Talk:The Seattle Times/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

A criticism of the 'Criticisms' section

I'm a bit dubious about the "Criticisms" section: as it stands, none of the stated criticisms are backed up by references. (Where there is a statement of the form "The Times was criticized for doing X", some of them have references showing that the Times did do X, but none have references showing that the Times was criticized.) What's more, nowhere does it state who did the criticizing, merely referring to unnamed "many critics". --Paul A 16:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and I have removed pending citations of actual criticism. Even then, I'm not sure that it is noteworthy that some people disagreed with the Times' political endorsements, since it is pretty much given that someone is going to disagree with any endorsement. CAVincent 22:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Expansion

An area of expansion for this article would be explaining the papers conservative bias because of the Blethen families hate of the estate tax. It is well known in journalism circles that editorial decisions and political endorsements have been made and lost because of the Blethen obsession on this single issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.29.244 (talk) 01:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Michelle Kwan headline

Is a controversy relevant to this newspaper. One the newspaper felt it needed addressing. All controversies involving a publication would be deleted under your criteria. It's actually part of this newspaper's history, as is Stephen Glass controversy at The New Republic, and countless others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs) 02:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Not being from Seattle, I don't know how big of a deal the controversy was. But Wikipedia submissions should at least be accurate. The subheadline was not "American outshines Kwan," but rather "American outshines Kwan, Slutskaya in skating surprise." I think the entire coverage is unfair, though, to include the subheadline out of context at all. It gives the impression that the intended focus was that an American beat Kwan, as if the winner wouldn't be an American if Kwan won. The true focus of the article was that Sarah Hughes had won; the subheadline only intended to let the reader know that Hughes was an American. The notion that the editor didn't consider Kwan an American is simply not credible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.57.0 (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Seattle 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:

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Multiple publication names are well documented, do not remove well sourced facts.

I have undone [this edit] --- DO NOT REVERT WITHOUT DISCUSSION HERE --- by SounderBruce (talk · contribs) as it asserts the false claim ``Was always legally just "Seattle Times"`` without ANY source and in exact opposition to the included (and also removed in the same edit) VERY reliable [source (U.S. Library of Congress)] which shows the publication has had different names in its history including 70 years as The Seattle Daily Times. 47.176.126.162 (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)