Talk:Time (magazine)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Position on Israel[edit]

I think the original question was a reasonable one. Does Time have a pro-Israel policy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC) (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 (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 (talk) 23:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Whither the newsweeklies[edit]

Per a prior discussion on this page, an interesting piece from The Washington Post's media critic Howard Kurtz on "Do Newsmags Still Matter?": [1] MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Move to Time Magazine?[edit]

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)

Reporting on the Catholic Church[edit]

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. (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 - 2008AD) of TIME Magazine's Front Covers![edit]

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

Time Top 100 Hack[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 09:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

TIME Magazine editions in public domain: external links[edit]

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

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


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

Do it then. raseaCtalk 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. (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.


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 (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 (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 (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Sales and circulation[edit]

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. (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


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 (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Magazine Content[edit]

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 (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)


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

Please avoid linking to and other retail websites[edit]

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"[edit]

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

"Notable contributors"[edit]

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: Kibbitzer 04:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kibbitzer (talkcontribs)

Fully protected edit request on 30 March 2017[edit]

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}}}}

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)