tends to shift between different points of view (and news articles typically have more than one author). TheScotch (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

No nonsense on your end TheScotch. I have been a subscriber for ten years and ever year Time get's more and more liberal towards becoming far left. They demonize right viewpoints and constantly any group disagreeing with liberal agenda as "Far right" They constantly call immigrants 'refugees' when they are technically not, they never focus on the trash and violence that has come with their arrival and even labeled the Hungarian PM as a 'villain.' They are becoming an embarrassment to professional journalism and are going to lose a lot of independent minded subscribers (just like now defunct far left wing Newsweek).

I agree, there is no doubt that Time Magazine has become very left wing. Without outright accusing them of bias, we could just make mention of the allegations and articles that are thought to show a bias from the magazine.2602:306:CC42:8340:3957:5DC7:970E:A4F6 (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Time is owned by the same company who own CNN, so extreme left wing bias is going to be present, as evidenced by the demonizing article on Donald Trump in Dec 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.217.126 (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above seems to illustrate that some people in the US have moved very far right, so far right that they cannot see balanced writing. Many outside the US see this country as moving so far right, that those called "on the left" are really in the middle, politically. Refugees are people fleeing a country where they are not safe to live, and their next step is to immigrate somewhere. There is nothing leftist or liberal about the word refugee. Time is still writing in the middle, and covering all the issues and all the viewpoints. Balance means presenting both sides, not simply the side to which you adhere. --Prairieplant (talk) 09:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

That's a kind of criticism that works both ways and which you should at least consider as also affecting you. People naturally tend to see their own opinions as the "correct" ones, and differing opinions as extremist deviations from that standard. You, for instance, think that America, as a whole, is shifting to the "far right". I don't share that view (even though I admit the country is becoming more partisan); I think that the truth is that European majority views (and I'm in Europe myself) has shifted to the left to such an extent that what used to be seen as perfectly acceptable centrist views are now perceived as "far right". SchnitteUK (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

When it began, Time tilted toward the Republican side but for the past few decades has leaned very clearly and indisputably toward the pro-Democrat side. Saying this is simply honest. Not saying it in the main article is just avoiding the obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Sales and circulation

I wanted to put in both the single copy sales and the circulation numbers for the second half of 2010 - but I have been unable to find the numbers.

I suggest someone else tries - and does the job I have tried, and failed, to do.91.107.69.48 (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Europe?

This article states: "Time Europe covers the Middle East, Africa and, since 2003, Latin America." Presumably, it ALSO covers the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America in addition to Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.139 (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Magazine Content

Should there not be some description in the article of the sort of content and coverage provided by this magazine? I expected to find that under the Style heading, but that basically says that the cover has got a red border, except when it doesn't.

Mind you, from what I remember seeing, the inside pages consist by and large of full-age advertisements with the odd sound-bite filled, explain-something-to-a-three-year-old style article getting in the way. Maybe that's why nobody has bothered to write a Contents section? Just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.151.146.255 (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's gotten skimpier recently, which points to a larger problem: The magazine has a long history such that trying to describe it in detail is aiming at a moving target. TheScotch (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Links

p>> TIME magazine's 'Saving Mexico' issue prompts backlash (Lihaas (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)).

Please avoid linking to amazon.com and other retail websites

There were two external links to amazon in this article that I have replaced with links to pbs and google books. The google books link does not have an E-Book for sale through Google (although the page does incude referral links to a number of book-sellers, including Amazon). Both links include lengthy excerpts. There is almost never a reason to link to a sales page, it should be avoided and at the very least discussed here to avoid COI issues (these were not discussed). Jay Dubya (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"styled ... as"

In addition to my edit summary, "often written" could be considered WP:WEASELly. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 02:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

"Notable contributors"

In order to make this section more meaningful, should we include a qualifying definition of what constitutes a "notable contributor", keeping in mind Wikipedia's article, Notability? (For some historic and literary "fun", see: http://www.theatlantic.com/ideastour/contributors/.) Kibbitzer 04:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kibbitzer (talk • contribs)

Fully protected edit request on 30 March 2017

A protected redirect, TIME, needs redirect category (rcat) templates added. Please modify it as follows:

• from this:

#REDIRECT [[Time (magazine)]]

• to this:

#REDIRECT [[Time (magazine)]]

{{Redirect category shell|{{R from move}}{{R from stylization}}{{R printworthy}}}}

• WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.

The {{Redirect category shell}} template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When {{pp-protected}} and/or {{pp-move}} suffice, the Redirect category shell template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  12:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Martin, and please forgive me – I forgot to add {{R hatnote}}, so it should appear as:

#REDIRECT [[Time (magazine)]]

{{Redirect category shell|{{R from move}}{{R from stylization}}{{R hatnote}}{{R printworthy}}}}

I'm very sorry and thanks again!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  20:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Martin, you are the best!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  16:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Time (magazine). 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/20120305182439/http://www.timemediakit.com/us/media/bios/stengel.html to http://www.timemediakit.com/us/media/bios/stengel.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090430001058/http://platform.idiomag.com/2009/04/times-foray-into-personalized-publishing-time-mine/ to http://platform.idiomag.com/2009/04/times-foray-into-personalized-publishing-time-mine/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402200758/http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~business/bhcweb/publications/BEHonline/2011/baughman.pdf to http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~business/bhcweb/publications/BEHonline/2011/baughman.pdf

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) 05:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Time vs. TIME

Should this page not be for TIME, as opposed to Time, as stated on the magazine's cover and website? While just now changing a page to match this one's lowercase; I realized that I had never seen Time as the name: it seemed to appear everywhere else as TIME, until Wikipedia made it Time, influencing other publishers to do likewise. AHampton (talk) 17:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Does this help? Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, BeenAroundAWhile (talk · contribs)—I'd missed your note. AHampton (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)—

List of countries in infobox

I removed them because nowhere was it specified exactly what the list means. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

magazine's publication frequency

As of January 2021, Time is published on a biweekly basis, not weekly. This is stated in fine print at the bottom of page 2 of the Jan. 18/Jan. 25 issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.24.149 (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I changed the category to bi-weekly, so if this isn't true please revert it. --- Mullafacation {talk page|user page} 15:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Time (magazine)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Time (magazine)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Wilson":

• From False title: Wilson, Kenneth G. (1993), The Columbia Guide to Standard American English, Columbia University Press, pp. 188–189, ISBN 978-0-231-06989-2, retrieved 2009-05-23.
• From Robert Wright (journalist): "Articles by: Robert Wright". wilsonquarterly.com. The Wilson Quarterly. Retrieved 26 August 2011.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Dear bot,

Thanks for catching this. I fixed it. --Macrakis (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Recent changes in editorial slant

Most of the info is out of date or historical in context. We need something to reflect the newer aspects of the magazine. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposed elimination of unneeded parenthesis in article title

Wikipedia is not the first to ponder how to refer to the magazine. Both the Chicago Manual of Style and AP style guidelines among others have agreed upon "Time magazine". I suggest we do likewise. Any counter-arguments or discussion? Otherwise I will propose this move. -- Infrogmation (talk)

Hi @Infrogmation:. It looks like we're continuing our conversation from Commons. I don't know much about Commons, but I'm pretty well versed in Wikipedia style. Here, the article Time is the primary topic for the word time (the continued sequence of existence and events that occurs in an apparently irreversible succession from the past, through the present, into the future). We have Time (disambiguation) which lists a lot of things called "Time"; especially note the long list of films, albums and songs, all of which have some term to disambiguate the word time following in parentheses.

Wikipedia doesn't uses the title "Time (magazine)" because it thinks that is the correct title any more than the article titles we have chosen for The Ring (magazine), Life (magazine), Ms. (magazine) or New York (magazine). The text in parentheses is for disambiguation. Similar to The Ring, Life, Ms. and New York, the title of the magazine we are dealing with is Time. It has had various subtitles or slogans over the years, but those are not the title. For example, at Wikipedia:Disambiguation, it shows articles "titled Mercury (element), Mercury (planet) and Mercury (mythology)." The text "(magazine)" is similar to the text "(element)", "(planet)" and "(mythology)".

Your example from Chicago shows "Time magazine" in running text, but I'm pretty sure in a reference or if it was clear from context that it was a magazine, it would just say Time. The second from Writing Explained, says that the AP Stylebook would recommend:

• Men’s Health
• Better Homes and Gardens
• Time magazine
• W magazine

I'd like to see the AP Stylebook on that directly because I think Writing Explained is wrong about Time and W. The word "magazine" should not be in italics.

I think the present article title is right for Wikipedia, though something different may work better at Commons. SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose as I noted as Common the reason why sources use the lower case magazine is to say that "magazine" isn't part of the name which is why its in brackets here similar to Mercury though the element is a common noun so could be lower cased if that was common but it isn't. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose --Broichmore (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Support I support the move to "Time magazine" or "Time Magazine", in accordance with the WP:TITLEDAB policy (natural disambiguation is preferred over parenthetical disambiguation) and the WP:TITLETM policy ("Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalization (Invader Zim)"). The official name is irrelevant -- the WP:COMMONNAME policy specifically says "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used". Many writers use the phrase "Time magazine" (with lowercase "m") to unambiguously refer to this magazine (rather than, say, it's parent company). If that's the "most common" unambiguous phrase, then that's what Wikipedia policies say we should use as the title. (Whether or not it's part of the name). (Related: "Apple keyboards" and "Google search engine" suggested by the article "Why you should never use your brand name as a noun or verb", and "Lego bricks" suggested by the International Trademark Association). (I'm fine with shortening it to merely "Time" in the running text). --DavidCary (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Many magazine articles use parentheses to disambiguate. In addition to the titles mentioned above, examples are Look (American magazine), Look (UK magazine), Vanity Fair (magazine), Vanity Fair (British magazine), Vanity Fair (American magazine 1913–1936) , and many others in Category:Magazines published in the United States, Category:Defunct magazines published in the United States, and Category:Defunct magazines published in the United Kingdom. That naming system seems clear, and this article title should be left as it is unless there's consensus to change the whole scheme. — WFinch (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Note a related discussion above. — WFinch (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)