Jump to content

Talk:Evening Standard

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 82.132.244.222 (talk) at 10:23, 24 October 2014 (→Political independence). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Move

Remove (London) from the title:

  • No reason for the disambiguation with the other page being a redirect to here. Jooler 18:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 10:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Metro

I've removed some of the text relating to Metro, as this is an entirely separate newspaper (available throughout the UK, not just the London commuter area) and already has its own article. It isn't an alternative edition of the Standard as the previous text seemed to imply. AdorableRuffian 00:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

London has its own edition, as do any other areas in which it is distributed, I believe.

Tyrenius 04:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All UK national newspapers are "localised" to some extent, though - Metro is no exception. For what it's worth, the different Metro editions are more or less identical, apart from the event listings, classified advertisements and similar. AdorableRuffian 22:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National and international news

It would be very misleading not to state that it gives a standard covering of national and international news. It is not like a normal local paper, which would only cover stories relating to the locality. Another point to bear in mind is that the supposedly "national" papers themselves have a disproportionate amount of London stories, because it is the capital.

Tyrenius 01:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could make a similar point about the Standard, though - it has a disproportionate amount of "national interest" stories because London is the capital (and hence generates more such stories than any other city). It's not because the Standard is striving to be a national/international newspaper, or indeed anything other than a London local paper.
I would certainly disagree with the notion that the Standard gives a "standard covering" of national news. As a Northerner, it is very obvious to me that coverage of non-London stories of national importance is exceedingly thin on the ground in comparison to the national dailies. AdorableRuffian 22:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


History section full of nonsense

The history section does not make sense at all. Whoever wrote that has completely confused the different papers.

The London newspaper called the Evening News started in 1881 and in 1893 the Harmsworth brothers bought it from Coleridge Kennard for £25,000. It became highly successful and was one of the leading popular papers. It assimilated many other papers, for example the Evening Mail in 1901 and appeared for few years under the name The Evening News and Mail. But it always returned to the name Evening News. It was incorporated into the the Evening Standard (actually twice) in the 1980s.

The Evening Standard is a completely different newspaper that started in 1827 and was a long time rival for the Evening News, until the merger in the 1980s. But right now, I don't know enough about that to rewrite the history.

So, I'm removing the history section from the actual page, because it is clearly misleading. I'm pasting it here just in case.

For sources, see for example:

  • Engel, M. (1996) Tickle the Public : One hundred years of the popular press. Gollancz, London.
  • Lee, A.J. (1976) The Origins of the Popular Press in England 1855–1914. Croom Helm, London.
  • Herd, H. (1952) The march of journalism : the story of the British press from 1622 to the present day. Allen & Unwin, London.

Removed history section: The paper was launched as the Standard on May 21, 1827, and for a short period, during the 1990s, it reverted to its original name (some other local newspapers in the UK have also been named Evening Standard). In 1893, it was sold under the name, London Evening News; nearly bankrupt, it was rescued by Alfred Harmsworth, who revitalized it by appealing to the popular taste. Within a year, its circulation had grown to 160,000 and was returning handsome profits.

In the beginning of the twentieth century, the paper was owned by Canadian tycoon Lord Beaverbrook, who also owned the Daily Express. At this time there were fourteen evening newspapers in London, but one by one they merged until there were three left. The Star merged with the Evening News in 1960, and the two remaining papers were great rivals until they shared ownership in the 1980s. In 1980, the Evening News was incorporated into the Evening Standard, leaving London with one single evening paper. The Evening News name still appears on the Standard's masthead.

I wrote a separate article on the history of The Evening News. Maybe someone who knows something could write the history of the Evening Standard.

--Gemena 18:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I remember the Evening Standard was merged into the Evening News to create the New Standard, which eventually retitled itself the Evening Standard. The EN, NS and new ES were all printed on the same Daily Mail presses in Fleet Street -- my grandfather was an electrician on the presses. Surely this article should at least make some reference to the Evening News? Mrstonky (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course it should be mentioned. My point was that the old text was so misleading that it was not worth keeping. As I said, someone should completely rewrite the history section. Naturally including also the merger with the Evening News. --Gemena (talk) 08:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New name

It is seems that as of yesterday the paper has been renamed the "London Evening Standard": [1] almost-instinct 08:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was not moved at this time. It is likely that consensus will change, though, if the paper becomes better known by it's new official name. Aervanath (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evening Standard → London Evening Standard — I have requested a page move from Evening Standard to London Evening Standard. - Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 10:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does it seem as if the paper's change of name is going to stick, and they're not going to do a "New Coke" and change back in a couple of months? If it seems permanent, then I support the move. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 14:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As with Ed Fitzgerald, I would support as long as the change is permanant. Given that the paper has been just "Evening Standard" for so long though, we might want to address that in the intro. YeshuaDavid (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. No evidence that this has become the common name used to refer to the publication, even if the official name has recently changed. Per WP:UCN. Dekimasuよ! 09:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Both Evening Standard and London Evening Standard should both go to the same page. However, as a lot of links outside of Wikipedia may already point to Evening Standard it should remain as the "master". --SteamedTreacle (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Surely the "be precise where necessary" clause of WP:NC means we should use the correct publication title as the article name, not the most common name? Yes, I'm aware of WP:OFFICIALNAMES, but you have a newspaper being sold on the streets under one name, and a title which seems outdated. YeshuaDavid (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That phrase is meant to apply to situations in which a proposed title is vague (thus, the "necessary"). "Evening Standard" isn't vague to the best of my knowledge, so both titles are sufficiently precise. If you think the current title is outdated, please show that current usage in third-party sources has also changed. Dekimasuよ! 13:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Examples:

There are obviously much more mentions of Evening Standard online, but it is a recent move. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 17:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Political independence

I wonder if we can get a third party source that they are truly politically independent now? MRSC (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They have always been conservative, even before the general election! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTruth321 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not impartial towards the European Union, it spews pro-EU propaganda!

Front cover

This article would be improved by having more recent front cover as its main picture, to reflect the change in name and format the page has undergone since 2009. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

local

I suggest it's a regional newspaper. This distinguishes it from papers which circulate in just parts of London. Before it became free-of-charge, it could be bought in many parts of the south-east and further afield. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.57.113 (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 04:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evening Standard → London Evening Standard – It was bought out by a Russian billionaire for a song and relaunched as a freesheet. While Londoners call it the Evening Standard, it's styled as the London Evening Standard, so indicating that's the proper unambiguous name  Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 04:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


  • Support. A newspaper's name is determined by what appears on its masthead. This newspaper's masthead has read "London Evening Standard" since 2009 so that is now the official name of the paper. -- Alarics (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Editions

There is detailed information in the Lebedev takeover section of article about the daily editions of the paper before and after 4 January 2010. But there is nothing about any previous or subsequent changes. I am not sure what level of detail is appropriate in the article, but if someone wants to edit the article here is a note about the current position (based on my observation of copies on 24 June 2014):

There are two editions (which can be seen online where they are called "West End Final A" and "West End Final B"). There is no distinction on the front page of the printed copies which all say "West End Final". Any other updated pages (and also the back page) of the later "B" edition have a star near the page number. JonH (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accessing archives

Hi everyone. I'm hoping someone who is more familiar with this newspaper can help me. I'm trying to track down an article that appeared in the Evening Standard on June 5, 1997 (It was an interview with Jean Paul Gaultier). I note that the official website lists an archive that appears to go all the way back to January 1997, but clicking on the link for June 5 1997 shows no content for that date (as does many other dates in 1997/1998). Is this archive a work in progress, with older articles being added all the time? I can't imagine any other reason why 1997 is listed in the archives yet all the dates I checked for that year remain blank. Or is there another reason there is no content in older archives? Alternatively, is there somewhere else I can view old articles from this newspaper? A paid site for example? I would be more than happy to pay for this particular article. Anyway thanks in advance for any clarification/help you can provide. Freikorp (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the London Evening Standard has yet been digitised for pre-1998. According to my own notes, 1998 onwards was available at Newsbank (requires local library card) but seems to have disappeared from there, for reasons not explained. Pending further digitisation progress (which is by no means a certainty), it may be that your only recourse is to visit the British Library at St Pancras, which has it on microfilm (shelfmark NRM MLD24). -- Alarics (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your prompt reply. It's quite annoying that the archive lists all dates up to the beginning on 1997, yet seems to stop actually having content in 1998. I can only hope that the reason 1997 is listed with no content on their website is because they are planning to add content in the (hopefully not too distant) future :). Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evening_Standard&oldid=630914897"