Talk:Financial Times
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Financial Times article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days ![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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)
- Do not agree. Mention TNW on the FT page and link to the TNW article. XavierItzm (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- Do not merge. TNW is a separate property. FunkyCanute (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
Labour Party for the uk general election 2024? 68.199.243.137 (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Given that the Editorial Stance edit ("Vandalism") highlights some telling questions about the true nature of the FT, might it not be retained somewhere? 2.27.2.80 (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
UN-Affair: Journalism for another World War?
Given that some of the points highlighted were useful/of some interest, did the whole section of text need to be deleted? 2.27.2.80 (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- B-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in Society and social sciences
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Society and social sciences
- B-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
- B-Class London-related articles
- Low-importance London-related articles
- B-Class WikiProject Business articles
- Top-importance WikiProject Business articles
- WikiProject Business articles
- B-Class Journalism articles
- High-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- B-Class Finance & Investment articles
- Mid-importance Finance & Investment articles
- WikiProject Finance & Investment articles
- B-Class Newspapers articles
- High-importance Newspapers articles
- B-Class Websites articles
- Low-importance Websites articles
- B-Class Websites articles of Low-importance
- B-Class Computing articles
- Unknown-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- All Websites articles