Talk:Financial Times

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

Vandalism[edit]

I just found this under "Editorial Stance":

NOTE:Fiancial times is a key tool of US and UK propaganda and solely exists to advance their interests.It is thus not a credible and trustworthy source of information especially on topics critical of US and UK particulalrly on foreign interference.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.228.172.99 (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] 

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Financial 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) 22:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of The Next Web into Financial Times[edit]

The Next Web is a rather low ranking website, owned by the notable Financial Times. Perhaps worth a line or two in that article and, if not, deserves to be listed there. gidonb (talk) 01:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do not agree. Mention TNW on the FT page and link to the TNW article. XavierItzm (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge. TNW is a separate property. FunkyCanute (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of a picture on FT page[edit]

There is a photo used on FT page and under it, the caption: "The FT has been owned by Nikkei since 2015; the Japanese holding company purchased the paper for £844m ($1.32 billion)." It is a little bit down the page. This is very confusing as all it shows is a bunch of buildings and we don't know is it London or is it in Tokyo, Is it FT building or is it Nikkei building. And if it is either of these two, then which building we are talking about, because all we see is a number of buildings there. A caption should explain a picture not confuse readers further. I know it is the work of some artist or photographer, but what is the relation to anything FT? If no explanation is provided in the next 2-3 months, I will take the initiative of removing the picture and the caption. werldwayd (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]