Talk:Asia Times Online

Untitled

Why is there a revert war between Spengler and Pepe Escobar? One is a major columnist and the other is a key journalist. They should both be there. Cease this foolishness at once children! --I (talk) 11:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no source for anything said about the Asia Times, 100,000 readers makes it virtually irrelevant within Asia

Asia Times also acts with a strong Agenda with weak reporting standards. Most recently, for example, an editorial attempted to comment on the Iranian elections while getting Ayatollah Khamenei and ex-President Katami confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.74.198.27 (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I can attest to that. I have personally sent in a letter to the editor (it was printed and a correction made to the article) about an article where it was claimed that China shot down a U.S. military plane! (It was actually a mid-air collision resulting in the complete loss of the Chinese plane). However this does not mean that ATol is insignificant, 100k regular readers equates to a significant website, especially given that it's published in both english and chinese and that not all the readers live in Asia. Furthermore your comment is highly Anglo/Eurocentric, I'm almost certain that hundreds or thousands of 'local' newspapers for towns and cities in the U.S., Europe, Australia etc. that have much smaller readerships are covered in wikipedia. ATol actually has flesh and blood foreign correspondants like Escobar, it's certainly notable by wiki standards. --I (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

See the discussion above regarding the text "and to be one of Asia's most popular news sites". There are probably something like 300 million or maybe by now up to near a billion internet users in Asia as of early 2011. If there's a reliable source presenting the claim, then please provide it. I could imagine that a website that has something like "the most uniformly spread Asian readership", e.g. a minimum of x% of the population in each of the 5 most populous Asian countries and a minimum of y% in 10 of the 6th to 25th most populous, might have a fairly low readership, since most people probably stick to local or national language/culture publications. But in any case, we need a proper source. Boud (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This is material removed from Asia Times because it's irrelevant over there.

"The domain atimes.com attracted at least 2.4 million visitors annually by 2008 according to a Compete.com study.<ref>Asia Times attracts at least 2m visitors yearly online</ref>"

The only useful info i see there is Unique Visitors 117,637, but it's unclear if this is daily or monthly. If we multiply by 365 or 12, we get 44 million or 1.4 million visitors per year, but this is an overestimate, since many readers are likely to read the site more than once per year. In any case, anyone who wants to restore this material will need to work a bit more... Boud (talk) 11:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge Pages?

The site is no longer known as Asia Times Online. It is simply Asia Times. I recommend merging this page with the separate Wikipedia page for Asia Times, as they basically overlap. In any case, both pages need more independent sourcing. PumpkinKitten (talk) 08:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I second the recommendation to merge Asia Times Online to Asia Times. They are iterations of the same publication. —A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 06:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support The two articles are redundant. DA1 (talk) 05:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
• support. There are two publications, the original print one (see this revision of that article) and the current online one, but they are related, the combined article would not be too long and would better serve readers.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 06:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Oct 2016 Changes

The site just relaunched. I made a lot of changes - Removed that it was bilingual with Chinese-language reporting

- Removed old abbreviation

- Removed that it is also based out of Bangkok. It seems based in Hong Kong now

- Removed Douglas Tsuruoka as chief editor

- Removed self-promotional language to just keep to facts

- Removed 2 dead links in "External Links". “The Best of Pepe Escobar” and "The Complete Henry CK Liu" now go to blank pages with 404 errors.

- Removed categories that no longer apply - like Chinese-language newspaper, bilingual newspaper, etc.

- Added news of Oct 2016 relaunch to top

PumpkinKitten (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)