Talk:The New York Times/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

"Allegation of bias" wording in Modern controversy section.

This sentence has long mentioned allegations of both liberal and conservative bias against the New York Times as the section (now a daughter) discusses criticisms from both the left and the right. An editor is repeatedly removing the word "conservative" from this to give the impression that only a liberal bias is alleged against the Times. This is inaccurate and not supported by the cites which already exist. Chief among these is the Judith Miller controversy, in which the Times is accused of having been insufficiently critical of the Bush Administration and overtly supportive of the war effort. I had thought that consensus was reached on this some time ago, but it seems to have been lost when the section was split to a daughter page. Comments? --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you point to a cite that supports that the NYT is "often accused of having a conservative bias"?. Please don't just revert, thanks, --Tom (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"Don't just revert?" Physician, heal thyself. You have repeatedly removed language that was long ago agreed upon and done so without any discussion or explanation. Are you at all familiar with the criticism the Times received for the coverage of Iraq by Judith Miller and the related editorials by William Safire? It is well-cited in other sections of this article (and in the daughter), but if you need me to spell it out in that specific sentence, I will. Let's hope that is the end of this. I try to avoid edit wars so I will provide additional sources (particularly in the discussion of the Judith Miller controversy) in which the Times was accused of furthering a conservative agenda, and then I will leave it alone for a bit. Once cited, I assume that you will not then continue to remove it, correct? To do otherwise would seem to indicate an agenda of some sort. Thanks! --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I do have an agenda just for the record, its stated on my user page. Cheers! --Tom (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)ps, I see your interests here. What is your agenda?--Tom (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(As an experienced editor, you should know that is a highly inappropriate use of edit counters.) I'm really not sure why you're trying to make this personal but since you asked, my edits are primarily concerned with reverting vandalism and defending against tendentious editing. Mostly this comes from patrolling the recent changes, but I also watch several articles that are frequent targets. In the Times article, attempts to inject POV tend to involve inserting criticism in the lede, creating new "Controversy" sections and/or giving undue weight to whatever "scandal" has the bloggers enraged that day, and (as in this case) attempts to remove reference to any controversy other than allegations of liberal bias. All of these positions have long since been hammered out by consensus.

Back to the New York Times article (which is really all we should be discussing here), as you mentioned that you still don't like the wording, perhaps you can suggest better wording here so that there can be some consensus? I feel that you and I are not at all fundamentally opposed in our positions on neutrality and that agreement can be easily reached. Thanks! --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggested that maybe the two accusations should be broken out. To say that the NYT is often accused of having a conservative bias needs to be cited, thats all. Also, please do not remove or edit my comments. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 14:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The New York Times is not often accused of a conservative bias. It's often accused of a liberal bias. To say otherwise is trying to deflect criticism. As I stated above, employees of the paper itself have agreed that it has a liberal bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigmaman (talk • contribs) 16:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The current front page image

It appears that somebody has replaced the front page image with one that's not real. If you look closely, the headlines are all absurd and one even has a bad word. 70.251.27.129 (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This is true. Examples: "Independents Hate Everyone in This Race", "Obama Attempts to Act Like a Kennedy", etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.246.55 (talk) 04:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It was done by user:Wonker Zonker (whose only contributions were this vandalism). We'll keep an eye on it to make sure it doesn't get reverted again. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Image for deletion

Image:NYT header.JPG has been marked for deletion and is noted here. Someone may want to write a fair-use rationale using the appropriate template. ww2censor (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Endorsements

The article talks about the paper's alleged bias, but doesn't seem to have anything on which Presidential candidates/parties it has endorsed down the years. Can someone add something on this? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me. I will see if I can find something. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Tuvia Grossman

The reference to the AP photo of Tuvia Grossman that was published by the New York Times is being removed, do people have opinions?

On September 30, 2000, the Times misrepresented Tuvia Grossman, an American student from Chicago, as a Palestinian. Grossman was published in a photograph with his bloody head sitting in front of an approaching, club-wielding Israeli policeman. In fact, the Israeli policeman was protecting Grossman from a large Palestinian mob that severely beat and stabbed him. The Times correctly retold the events of the story in the October 7 issue that year and credited the error to erroneous captions based on information from the Associated Press.

References

I see it as a legitimate story for both the New York Times article and the AP article. It caused a stir when it was published, and it has its own Wikipedia article. I would like to see it stay. I think if people believe it is not encyclopedic, the argument needs to be made at the article on Tuvia Grossman. This in not just erratum corrected the next day, the war of words that followed went on for months. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That the "war on words that followed went on for months" has not been established at all. In fact, the sources provided don't really indicate that this was even notably controversial (they are primarily from blogs and partisan "watchdog" groups). Where are the reliable third-party stories in mainstream news about this big controversy? Are there any? Also, the fact that Tuvia Grossman is notable enough to have his own wikipedia article doesn't have anything to do with whether he is notable in an article about the Times. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Of the links above, the first three are irrelevant (they don't even mention Tuvia Grossman). The fourth one is a dead link. That leaves only the New York Times' comments on it at the time and the comments made at the time by the foreign ministry and a watchdog group critical of the Times. That's hardly the basis for an "Historical Controversy." --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not so sure about immediately bringing this to a vote (see WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY), but I will say the content is notable, and deserves inclusion. However, the material used as is is probably too extensive (only a short accounts should do): the rest belongs in Criticism of the New York Times. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This was a notable story when it occurred (and still is), and has been viewed as reflecting evidence of a consistent anti-Israel bias in the Times. A short mention in this article (perhaps in a larger context) would be appropriate. Alansohn (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is this being "voted" on before even being discussed? That's not how Wikipedia works. That said, this story does not come anywhere near the level of notability needed to be considered an "Historical Controversy" in an encyclopedic history of the Times. Are you really trying to argue that this incident is as important as, say, the Pentagon Papers? It might warrant a mention in the "Criticism of..." article, but even as far as modern controversies go, it's pretty minor. Compare it to Jayson Blair or even the Move-on ad and it's a very small story that, once explained, had no consequence for the times other than a retraction. Further, there are serious WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV issues with the language as written. There is far too much detail provided and the use of phrases like "misrepresented" imply that the Times was intentionally culpable in this. And lastly, the fact that there is a wikipedia article on Tuvia Grossman is not a valid argument for inclusion here. There are literally thousands of articles on wikipedia whose subjects are considered notable by their appearance in the Times, but that does not mean they are notable to an article about the Times itself. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not a "vote" it is developing consensus, rather than edit warring. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but why is the discussion formatted as a vote? I'm going to reformat it as a discussion if you have no objections.--Loonymonkey (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

How can we keep track of consensus, without a tally? Especially when the edit summaries have been expressing that there already was a consensus at the talk page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

For starters, a tally is not consensus. See WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY for a further explanation of this. Also, the "vote" is framing the argument wrong from the start. I am not arguing for deletion of something and my comments do not belong in a separate section called "For Deletion." --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"X has its own Wikipedia article" does not mean that "X must be mentioned in article Y too", especially if Y is about a very notable and broad subject. To quote from WP:UNDUE:

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.

The "controversies" sections should be restricted to major controversies of the paper's 150 year history which were of lasting importance. It is simply not possible to list every error correction and every justified grief that has ever been voiced against the NYT. By the way, according to Tuvia Grossman, in this case the primary error wasn't even made by the NYT staff, but by an Israeli photographer working for AP, and numerous other newspapers replicated that error, too (curiously, no one has added this incident to the article The Wall Street Journal yet).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I second this sentiment. No reasonable reading of our policies would suggest that this minor incident deserves mention in what is a broad and synthetic treatment of the subject. Moreover, there is simply no way that this inclusion would be sustained through any independent review process, given both UNDUE (quoted above) and WP:NOT - Not News. Eusebeus (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sample image about Armenian genocide

I'm just throwing this out there for consideration, but isn't the caption and perhaps the choice of image a little off base? The caption doesn't contain any information relevant to discussion of the New York Times, and the citation just points to a list of New York Times headlines about the Armenian genocide. Although this information may be important for describing historical coverage of that event, it seems somewhat overly specialized for an article about the paper itself. Maybe we could have a sampling of headlines from the history of the paper to show the evolution in style? (Well, at least until they are no longer public domain.)

I know some people are sensitive about this issue, so I thought I'd open up a discussion before changing anything.

Disclaimer: I am a rather predictably liberal Canadian with no particular interest (or lack of) in the Armenian genocide.76.118.181.100 (talk) 04:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

McCain's supposed affair

Is there a reason the story the Times printed about a supposed affair McCain had isn't included in the "controversies" section?--Loodog (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversies in the 2000's

I reverted these recent changes. The previous text had an obvious POV, it recasts the SWIFT program from a 'program to detect terrorist financier' to a 'scheme to access transactional database'. How can you make this change and leave no reference that the intent was to track terrorist funding? There is no reference that the Belgian government declared that the SWIFT program was illegal. And what Bill Keller posts in a blog in hardly encyclopedic, just his opinion. Lets not try to sort out the politics of the SWIFT scandal.

I am new user to wiki, so maybe I dont understand the policy, but I changed Wikiwatch's edit of my edits and provided an explanation. Wikiwatch, just reverted the changes without comment. Isnt it proper to add an explanation?

In the new edits, it reads the the other newspapers were invoved somehow in the publication of the story. This is clearly not true. The choice of words: 'scheme' over 'program' suggest POV. As well removal of the fact that the program targeted terrorist also suggest POV. To quote the Editor of the Times in response to a controversy doesn't clarify the article. Certainly the editor of the newspaper might hold the belief that he did nothing wrong. That is why it is a controversial.

I will wait on this one. I hope that Wikiwatch is able to reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GomerMcFlarp (talk • contribs)

I cleaned up the SWIFT section and tried to tone down the POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.171.180.101 (talk • contribs)

""I reverted these recent changes. The previous text had an obvious POV, it recasts the SWIFT program from a 'program to detect terrorist financier' to a 'scheme to access transactional database'. How can you make this change and leave no reference that the intent was to track terrorist funding?""

Since the it clearly stated that the program being revealed was called the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program it seems redundant to say that it is to detect terrorist financing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwatch (talk • contribs)

Sign your posts with ~~~~ thanks, Travb (talk) 08:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"How Much Longer Can the Grey Lady Get Away With Sloppy Journalism", asks Janice Shaw Crouse in a new article, NY Times admits to a blatent lie (one I can't figure out where to add to Wikipedia's NYT entry and which starts thus): "A major journalistic scandal was finally acknowledged during the long news hole leading up to the New Year’s celebrations when the headlines were consumed by former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s execution and the funeral of former U.S. President Gerald Ford. It was revealed last week that in April 2006 The New York Times Magazine published a long cover story that hinged on a blatant lie.

"The facts of the case came to light in November through the efforts of a pro-life Web site, LifeSiteNews.com. At first, The Times editors stonewalled over the facts, then they covered up the reporter’s biased sources and denied unethical journalistic practices. Finally, the newspaper’s ombudsman, Byron Calame, wrote a column on December 31, 2006 detailing the newspaper’s malpractice in the April 9 story. Amazingly, but not surprisingly, the newspaper’s editors saw no reason to “doubt the accuracy” of the story, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. So, no retraction, no recriminations and no firings.

"This incident is reminiscent of the case in 1992 when Rigoberta Menchu was awarded the Nobel Prize for a fabricated autobiography of her life in the 1987 book I, Rigoberta Menchu. Hearing of the fraud, the New York Times sent one of its investigative reporters to Guatemala with the purpose of verifying Ms. Menchu’s claims in the supposed “autobiography” Ms. Menchu's defenders still claim that the dishonesty of her account is of no consequence, because her words are “metaphorically true;” she remains a hero to the left.

"Likewise, fabrications in support of radical causes apparently are considered legitimate today by The New York Times –– the ends justify the means, as the facts of the Climaco case illustrate. In April 2006, The New York Times Magazine published a nearly 8,000 word cover story about the problems in El Salvador resulting from laws treating abortion as a crime. The story featured a young woman, Carmen Climaco, who was sentenced to 30 years in prison for supposedly aborting an 18-week-old unborn baby. The truth is that Ms. Climaco gave birth to a full-term baby that she strangled to death. A panel of judges found her guilty of “aggravated homicide.”

"Jack Hitt, author of the piece, is a freelance writer for numerous elite left-wing publications. He used a local translator associated with Ipas, an abortion advocacy group in El Salvador who later used the story to raise money. No one at The Times bothered to check his work. No one asked to see the court documents related to the case."

Crouse's conclusion: "Once again, if a story is “metaphorically true,” if it fits The Times’ leftist ideology, then there’s no need to verify it. So much for The Times being the “paper of record.” When a paper’s credibility is suspect, what is left?" 81.67.66.111 12:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Update: If the Lifesite website is to be believed (let's hope Lifesite's John-Henry Westen is wrong), the only person who will be punished in this case, i.e., fired, is ombudsman Byron Calame himself!! So much (again, if true) for the Times' lionization of whistleblowers, its defence of the downtrodden, and its pursuit of the truth and "all the news that is fit to print"! 81.67.66.111 12:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Sowell has another example of bias: "The latest in a long line of New York Times editorials disguised as "news" stories was a recent article suggesting that most American women today do not have husbands. Partly this was based on census data -- but much more so on creative definitions.

"The Times defined "women" to include females as young as 16 and counted widows, who of course could not be widows unless they had once had a husband. Wives whose husbands were away in the military, or in prison, were also counted among women not living with a husband.

"With such creative definitions, it turned out that 51 percent of "women" were not living with a husband. That made it "most" women and created a "news" story suggesting that these women were not married. In reality, only one fourth of women have never married, even when you count girls as young as 16.

"While the data quoted in the New York Times story were about women who were not living with a husband, there were quotes in the story about women who rejected marriage.

"What was the point? To show that marriage is a thing of the past. … The New York Times' long-standing motto, "All the News That's Fit to Print," should be changed to reflect today's reality: "Manufacturing News to Fit an Ideology." " 81.67.66.111 12:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is more (and I have added a paragraph to that effect): Conservatives' accusations of political bias have continued, notably with the Duke lacrosse scandal, when one of them (Dennis Prager) protested that "in the aftermath of the destruction of three young men's names," the name of the "lying woman … is still hidden by The New York Times and other major newspapers whose commitment to truth is not as strong as their commitment to political correctness." (The Rape of a Name Is Also Rape by Dennis Prager, June 26, 2007) Asteriks 14:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ann Coulter adds that 'The New York Times has yet to name the woman who falsely accused three men of committing a brutal gang rape. The Times "public editor" described the paper's delusional coverage of the Duke case after the first several weeks as "basically fair." The Times Sports editor, Tom Jolly, said he was "very comfortable" with the coverage, saying the case had two main elements: "One was the allegation of rape; the other was the general behavior of a high-level sports team at a prestigious university." That's when you know your newspaper might have a wee hint of a liberal bias: when even the sportswriters are left-wing crackpots.

'Apparently, the Times editor did not see this possibility as an "element" of the case: A liberal prosecutor incites a racial conflagration weeks before an election in a heavily black voting district by using the incredible claims of a stripper to falsely accuse three innocent white men of gang rape.'

However the paragraph I added to the article itself was unceremoniously removed (i.e., without any explanation or record thereof whatsoever), and we can therefore conclude (I take it) that Wikipedia (or a number of its influential editors) are as liberal as the Old Gray Lady… 81.67.66.202 21:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to take a stab at it as well. The consensus among that American public, as cited in the referenced study, is that the NYT is more liberal than unbiased (do the math), or alternatively, 3.5x as many people believe the paper leans left than believe it leans right. Too much empirical evidence has been cited to pretend otherwise. Judith Miller notwithstanding. --Textmatters (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I expected the revert. Going to need some help here. I note 16 individual editors asking for inclusion of some mention of perceived left-leaning bias in the lead against 6 individual editors arguing against the point. Clearly "voting" is not the standard by which inclusion or exclusion is made, yet the overall feeling seems quite clear. In the "Controversies" section there are multiple clear citations for perceived liberal bias with the one mention of possible conservative bias being hung off the end of a cite that supports the perceived liberal bias. What, pray tell, constitutes "consensus" in this case if the above does not? Please advise. I'll start a new section. --Textmatters (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"Bureaux"

Copied from my talk page:

Given your revert of my correction of the incorrect plural 'bureaus' to the correct 'bureaux' (and your subsequent message, albeit meaningless) on the edit summary, do you not think that, given this is supposed to be an article on one of the most respected American newspapers, the correct use of French plurals would be appropriate. Especially seeming as the New York Times' House style is 'bureaux'.

Your edit profile comment was: ""bureaux"? Not in English, at least not in American English, and this is an article about an American subject.'. This made me feel horribly embarrassed for you: do you not know how to pluralize (semi) non-naturalised foreign words? I've changed it back to the correct version, but I'm sure you'll change it back. Never mind. I was going to give you some appropriate links, but actually just consult any dictionary! By the way, I notice from the 'Help: reverting' page on Wikipedia the following:

Don'ts Don't let superfluous or badly written material stand in order to avoid slighting its original author. Though your intentions may be good, doing so shirks your duty to the reader.

Clearly, you have replaced something correct with something incorrect, or 'badly written material', hence my revert.

Best wishes,

Ethanoylchloride (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• First of all, "bureau" is a completely naturalized American English word (I've no idea what its status is in UK English, but this is an article about an American subject, so American spellings will prevail anyway.) Further, using NYT's search facility, we find some 435 instances of "bureaux", mostly either in the context of French affairs or in articles from the 19th century; on the other hand, we find some 46,000 usage of "bureaus". Now, where do you see that the NYTimes house style is "bureaux"? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

All true, Jpgordon. Also, I would add as a note to Ethanoylchloride that you really need to try harder at avoiding personal attacks against other editors. We try to remain civil, even during disagreements. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

How kind of you to advise me what I really must try harder at not doing. I don't know what I should have done without your invaluable advice. Incidentally, I can be much less civil: I wasn't even trying that time. Regarding the matter in hand, it's probably better to stick to 'bureaus', isn't it? We don't want to be confusing people with plurals ending in x, after all. I think I see what wikipedia is about, now. Once again, many thanks.

Ethanoylchloride (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• You're not confusing anybody; you're merely incorrect. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If you say, jpgordon. Clearly you're the expert in languages. Do you think I should change 'radii' to 'radiuses' as well? Even more confusing, having a plural in 'i'. And then, what about the numerous examples of 'data' used with a singluar verb? As you seem an authority on all things language, maybe you could help?

All the very best, Ethanoylchloride (talk) 09:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Feel free to provide backup in the form of reliable sources for your position regarding "bureaux", in particular your claim that it is the NYT house style. Absent that, the attempts at snideness and sarcasm aren't really helpful. I'm not an expert in languages; I am, however, an expert at research, and I know how easy it would be for you to get me to agree with you on this issue, were you correct. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You're quite creepy with the stalking, but well done on getting the sarcasm. Enough now. I need to get on with my life away from a computer. You should try it sometime. Ethanoylchloride (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted to discuss the importance of civility with Ethanoylchloride, but he was not receptive. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's gone, so no matter. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Added Judith Miller

Added the bit about Judith Miller's reporting of the War on Iraq, considering it was listed as one of the key reasons about the misinformation that led to the war. It was listed in Thomas E Ricks Fiasco. Challenger78 (talk) 12:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, do we have to have the tragic 9/11 picture as the main picture for this artcile?

Resolved

 – Gary King (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Fourtyearswhat (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I kind of agree. It's needlessly sensational for the context, and actually it's a very bad example as they changed their formatting on that day. We should have a regular slow news day so readers can see what the Times looks like in ordinary circumstances. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If someone uploads one then we can use that. Gary King (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Gary King (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

CItations needed

If anyone's got time, please resolve the citation needed tags in the article. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"bias" section.

One editor keeps trying to remove any mention of the allegations of conservative bias (while leaving only the allegations of liberal bias). The "conservative bias" allegation is quite common and concerns early coverage of the Iraq war, particularly the extensive coverage headed by Judith Miller. This allegation is well referenced from multiple sources. While I don't entirely agree with it, the entire controversy surrounding the Times' coverage during the lead-up to the war is that they helped "sell" the Bush administration's position on the war and (as Daniel Okrent put it) were not sufficiently critical of the administration or the evidence used to support the war. There isn't any valid reason for removing this well-sourced material, so it seems to be simply a case of a tendentious editor attempting to edit-war. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that it's also more cautious to claim that the NYT has been called liberal and conservative, rather than liberal but not conservative. Gary King (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"While I don't entirely agree with it, the entire controversy surrounding the Times' coverage during the lead-up to the war is that they helped "sell" the Bush administration's position on the war and (as Daniel Okrent put it) were not sufficiently critical of the administration or the evidence used to support the war." Accusations regarding the coverage of a single event is not the same as accusations made against the paper itself. The fact is that your version is simply not supported by the sources. You try to claim that the two accusations have the same weight and yet you fail to produce a single accusation that is against the Times as an organization and not against a journalists singled out from hundreds or an article singled out from millions of articles. Yet on the other hand we have respected organizations using the phrase the "liberal New York Times" outright. Your claim that the material is well sourced is highly questionable since you never provided one qoute from one article that would support your assertion. Please provide the exact qoutes here that you think supports the sentence that the "New York Times was accused of conservative bias" and not "certain articles of the NYT were accused..." "certain editors of the NYT were accused...". I think the first step here is to provide any source a single source for that assertion. Hobartimus (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Who said anything about "the Times as an organization?" We're talking about the Times as a newspaper. Sorry, but your attempt to redefine this argument in the narrowest terms possible to fit your personal POV doesn't make any sense. You seem to be confusing two different concepts; whether the Times is a "conservative paper" (nobody said they were) or whether they have ever been accused of exhibiting a "conservative bias" (lots of people say they have). While I don't entirely agree with it, the main criticism has been that the Times' coverage of the Iraq war was one-sided and inaccurate and that it was geared towards helping the Bush administration sell the war to the public while being insufficiently critical of their facts or aims. There are multiple sources (including the public editor, Daniel Okrent) that have pointed this out. For you to claim that nobody has ever accused the Times of exhibiting a conservative bias is just ludicrous. A couple of seconds of googling produced this Alterman editorial from the Nation in which he states "A strong case can be made that while the paper's editorial page has been liberal of late, and while most Times employees are probably sympathetic to gay marriage, reproductive choice and the like, the paper's political coverage is actually driven by the far-right's agenda, as expressed by both the Bush Administration and the punditocracy." What more could satisfy your demand that we "prove" that the times has ever been accused of exhibiting a conservative bias? --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"A strong case can be made that while the paper's editorial page has been liberal of late, and while most Times employees are probably sympathetic to gay marriage, reproductive choice and the like" even when you bring your sources they seem to undercut your argument "the paper's political coverage" is just that the paper's political coverage, a single accusation of the political coverage from a few years ago coupled with a few points about the "editorial page" and "most of the employees" being called outright liberal. Do you think the two "accusations" are on-par? Is it not grossly misleading the reader presenting them in a merged sentence with merged sources? I mention "the Times as an organization?" because one side of the sentence on side of the accusation is about all of the Times and it's being called "liberal" by a multitude realiable sources. Not an article not a journalist, all of the Times is being called liberal. This is not comparable to an article or whatever being attacked. Produce a source that's equivalent and is all about the times and you will have a point. Until then the structure is fully misleading and unsourced for the assertion it makes. Hobartimus (talk) 22:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If the article were to say "The times was accused exhibiting a "conservative bias" regarding specific issues such as the Iraq war." there would be no problem. The sentene cannot stay merged as it is now completely different statements and available sources mean that it must be separated with two correctly formed statements each supported by their own sources. Hobartimus (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What you are proposing is simply clumsy language and ridiculously pedantic hair-splitting. All it would accomplish would be to needlessly lengthen that section while making the flow of the paragraph far less engaging. The fact is that various people accuse the Times of exhibiting various biases. This is opinion of course, and this opinion exists on both sides of the argument. Also, who are you referring to when you say "all of the Times is being called liberal." As far as I know, I've never heard anyone refer to David Brooks or Bill Kristol as liberal. To do so would be absurdly ill-informed. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

For example the BBC [1]. "The liberal New York Times says President Bush should apologise after the inquiry found no proof of an Iraqi role in the attacks." it's not about an article it's not about a journalist they say it about the paper as a whole and do it as a statement of fact. Hobartimus (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, no edit wars? Can we leave it how it has been for a few months (both liberal and conservative) and then we can ask for outside opinion on this? Gary King (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

← Hopefully this new reference clears this up? Gary King (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That was really a low blow in my estimation, that source is using the word in a completely different meaning. Maybe I misunderstood which source you meant could you link to the source itself here on talk? Per the above I'm reverting that part of the article. If you feel you found a new source, even then the structure of the sentence should be preserved. What I mean is the liberal accusation and the conservative accusation should each be supported by their own sources not merged together into one statement. Hobartimus (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Using a merged statement with multiple claims in it with 8 consecutive jumbled together sources is EXTREMELY poor form in an article. Hobartimus (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The NYT is a liberal newspaper and trying to say "it's been accused of both a liberal and conservative bias" is basically trying to paint all the accusations or suggestions as being off the wall and unrealistic. I have never once heard the New York Times referred to as a conservative publication. That's not to say there aren't loonies out there who say that, or individual instances where the New York Times could be seen as having a less than liberal slant, but it is absolutely not a conservative newspaper and statements to the contrary are ludicrous. 69.116.246.77 (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

WP is about verifiability. WP is not about what you have or haven't ever heard. 68.73.114.58 (talk) 10:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The New York Times/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The article meets all the criteria of a Good Article. Congratulations! Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Updated circulation totals

Maintainers: Please update!

AP story:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gl7k89dknwJH1WtwNb70t3CdIqywD94334KG0

Circulation 1,000,665 Sundays 1,438,585 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.55.75.200 (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I updated it. AlioTheFool (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Controversy Section Picture

Is there a reason that a picture of a headline detailing the massacre of Armenians and Greeks is included in the controversy section? There is no text in that section that has anything to do with the picture, and the picture seems to imply that there is controversy related to that particular headline. If such controversy exists, someone should write about it, but in the absence of such text I think the picture should be replaced with one that has to do with the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.57.50 (talk) 09:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

3.2 Style

The New York Times announced on July 18, 2006, that it would be narrowing the size of its paper by one and a half inches. In an era of dwindling circulation and significant advertising revenue losses for most print versions of American newspapers, the move, which was also announced would result in a five percent reduction in news coverage, would have a target savings of $12 million a year for the paper.[32] The change from the traditional 54-inches broadsheet style to a more compact 48-inch web width was addressed by both Executive.

The width of the paper is narrowed down by 1.5 inches from 54in to 48in. Which of the information is correct? Could someone please look into that? --DieBuche (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

See the article "New York Times to Cut Size 5 Percent; Keller Says Paper Better Off Smaller" from The New York Observer. A memo from Bill Keller is quoted which states that "In production jargon, we will be moving from a 54-inch web -- the width of four pages -- to a 48-inch web. That means pages will be 1 1/2 inches narrower than the current size, and the same length." So each page goes from 13.5 to 12-inches wide, because the "web width" (the width of four pages) is changing from 54 to 48 inches. Alansohn (talk) 13:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I didn't know this particular meaning of "web". --DieBuche (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

U.S. First Amendment Commentary is Irrelevant

The drivel about First Amendment and the government not having the ability to engage in prior restraint or other limitations on a free press has NOTHING to do with whether the legal system regards a paper as adequate for legal notices that the law requires in certain situations. While it might amount to the granting of a monopoly (lawful or not), it is no violation of the "freedom of the press" in the United States for a governmental entity or court to specify in what papers legal notices must be placed to be effective. You can publish any notice in any other paper you want--you can publish your own paper if you like--but the government does not violate the First Amendment by saying it considers those notices null for any specific notice or publication requirement under law. It simply is not a issue of restrained or even compelled speech, any more than the requirements that a summons to be in 12-point type with a caption and the name the court, etc., is a violation of the freedom of speech or press. Criticality (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC).

Consensus, or lack thereof for Lead section statement of perceived left-leaning bias

Throughout the talk page this topic occurs multiple places. Currently there are statements from 16 discrete editors making the case for inclusion of some mention of left-leaning bias at the NYT in the Lead section. They are counterbalanced by 6 statements from discrete editors that no such statement should be placed. There are three studies cited in the main article or talk page recounting perceived bias by either the American population or through placement of the NYT on a "scale" from conservative leaning to liberal leaning. There is dispute about the methods of one study (UCLA), I see no refutation of the other two cites. The current "Modern Controversies" section recounts only one supposition of conservative bias, and that is hung off the end of supposition of liberal bias from the NYT Ombudsman. I think this article represents the argument of "since racial, sexist, urban, and other biases are being asserted, the fact that liberal bias is ALSO being asserted is not notable"; which is of course a complete "strawman" I'm looking for consensus of a NPOV statement that can be placed in the lead that accurately represents that, whether it exists or not, it is indisputable and notable that the NYT and perceived liberal bias are synonymous in the media lexicon. My previous wording was reverted, with the reason of "no consensus", which is the reason for this section. Suggestions for consensus statements are requested. It certainly is NOT consensus that nothing appear in the lead section.--Textmatters (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not transparent how you reached these numbers, but in any case your apparent belief that Wikipedia's editorial decisions are based on voting is wrong (not least because it is next to impossible to determine "discrete editors" with certainty). Apparently you are new to Wikipedia, and your activities have so far almost entirely consisted of adding allegations of liberal bias and weakening or removing allegations of conservative bias in numerous media articles.

You seem to have overlooked that the reference that you tried to push by including it in the lede is already cited in the "Modern controversies" section, which seems the more appropriate place for it. The reputation of Rasmussen Reports seems to be mainly based on its election predictions, not on the neutrality of its opinion polls. It is an organization lead by an evangelical Christian who has received more than $140,000 from the Republican National Committee and the 2004 George W. Bush election campaign (according to the Center for Public Integrity [2]). It is also interesting to note that in the month before Rasmussen conducted and published this poll, the NYT had run a critical article about the religious organization which Scott Rasmussen presides over, which also mentioned him by name (Caren Chesler: Gays in a Methodist Town? No Problem (Until Now), NYT June 10, 2007).

And another point to keep in mind: Not only is Wikipedia not written from a Republican point of view, but it is not written from an exclusively American point of view either - the New Nork Times is a medium of world-wide impact and importance, and considering the dominance of views in the US which are seen as right-wing in many other parts of the world, emphasizing American population polls too much creates NPOV problems.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, and regards. Clearly I understand voting does not determine consensus. As a matter of fact, I posted to that effect. While you diligently researched my previous posts you apparently missed that one. It's up above a few sections. Posted previously. The numbers I cited above ARE transparent; you (or anyone) can count for themselves. Start at the top, and continue counting discrete editors until you reach the bottom. As to me, certainly almost all of my posts have been to rectify unsupported statements alleging conservative bias in the media, as it should be. More people ought to. Wikipedia is certainly not written from a Republican perspective; that is what Conservapedia is for. As a statement of opinion, I believe Wikipedia is written from a left-leaning perspective; perhaps obviating the need for a Liberalpedia. My opinion on this seems unlikely to going to change much. Wikipedia itself states that accuracy is not as impotant as consensus. Nonetheless, the purpose of my post was to try to establish such consensus in the midst of what I consider over-zealous "gatekeeping" of this article. Certainly I included a cite for the statement I included in the lead article. One would think that would better than the uncited statement included over at the Fox News article. The perceptions of bias levied against the two organizations are not just analogous, they are downright mirror images. Yep, I'm new here, and somewhat disheartened by what I see(please don't tell me to "go away, then"). Nonetheless, just because a voice is dissenting doesn't mean it's not worth being heard. So, as I requested, please suggest a statement that would allow consensus to be achieved. There certainly is no evidence of one in the talk page as it sits now.--Textmatters (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself states that accuracy is not as impotant as consensus - that's news to me. Where did you get that from? Could it be a mix-up with the "verifiability, not truth" maxime, or with "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes"?

I didn't meant to feel you unwelcome here, and I am not saying that every Wikipedia article is without faults (I haven't looked at the Fox News article, but that is an independent question). However, if you agree that counting "votes" is inappropriate for reaching consensus, why do you insist on these numbers? And I still don't see where you got them, the comments on this talk page concerning bias allegations are about various different issues, not all about the lede formulation you suggest. And they are from different points in time about different versions of the article - the current one treats the allegations of leftist bias more extensively than earlier versions, and on the other hand an entire section about "Corporate-influence concerns" (by Chomsky et al.) has been deleted. As for your request, I think that especially after the recent expansion, the allegations of leftist bias are given sufficient room in the article and do not merit the special emphasis that the inclusion in the lede would mean.

As for your grief about not "being heard", it should also be mentioned that your first addition to this article (the UCLA study) was not reverted.

As a statement of opinion, I believe Wikipedia is written from a left-leaning perspective - let's just agree to disagree, as this isn't a forum for discussion of Wikipedia as a whole, but you might be interested in these remarks by Jimmy Wales (who is perhaps closer to being a Republican than you may think) about such concerns, he also made the "US vs. worldwide views" argument: [3]

Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that Wikipedia has a left leaning bias, or the contributions of the individual editors amount to a left leaning bias. The article on "Fox News" has a comment in its opening paragraph (the paragraph most people are likely to read if they don't read the whole article) about the fact that it has been accused of having a RIGHT leaning bias. However, when I put an analagous statement in the New York Times article about its LEFT leaning bias, it is removed in a matter of hours. Do you call this legitimate infroming of the public? If so, wikipedia is a NON-legitimate source. The Fox News article has a warning about removing the right leaning charge from its article, but there is no such warning for editing NYTimes article. By the way, the case against the NYTimes has a scientific study backing it up, and the Fox News charge is merely "supported" by allegorical evidence. I thought Liberals were so proud of the fact that their ideologies were all backed up by science-ie. Darwinism! Now it seems as though science is supporting the conservative argument and the Liberals are engaging in Nazi-style PSEUDO-science, and DISinformation (not unlike what you all accuse Fox News of doing!-Ironic). Please get back to me ASAP, I am going to reinsert my addition to the NYTimes article right now, as it is totally legitimate. Oh yeah, I also like it how you guys buried the UCLA study concerning the NYTimes in the very last section of the article, after all of the "allegations" that the Times actually has a conservative bias! Josef Goebbels would be proud! I hate to think of what kind of disinformation and pseudo science you have "supporting" your articles on American Conservatism etc! Wikipedia is kind of sad and pathetic, sorry! You all seem to cower away from the light of truth! CaptainNicodemus (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless you dial back the rhetoric, I don't see how we're going to get a resolution to this matter. Please see WP:CIVIL and ask if you have any questions about Wikipedia policy regarding interactions with other users. What happens on the Fox News Channel article is a matter for Talk:Fox News Channel, not here. In regards to this article, a single disputed study by two members of a right-wing think tank is not notable or significant enough to place in the intro of this article. Gamaliel (talk) 06:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we're EVER going to get a resolution on this, because your views are entrenched in liberalism, and you are practicing a liberal bias yourself, that is obvious to me. Why, then is MediaMatters cited so often as a legitimate source? They are ADMITTEDLY left leaning, yet they are cited often here. ALL of their findings are contested because they admit to a liberal bias. By the way, what right wing think tank are these two researchers a part of? And what study is NOT contested? Have you read the study? I have read the study, and it's sound. It's unbiased, it found that NPR was relatively unbiased, although conservatives constantly claim that it is an egregious example of the media's liberal bias. When you tell me to "dial back" the rhetoric, are you hoping that I will just put up a benign argument that you can easily disprove? Why don't you read the study yourself, and we can discuss its merits here. I really AM willing to do that, as long as you bring your "open" mind (that liberals are so famously proud of) to the discussion. Why not? Get back to me, please and let's have a debate that would make SOCRATES proud, rather than Dr. Goebbels. Afterall, I am merely a conservative, whose reasoning skills are mush from centuries of dogmatic belief. You are the liberal, whose reasoning skills are sharp from reading Darwin. This should be an easy victory for you. All kidding aside, please do get back to me, and let us have a reasonable debate on the matter. First order of business is you reading the study, word for word, if you have not already. Let me know what you think! I WILL talk to the right people about the Fox News article, but I have this funny feeling that they will say "what happens in the NYTimes article is another matter, and up to the people (you) who edit THAT page." Ha ha-if that's true, then I really HAVE exposed the liberal bias on Wikipedia. Oh well. I hope to talk to you soon.CaptainNicodemus (talk) 08:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You wish a "reasonable debate" but you make comparisons to Nazis? Really, now. Do you expect anyone to take you seriously or engage this kind of heated rhetoric? For the second time, please abandon the uncivil rhetoric and stick to the facts. Gamaliel (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The lede of this article as it currently stands is fine - informative and to the point. Wikipedia is not the appropriate venue for the kind of POV that would argue for the paper's leftist slant, just as it is inappropriate to suggest the paper was a shill for Bush administration Iraq policy because of Judith Miller's reporting. There are other places for that kind of debate. Bottom line: lede is fine, let's close this debate and shunt it to the archives. Eusebeus (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No statement of "bias" needed in the lead, please, any more than we need an equivalent statement of "right wing bias" in the lead of the Wall Street Journal, the Cincinnati Enquirer, the Washington Times, or any other of the numerous papers for which the opposite claim is often made. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

My two cents is that the lede should not have a sentence about the perceived bias of the newspaper. It is not nearly important enough for the first paragraph, which otherwise describes only hard facts:

* That it is a newspaper, and the "newspaper of record" (this is generally accepted)

* That the company owns a few other papers and is controlled by the Sulzbergers

* That the paper has a particular layout, certain sections, columns, photography in colour, &c.

* That the paper's online presence is large and that it has won many Pulitzers

* [That it has a liberal bias.]

To quote Sesame Street, "One of these things is not like the others." Ofsevit (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead of this piece

The lede of this piece should reflect the challenges facing the 'newspaper of record.' Call it 'the Grey Lady,' call it whatever you want, The Times, by virtue of its solemnity, gravitas and historical stature, also reflects, as much as any media outlet, the challenges facing print media. The lede of this piece should reflect those challenges: i.e., rising newsprint prices; falling circulation and print advertising; a curve of uncertain web revenues; and a challenge to its traditional hegemonic role of 'all the news that's fit to print.' When Gay Talese authored his authoritative history of The Times, and later when Alex Jones and Susan Tifft took their own swipe at The Times's place as the authoritative go-to source for America's 'chattering classes,' the dilemmas facing the newspaper of record today would have been unthinkable. The Times, as much as any other print media, is increasingly seen as dated, irrelevant and obscure -- and, perhaps worse, having a unsustainable financial model. These issues need (in journalistic Times-style) to be addressed in the lede itself, and not relegated to some graf lower down. Strictly my opinion. Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That belongs in a general article like Newspaper not here. here it;s mentioned but not in the "lede" AlioTheFool (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You miss the point. As arguably the world's most prestigious newspaper, whatever happens to The Times is a portent for the entire industry, which is why it should be addressed here, as well as in a general 'newspaper' piece. The subscription model of the entire industry is broken. The funds derived from the old model, which provided for the writing, criticism and reportage we still see today, are starting to dry up. The signs are everywhere -- in the acquisitions by corporate raiders (read: Sam Zell), the massive across-the-board layoffs, the closing of bureaus, and the frantic search for sources of new revenue (especially in the new tie-ins between newspapers and such sites as yahoo). This is not simply an adjustment in the model. The model no longer works, because the funds derived from the web are not replacing at a fast enough clip the funds lost to plunging circulation and ad revenues. More importantly, much of the content one reads on the internet is not original content; much of it is simply repurposed content from print sources. Yahoo and google carry a great deal of news, for instance; at last count they had no foreign bureaus nor critics (aside from the self-appointed ones). The Times, as the 'newspaper of record,' is the most visible 'canary in the coal mine.' As it goes, so goes the industry. Already, the Dow Jones empire has fallen -- at least into the hands of a proprietor who does still run some newspapers -- but other once-great industry stalwarts like The Los Angeles Times are only shadows of their former selves. There is a major story here (as they say in the newsroom) waiting to be told. Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Rupert Murdoch weighs in on this topic in tomorrow's Independent.[4]MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Today's dire news from The Times is precisely what I was talking about. The old model is broken.[5]MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

A week worth of dire news for the entire newspaper industry, culminating in today's bankruptcy filing by the Tribune Company and the decision by The New York Times to borrow some $225 million secured by its 58 percent share in its new headquarters building. MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The Financial Times weighs in on this week's dire news for the newspaper industry.[6]MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Today brings more staggering news for the embattled newspaper industry. Industry stalwarts The Detroit Press Free and The Detroit News are suspending printing on paper entirely on some days of the week -- and urging their readers to instead look them up on the web. To veterans of the once-thriving industry, these measures smack of an industry facing *profound* change.MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

While posters debate whether The Times has a liberal slant, the entire industry goes down the tubes. From tomorrow's Independent: [7] MarmadukePercy (talk) 05:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The entire industry's implosion now cutting into the Washington coverage.[8]MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Today brings new that November's ad revenues at The Times fell a staggering 20 percent. Many industries face tough times. In the case of The Times and its newspaper brethren, though, the limping economy is making a bad situation much worse.[9] MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

A new study released today also shows that the Internet has now surpassed newspapers as the main source for national and international news for Americans.[10].MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

As a conservative since Reagan, I can say that it's fantastic watching the NYT fail. They sacrificed their journalistic integrity at the altar of the DNC long ago. Die faster, New York Times! Kelly ^hi! 22:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The point is not that the NYT is failing, it's that the entire industry is in trouble. That includes publications across the board, both liberal and conservative. MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Meh - the Wall Street Journal, based in the same city, is doing OK. There is even talk that NewsCorp, the owner of the WSJ and Fox News~(still making a good profit), may buy the NYT and reform it.[11] That would be some delicious schadenfreude. Kelly ^hi! 22:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no indication that the Wall Street Journal has escaped the crash. (In fact, one of the reasons that Rupert Murdoch was able to buy the Journal on the cheap was the fact that as a print organ, its stock was discounted.) As a subsidiary of Murdoch's News Corp., the newspaper doesn't break out its revenue figures. Although Murdoch has mentioned buying the NYT in the past (and was even said to have coveted it above the Journal), such a purchase would undoubtedly pose anti-trust hassles. The point, really, is that the media landscape is being reconfigured by the internet. That trend includes publications liberal and conservative, big and small. Suffering especially are the country's newspapers, which have gotten hit by a triple-whammy: the rise of craigslist (depriving newspapers of classified ads); the consolidation of many of the old large retailers (meaning fewer competitors and fewer ad dollars); the contraction in the automobile industry (typically one of the industry's major sources of revenue); and the migration of younger affluent users to the internet, which uses different methods of advertising. It would be useful to take this discussion out of the realm of back-and-forth political wrangling, and put it where it belongs: a business story about the reconfiguring of the media landscape.MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right...however, that won't prevent me from cracking a bottle of fine champaigne when the NYT finally bites the dust, and Maureen Dowd interviews for a job writing livestock reports at the West Cornhole Weekly Gazette. There are some papers that seem to be surviving, but only at the cost of eschewing the Internet and leaving consumers only the choice of buying the dead-tree version. Kelly ^hi! 22:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the newspapers that are surviving are using unusual partnerships (many of them in conjunction with internet portals like yahoo). The most successful models in the industry right now are not those eschewing the internet -- but instead embracing it, and trying to figure out methods of making their web presence yield more ad dollars. About Maureen Dowd, who knows, you might actually like her if you met her (politics are funny that way; I don't always agree with the people I like, and conversely, I don't always like the people with whom I agree). In the case of this subject, I would like to think that the partisan bickering that characterizes many of the media discussions on wikipedia could be set aside to consider the business -- and societal -- implications of the profound shift that is going on in readers' habits, whether liberal or conservative. That is an interesting topic.MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

A good Associated Press piece examining the problems of Chicago's two newspapers.[12] MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

And now talk of a government bailout to help a failing industry.[13] MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

A rather extraordinary interview with Google's CEO Eric Schmidt, who professes love for the newspapers that Google is 'killing,' and says that he wishes he could save them. [14] MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The Hearst Corporation announces that it is putting up for sale The Seattle Post-Intelligencer. If no buyer is found within 60 days, the newspaper may be shut down entirely, or reduced to a much-reduced digital format.[15]MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The waves from the tsunami spread outward into the pond.... [16]MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The latest casualty: the Minneapolis Star-Tribune files for bankruptcy.[17]MarmadukePercy (talk) 08:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There is one set of figures demonstrating the dire times in newpapers. When McClatchy, the publishing giant, purchased the Minneapolis Star Tribune in 1998 in sunnier times, it paid $1.2 billion. In 2007, Avista Partners, a private equity firm, bought the paper from McClachy -- for $530 million. In other words, within less than a decade the value of the property had plummeted, cut more than in half. Today the paper is in bankruptcy and its value has been chopped again. Things are rough out there in publishing. MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Another day, another newspaper slated for sale or closure. This time the Tucson Citizen. [18] MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I posted to the NYT piece several months ago about the involvement of Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim. Tomorrow's Wall Street Journal website brings news that the NYTimes is talking to Slim about an investment in Times preferred stock, carrying no voting rights but with an annual dividend, as a way of taking in badly-needed cash and easing an impending financial crisis at the newspaper. The preferred stock issue would be similar to a loan. [19] MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Kelly: Please stop violating WP:TPG and using this as a WP:FORUM. Your personal political opinions about and attacks against the NYT ("Die faster, New York Times!", "cracking a bottle of fine champaigne when the NYT finally bites the dust", as examples) have nothing to do with improving this article. — Becksguy (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

While The Times searches for a savior from its dilemma (shrinking revenues/rising costs/loss of readership), its reporters continue reporting on the news executives at the center of the maelstrom, busily rearranging the Titanic's deck chairs. [20] MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

For the second time in a year, The Times's swooning stock attracts outside investors: first a round of hedge funds, including Harbinger Capital and Firebrand Partners; then Carlos Slim again, whose first $128 million investment in The Times last September is worth less than half that now. Nevertheless, Slim now ponies up another $250 million for a preferred stock issue (read: loan) to The Times Company. Is this some magnanimous Mexican billionaire anxious to rescue the American press? Unlikely. This is, after all, the world's second richest man -- and he didn't get that way simply protecting press freedom. "It's not what you think," Slim himself said after his first investment. "What's declining is the paper. Not the news." As I posted several months ago (and several observers challenged), many sharp-eyed media watchers believe Slim spotted an undervalued asset -- much as Rupert Murdoch had done with The Wall Street Journal. From the look of it, Slim might be about to have his way with The Grey Lady. Stay tuned. [21]MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This week's The New Yorker weighs in with a piece entitled "Back Issues: The Day The Newspaper Died." [22] MarmadukePercy (talk) 08:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Amidst the lowest interest rates in history, investor Carlos Slim proves to be a wily operator. The Times confirms that for his new $250 million transfusion into the ailing patient, the Mexican billionaire gets extraordinary terms: 14 percent interest rate on notes convertible into common stock. Slim gets no seats on the Times Company's board of directors nor shares with special voting rights (like those of the founding Sulzberger family). Nevertheless, when he exercises his warrants, Slim becomes the second-largest shareholder of The New York Times Company, with some 17 percent of its common shares.[23] MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The one bright spot in this downturn is small business advertising. So The Printed Blog of Chicago launches into the recession's maw, reprinting blog posts on regular newsprint -- and in a giveway paper. Will this free part-newsprint, part-web beast work? One thing's for certain: it will have less overhead. The papers plan to pay 'reporters' with a share of their ad revenue. What does that do to the 'Chinese wall' between advertising and reportage? Anyone's guess. [24] MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

A profile of Carlos Slim, 'possibly the richest man you've never heard of,' and the likely owner of the largest share of The New York Times Company not owned by the founding Sulzberger clan. [25] And tomorrow's news brings word that the Times Co., in another desperate bid to raise cash, is selling part of its new headquarters.[26] MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Another interesting profile of Carlos Slim, who may hold the fate of The Times Co. in his hands. From tomorrow's Observer.[27] MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The latest casualty of the implosion of the newspaper industry? The Washington Post's stand-alone Book World Section, now to be quietly folded into two other sections of the newspaper. Never a moneymaker on its own, Book World survived as a holdover of the days when many newspapers boasted separate book sections. The Post's is one of the last ones to fall in an industry now ill-equipped to subsidize such luxuries.[28] MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The newspaper industry meltdown hits the newsweekly covers. Tomorrow's TIME magazine plays the biz news big on its cover: "How to Save Your Newspaper," written by TIME contributor and former managing editor Walter Isaacson. [29] MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

A poster had earlier indicated that Rupert Murdoch's The Wall Street Journal was escaping the crunch hitting the newspaper biz. Just-released results show the opposite. In results released today Murdoch's News Corp. said that it took a massive $8.4 billion write-down -- $3 billion of that on the company's newsprint assets, and especially the Journal. The write-down indicates that even Murdoch is not immune, and that his coveted acquisition lost much of its value in the interim. [30] MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

For those who didn't see it, last night's Charlie Rose Show was on the future of newspapers, with panelists Mort Zuckerman, Walter Isaacson (who wrote the TIME magazine cover on the future of the industry), and Robert Thomson, editor of The Wall Street Journal. [31] MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

In tomorrow's Times, the newspaper profiles its new part-owner, Carlos Slim.[32] MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Among the last fans of the newspaper? Now word that media baron Rupert Murdoch's love for his old medium is pulling down the earnings of News Corp., proving even Murdoch is vulnerable. [33] MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The latest body count of this industry? The Journal Register chain as well as the chain which owns The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Philadelphia Daily News have both filed for bankruptcy within the past three days.[34] Who's next? MarmadukePercy (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Turns out The San Francisco Chronicle is next. [35] MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The body count mounts. Today's casualty? The Rocky Mountain News. MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see that someone posted the sale/leaseback of the building into the 'Financial Challenges' section of the piece.MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The future? American cities without a daily newspaper? [36] MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:LEAD; This cited article is just one example of observers findings of liberal bias by NYT. This article should probably be congruent with articles of similar category, such as Fox News, so that the reader may more properly compare the two sources. This statement of controversy notifies reader as to controversy, but does not assert the controversy is true, as per the discussion on Fox News page, and so is in line with wiki policy. For reference on article leads please see lead of Fox News and accompanying discussion. Also if you feel you can word the statement better to address the controversy, feel free. DeltoidNoob (talk) 03:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:LEAD does not mean that every single statement from the main article text must be reflected in the lede. WP:UNDUE applies too.

From your comment it appears that your edits are intended as a kind of revenge for something in the article about Fox News. I haven't looked into that article lately to see if your complaints are valid, but in any case such a tit-for-tat is discouraged as an argument for editorial decisions in Wikipedia (cf. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS), and the factual basis for your apparent assumption (that the NYT has a reputation of being as biased as Fox News, just in the other direction) is thin to nonexistent.

Please stop your repeated attempts at POV-pushing, which have alreay been reverted by at least three other editors [37][38][39].

Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The LEAD is supposed to address noted controversies. Please read my previous statement. Attacking character does not address the issue either, and you didn't even read what's on the Fox News talk page, showing that you're not interested in being accurate but only in distorting the reality about the NYT. I also never said that the New York Times is as controversial as Fox News, nor do I believe this. I'm following the rules of Wikipedia and striving to improve articles. It's already apparent many of the editors of this article are bias. The majority vote only holds true when adhering to wikipedia's standards, which in this case, I am doing. Thank you for your input. DeltoidNoob (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Please review the above arguments and focus on the argument at hand. Mere muscle doesn't make one correct. I also contacted some other users with a friendly message who may be interested in applying the wiki standards to this liberally bias article. Let's try to get it more neutral than pro-NYT! DeltoidNoob (talk) 01:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see where the source, a UCLA press release, says anything about " one-sided reporting".   Will Beback  talk  03:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It is unclear to me what the "attacking character" accusation refers to. The claim that I was "not interested in being accurate but only in distorting the reality" has no basis either, and borders on a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. As already said, on Wikipedia editorial decisions in different articles are independent of each other, thus a demand that users who wish to participate in this discussion must read Talk:Fox News Channel first is invalid. Besides, one could easily find many other examples where Wikipedia editors have not followed your interpretation of WP:LEAD (e.g., the lede of George W. Bush does not mention the controversies related to the dismissal of U.S. attorneys or interrogation techniques, even though each has a whole section in the main article text, and even its own article). If you wish to understand the past decision not to include such a statement in the lede, I also recommend to read the comments by Becksguy in the following section.

I also contacted some other users ... - another editor has already notified you of WP:CANVASSING.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles are independent, but then there's an example from the Bush article we should look at? And my apologies for any personal attacks to any editors, which were unintentional. The Bush article actually does more than the statement about general controversy, as it goes into broad detail. Also you can see the strong liberal bias when comparing the Bush and Obama article leads. Neutrality should always be stressed. DeltoidNoob (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Deltiod--neutrality should always be stressed throughout Wikipedia articles. It is not WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS because the point he is trying to make is when you compare two articles that CAN be compared (like Bush and Obama; not like Hammers and Toothbrushes), and there seems to be a clear liberal bias in both of the articles, both should be "neutralized" and written from an encyclopedic point of view. After all, isn't that what Wikipedia is supposed to be--"The Free Encyclopedia"? Donatrip (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC) (yes, I am the same one who added the political alignment to the NYT infobox)

Labeled as "liberal" in lede

An IP user has added the word "liberal" several times to the lede so it reads: The New York Times is a liberal American daily newspaper ... The following are the edit summaries from 74.166.141.161 within the last four days:

• 03:30, 10 November 2008 (For those that feel labeling the NY Times "liberal" is non-neutral, I ask that you equally comb through all the conservative papers and remove the corresponding label as well. See Matt Drudge.)
• 04:04, 6 November 2008 (Undid revision 249974206 by Dudesleeper (talk) What is going on? Does Wikipedia care nothing about the truth?)
• 04:00, 6 November 2008 (Undid revision 249515348 by Becksguy (talk) The editor admits its liberal. No one says it has a conservative bias. C'mon.)

On 11-3-08 the same change was made by 70.155.236.252, that may or may not be the same user as above.

• 22:36, 3 November 2008 (If all the "conservative" news outlets are labeled as such (See Matt Drudge) then the New York Times should clearly be labeled liberal.)

Several comments and points:

1. The Drudge Report is not a newspaper. It has no editorial board, no editorial oversight, and no fact checking structure. It is a link farm and blog. Using that as an example fails to convince.
2. Some publications self identify as liberal/progressive or as conservative, and if they do so, then it's appropriate to include that in the lede. The Nation self identifies as liberal (or left), and the National Review as conservative, for example. Matt Drudge (the Drudge Report) is a self described conservative.
3. The New York Times helped sell the invasion of Iraq, a major litmus test for conservative viewpoints. And provided a forum for the debunked and fired Judith Miller who facilitated the Bush administration's lies about WMD as a pretext for war. How can a paper that supported such a hawkish position be thought of as liberal. Although they
4. The NYT is actually rather centrist most of the time. And it has been accused of both liberal and conservative bias (see thread above). To call it liberal says more about where the person sits on the political spectrum than the paper's position.
5. The one dimensional continuum of Liberal to Conservative (Left to Right), a remnant of the 18th century French parliament, is hopelessly inadequate to express the complex and dynamic matrix of social, economic, religious, cultural, or any of the other factors that comprise a person's or organization's political position. A one word description just pigeonholes a person or organization based on biases, usually hot button ones such as abortion, religion, taxation, gay marriage, war, sex education, evolution, and so on. As an example, could a person that supported woman's choice, social security, and gay rights (typically liberal positions) as well as opposing gun control, welfare, bilingual education, and deficit spending (typically conservative positions) be classified as either a liberal or conservative in one word? See Political spectrum.
6. As to other papers being labeled, it would be desirable to be consistent in labeling, assuming we had rational labels with reliable sources, but we don't. And in any case, no one has that responsibility nor is it a good argument per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

— Becksguy (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Your points are well-taken, but probably unnecessary since the edits you reference are weak-minded, tendentious and unpalatable. Needless to say, they should be reverted as a matter of course and, where appropriate, the editor should be reminded of wikipedia policies and warned against POV-pushing and disruptive editing. Eusebeus (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

More reasons as to why the NYT is called a liberal newspaper are provided in Dying dictators and double standards by L. Brent Bozell III and Mysterious Khmer by Mona Charen. Asteriks (talk) 10:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The Times

The Times (of London) is the original "Times" newspaper, lending its name to many other papers around the world, such as The New York Times, The Times of India, and The Irish Times. It (the New York Times) takes its name from the original The Times, a London, UK based newspaper of earlier origin (1785).

I cannot find a reference to this, but is often cited in spoken English media. Any help to substantiate this would be much obliged. Darkieboy236 (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Title Picture

Can someone please change the picture for the opening paragraph? It was obviously placed there by a republican who seeks to portray an agenda. I suggest using a more neutral picture that does not have a controversial headline or topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.23.203 (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Archives

I've cleaned up and organized the talk page archives for this article. The archive Talk:The New York Times/Archive 2, which was the newest archive before I started, was overly large and had threads from 2006, 2007, and 2008, some interleaved and out of chrono order. I created two new archives (3 and 4) and moved threads so that all the current archives now correspond to years. As always, the date of a thread corresponds to the date of last post in that thread.

1. Talk:The New York Times/Archive 1 2004 and 2005
2. Talk:The New York Times/Archive 2 2006
3. Talk:The New York Times/Archive 3 2007
4. Talk:The New York Times/Archive 4 2008

Unless someone objects, I will archive the remaining 2008 threads (they are more than 30 days old without activity) to archive 4, leaving the Jan and Feb 2009 threads here. — Becksguy (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Since no one objected, I moved the remaining 2008 threads to Talk:The New York Times/Archive 4. Now only threads for 2009 remain here, and those will be archived into Archive 5 (for 2009) when appropriate. — Becksguy (talk) 07:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Web presence

The web presence section seems pretty out of date. Instead of a paragraph detailing the pricing of TimesSelect in 2005, perhaps it should be replaced with a discussion of the more recent work. In particular, something that mentions the large amount of web-only interactive graphics and features on NYTimes.com, like the stuff discussed in [40], video [41], web services [42], open-source software and raw data [43] as well as the editions for iPhone and Kindle.

Any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.191.15 (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Liberality

I'm certain this will be disputed, so I'm bringing it to the talk page first. I believe the following refs need serious review:

• Ref 81, "The Next War in Iraq" in Time. "...just about every Republican presidential candidate who mentioned the war in Iraq cited an op-ed piece in the "liberal" New York Times written by two military analysts from the "liberal" Brookings Institution." (italics added) IMO, the scare quotes make it amply obvious he's being sarcastic, or at the very least not asserting it as fact. Misrepresentation of source, should be removed.
• Ref 84, "What Liberal Media?" in The Nation. "Move over to the mainstream publications and broadcasts often labeled "liberal," and you see how ridiculous the notion of liberal dominance becomes. The liberal New York Times Op-Ed page features the work of the unreconstructed Nixonite William Safire..." Again, scare quotes - and the point of the article is that "liberal media" is largely a myth propagated by the conservative media. Misrepresentation of source, should be removed.
• Ref 85, "Dying dictators and double standards" in Townhall.com.
  • From the article, the author's qualifications: "Founder and President of the Media Research Center".
  • From their About Us page: "Townhall.com - the Leading Conservative and Political Opinion Website" / "By uniting the nations’ top conservative radio hosts with their millions of listeners, Townhall.com breaks down the barriers between news and opinion..." / "Townhall.com was launched in 1995 as the first conservative web community."
  • From their registration page, on requirements to write there: "Talk back, argue with other readers, write your own blog -- It's quick, easy and totally free."
  • IMO, the fact they call everyone who writes there "columnists" does not make them an RS. Townhall.com self-labels as a non-published "community" for conservative opinion. Not an RS, should be removed.
• Ref 86, "Mysterious Khmer" in Townhall.com. From the article, the author's qualifications: "Mona Charen is a syndicated columnist, political analyst and author of Do-Gooders: How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help." It checks out; this is a reprint of her work in National Review. It should stay, but it should be properly attributed to the RS it came from.

*puts on asbestos flame-retardant suit* Okay, I'm ready. Comments? (For the record, refs 82 and 83 checked out completely, and should stay unmodified.) arimareiji (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with your reading of those sources. Remove. ► RATEL ◄ 03:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed Ref 81, Ref 84 and Ref 85.

In general, it is important keep a sense of perspective in theses matters, so as not to violate WP:UNDUE. While affairs which have found wide and long-lasting coverage (such as probably those about Jason Blair and Judith Miller) may warrant mention, a rant by an opinionated columnist on one end of the political spectrum who happens to be angry about an article or two is just not a notable enough event to be highlighted/cited in an encyclopedia article about one of the world's most widely known newspapers, with a >150 year history.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Lede

Noting the edit warring going on in the lede, I have removed the disputed text because of an ambiguity problem. Historically, the NYT has been criticized for both liberal and conservative bias and for both a pro and anti Israel stance. I thought about leaving the bit about ethical lapses in, but I couldn't come up with a way of writing it that wouldn't sound dumb. Certainly WP:LEDE allows for major criticisms to be noted (within reason), but the "fip/flop" position of the paper makes this quite complex. I conclude it would be better of without it. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a source criticizing the paper as conservative. Are you talking about a particular story? We have to use the best sources possible, and the vast majority including the Times itself, characterizes the paper as liberal. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been debated ad nauseam. The sentence "The Times has been criticized for a liberal political bias, favoritism of Israel and ethical lapses", even if it were true, doesn't belong in the lede. The NYT may appear as "liberal" if one considers Fox News as "fair and balanced", or as compared to The National Review, and other right wing sources, but the old adage "one's man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" comes to mind. The NYT generally supports "the establishment", as in, for example, supporting the invasion of Iraq, and supporting Israel against Palestine and Lebanon; both of which are conservative positions. The main point is that the NYT has been accused of both liberal and conservative bias, and lengthy explanations about those viewpoints belong in the body of the article where appropriate reliable sources can contrast between the opposing viewpoints without WP:UNDUE weight. Not as a one liner in the lede that seriously simplifies, and thus distorts, becoming WP:POV. — Becksguy (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. Judith Miller was fired and it caused a scandal. Can you provide some sources that characterize the paper as conservative? The content in the lead should reflect the article. The article discusses those issues. So it's appropriate to include it in the "lead" a.k.a introduction. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The political bias issue content is contained in the Controversy section of the article, with references. If I remember correctly, others have provided references as to conservative bias elsewhere, including in the talk archives, I think. But it doesn't matter, as the claim of liberal or conservative bias doesn't belong in the lede, regardless, per WP:LEDE. The paper does not self identify as either. The information on opposing viewpoints belongs in the body, as that claim is insignificant relative to 150 years of history, 98 Pulitzer prizes, and everything else that makes the NYT the "paper of record." — Becksguy (talk) 09:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If you read the article you will find that the paper has self identified as liberal. You are trying to enforce your own POV rather than relying on the best sources. Notable perceptions of the paper are covered in the article and should be included in the lead per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, I've had to remove your vague, uncited criticism from the lede per WP:LEDECITE. In the long and storied history of the NYT, criticisms have not been overwhelmingly significant. They are fairly covered in the article, but there is no way to reasonably shove them into the lede without elaboration and citation. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(1) Please lets comment on content, rather than any editor's supposed motivation as expressed in the comment "...trying to enforce your own POV..." (2) Any comments about a claimed liberal viewpoint, as apparently self identified by the NYT, relates to specific social issues, such as gay marriage, clearly not to the NYT taken as a whole. As an example, important as gay marriage is to those involved, and as a civil right, it however totally pales relative to articles and coverage on global issues such as war, genocide in the Sudan, AIDS in Africa, starvation, major natural disasters, and the financial systems meltdown. (3) Several established editors, in removing those one liners, and in discussion here, have pointed out that the repeated placement of the one liners on any bias, liberal or otherwise, in the lede is against several policies, including WP:LEDE, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR. (4) The one liners have been placed a total of ten times since March 11th, and reverted each time by several editors. The lede content flip-flop is edit warring, per WP:EDITWAR, and hurts the article. (5) I strongly suggest some serious consensus building discussion here before placing that criticism one liner in the lede again, and before admin intervention occurs. Typical edit war intervention is to lock down the article, forcing discussion on the talk page. (6) I also suggest invoking dispute resolution processes, per WP:DR to avoid continued edit warring and potential intervention. (7) The bottom line is that the edit war has to stop and that there is no current consensus here for that content in the lede. Thank you. — Becksguy (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Content deletion and wholesale reversion is unhelpful. None of the other editors have made any attempts to tweak, refine or edit the addition to the introduction. There is extensive discussion in this article of controversies, of political biases, and of coverage issues. If they don't like the way that I've worded this content and added it to the introduction (per wp:lead) they should attempt their own wording rather than simply attacking and reverting me. Wikipedia is not censored. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I attempted to tweak and refine, as evidenced by my comment in the first paragraph in this section. Ultimately I came to understand that there was no way to reasonably put these criticisms in the lede without making a horse's ass of it. Bear in mind that per WP:LEDECITE, criticisms should be properly cited, so putting in one or two things would spoil the lede in its existing form. Anyway, everyone here disagrees with you and you have no consensus for your additions. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sourced content

An anonymous editor added this content. The references need to be formatted and the sourcing and writing sorted out, but notable content should be included in the encyclopedia.

Early in the 2008 presidential election, the New York Times published an article alleging that Republican candidate John McCain may have had a relationship with a female lobbyist, but the article was criticized by the Times' ombudsman for not being accurate.

The ombudsman wrote: "The newspaper found itself in the uncomfortable position of being the story as much as publishing the story, in large part because, although it raised one of the most toxic subjects in politics -- sex -- it offered readers no proof that McCain and (Vicki) Iseman had a romance."

The New York Times was also accused of spiking a story about Democratic candidate Barack Obama's relationship with the group ACORN during the election. Times reporter Stephanie Strom had been working on some stories about ACORN, using a source within the organization named Anita Moncrief. A phone call between Ms. Strom and Ms. Moncrief had Ms. Strom saying, "Hi, Anita, it’s Stephanie. I have just been asked by my bosses to stand down. … They want me to hold off on coming to Washington. Ah, sorry, I take my orders from higher up, ah, sometimes." The Times responded to inquiries by saying, that "Political considerations played no role in our decision about whether to cover this story."

References

ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No. The McCain material already exists at Criticism of The New York Times#John McCain-lobbyist article criticism, where it is properly covered with appropriate weight. That is the daughter article of the "controversy" section of this summary style article. The second section you refer to has no reliable sourcing whatsoever, so it is impossible to ascertain its veracity. This is just more RNC-sourced ACORN bashing. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The content is sourced to the Associated foreign press and the Bulletin in Philadelphia. Please check your POV at the door. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you actually read what I said? The McCain stuff is already covered appropriately, and the other stuff isn't reliably sourced. The Bulletin stuff just quotes an RNC operative, and YouTube cannot be used as an RS if it is the only source. Even if this were legitimate, there is no way it could reasonably avoid running foul of WP:WEIGHT. And calling me out on POV editing is pretty rich coming from you. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I read what you said. You lied repeatedly about the sourcing and have now been exposed. How, in what form, and where to include the content is an editing issue, but making false statements that mischaracterize sources is never appropriate. I hope you'll apologize for another in a long list of misdeeds. Your editing has been very problematic and you need to refrain from these actions or find a new hobby. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me you are kidding. You need to take a very large step back and stop your agenda-based editing and name-calling, because what you just said can only be reasonably classified as bullshit. Are you perhaps User:BryanFromPalatine? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Amazon Kindle

The New York Times is available as an electronic edition ($14 per month) on the Kindle from Amazon.com, according to Amazon and the NYT's executive editor. Also here and here. There is no reason it can't have a very small mention in the article, I think. Maybe one sentence as an addition to the content on Times Reader as another example of new distribution technologies. — Becksguy (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this could be considered trivial, to be honest. The NYT is available in many forms and its content is disseminated through all sorts of electronic systems. This would be more appropriate at Amazon Kindle, if at all. Amazon doesn't need free advertising on Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Including this content in the Kindle article is a good idea. I agree it's not of major import to the NYT article, but I think it's a bit more than trivial. I'm talking about adding one sentence, for example: The newspaper is also available electronically via devices, such as the Amazon Kindle. Maybe the better way to go is to expand the content on various electronic distribution channels, and then this could become one of several items. In my view, this mention is not about advertising for Amazon, it's about the newspaper, and making the article more complete about electronic distribution channels, which is the well documented way the industry is moving. Unfortunately. Anyway, I just brought this up to see what others think of the idea. If people don't agree it should be included, that's fine. Or maybe lets talks about expanding the electronic distribution content. — Becksguy (talk) 03:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Antisemitism

I'm not sure how to note this, but a signifcant amount of NYT criticism seems related to a vague form of antisemitism, since the New York Times has often been labeled the Jew York Times, even by Jews themselves. [44] [45] [46] ADM (talk) 06:41, 15 May 2009

I don't know if any NYT criticism is antisemitic based, or not. Regardless, the three personal blogs cited above violate WP:RS and are totally unacceptable as sources. That one of these personal blogs is called "Pigdogfucker" says something about it's quality as a source. — Becksguy (talk) 09:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

History

Was the NY Times an interventionist paper before the US entered WWI? I need to know this regarding the reliability of its coverage of San Marino's supposed entry into WWI. Thanks, Brutal Deluxe (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

NYT in the Süddeutsche Zeitung

I find that at least a sentence or two is warranted on the New York Times' weekly, English-language insert in Germany's Munich-based Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ). It is mentioned on the English-language entry for the SZ, so why not here?--Ami in CH (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

It would seem that a bulleted list format would better suit the Controversy section, however, I am guessing there might be some reason this has not been done yet? Supertouch (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:MOS, bulleted lists should not be used if plain paragraphs can be used instead. Also, "list of controversies" articles and sections tend to become coatracks and this is even more true when bullet points are used (it's too easy to pile on one more bullet point, however relevant). --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Evolultion of the name of the newspaper

One sentence from the article reads:

"The paper changed its name to The New York Times in 1857."

But for quite some time New York was written with a hyphen -- as New-York -- in the newspaper's name. And I believe that even into the 1950s or longer, the name ended with a period, as The New York Times. It would be nice if someone familiar with the dates, etc., would fill in these details.Daqu (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"TimesPeople"

"TimesPeople" is a significant element of nytimes.com, and as such I think it should be included in the New York Times wikipedia entry. I have sketched the basics below, but I hope that someone will flesh this entry out (history, criticism, etc.) and post it the real page.

Date: Beta phase apparently began in the summer of 2008

Uses and impact of TimesPeople:

1. Public actions:

Recommend an article,

Comment on an article or blog post,

Rate a movie/hotel/restaurant that was reviewed,

Post a link on Twitter

2. Actions that are not public:

Articles you click on

Articles you email

Searches you do

Advertisements you click on

3. Personal page:

name, location, image,

list of the users that you follow,

list of the users that follow you,

RSS feed of your public actions

4. Ranks articles: Most Recommended, Most Commented, Most Tweeted

5. Public data: makes your public actions a form of public data, which can be accessed and used by anyone (e.g. reposted on another website, studied for marketing purposes)

Developers have included: Derek Gottfrid, Sr. Software Architect; Nick Thuesen, Sr. Software Developer

TimesPeople API Tool: introduced in 2009

References: • http://timespeople.nytimes.com/packages/html/timespeople/faq/ • http://timespeople.nytimes.com/home • http://open.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/announcing-the-timespeople-api/ • http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-9971651-36.html • http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/19/AR2008061900098.html --Curiosus (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Lede image

I have replaced the lede image, in the infobox. It showed the front page of a paper from 2009, which is non-free. the FUR claimed that a free alternative does not exists, which is inaccurate. I have instead inserted an image of a historically significant Page 1, from 1914 (the above-the-fold article is Austria declaring war on Serbia). The appearance has not changed all that much, except for coloured pictures and some stylistic differences, so I consider it a free alternative. If anyone has any issue with this, please feel free to discuss. The Wordsmith^Communicate 00:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone just changed it, saying we should use a recent version because the paper doesn't look like it did in the image of the old paper.

I think the image of the old paper is more informative in the context. I expect more people to have seen a modern NYT than have seen such an old one. Maurreen (talk) 07:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not more informative in the context. It's less so in my opinion. Here you see the paper as it looked in 1914, almost 100 years ago! The New York Times doesn't look or read like that anymore. A clearly more informative lead picture would be the paper as it looks today in the 21st century not as it did a century ago. Just because a lead picture is non-free (fair use!) doesn't mean it should automatically be replaced by the first public domain version you can find. Especially when the PD is so horribly out of date. OptimumPx (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

If you're not even going to bother to respond to what I've said, then I'm going to change the picture back to a modern edition of the news paper. OptimumPx (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Q on anonymous publications

I have a question on anonymous literary reviews in NYT - at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Anonymous_reviews_in_The_New_York_Times (diff in case it is archived). Thanks in advance. East of Borschov (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

reversion on sexist hiring; restoring proposed

The article substantially includes criticism of its modern and 1930s journalism as well as founding-era positions of its intent and therefore there's relevance in their discriminatory hiring affecting its news product, both modern (ca. 1970s–1980s, for which the reverted material cited a book) and post-founding. I propose restoring the deleted material, and suggest that similar material likely exists regarding racial and ethnic bias that can be added by whomever has it handy. Comments? Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Corrected link in section title: Nick Levinson (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't question the notion that the NYT's hiring was sexist and racist by today's standards around WWI. But back then, everybody's was. I don't see a mention of it, especially in the lede, as helpful or informative. Hey, Rosalind Russell wasn't even born yet. PhGustaf (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't in the lede or anywhere near it.

Discrimination was normal at the time. But it affected reporting and editing, and that's critiqued in the WP article. Therefore, if a critique of reporting and editing of the 1930s is valid for WP's article, so is the newspaper's choice of who should report and edit.

If history were not notable, an awful lot of this article would have to be cut out. Not to mention cutting from other articles.

Is there any other reason for keeping this out?

Nick Levinson (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

From the lack of an answer, I take it we no longer disagree. I plan to restore the content soon. Please comment if you disagree. Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Not my favorite edit, but not one to go to war over either. Go ahead. PhGustaf (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It's back and I plan to look for a source more strongly tying the editorial employment practice to an effect on editorial content. Thanks for the critique. Nick Levinson (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"headlines tend to be verbose"

I removed this because it is clearly a value judgment rather than a neutral statement of fact. (A neutral statement would be "tend to use more words than is typical of newspaper headlines" or "Tend to use longer words than is typical of newspaper headlines".) Moreover, such assertions would be considered factual only if supported by a reference to independent, unbiased, published research, and no such research was cited. All the Wikipedia reader can do is look at the actual New York Times, and when I do that it seems that the headlines look just about the same (as far as length, snappiness, and word use) as those in other newspapers, not verbose in any obvious way. Brozhnik (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Liberal or Conservative?

I just reverted a change that called the NYT's politics "right of centre". The spelling suggests that the poster is on the East side of the pond.

In Eastpondian terms, that might well be true, albeit POV. But the post reinforces the notion that tags like "liberal" and "conservative" are useless in an international context. PhGustaf (talk) 03:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It's good you removed it since we already say the Times is considered (to simply state they're liberal would be POV) liberal under the Controversy & criticism section, to say they're right-wing liberals would confuse things all the more. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 17:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. As far as America goes they are definitely considered liberal all in all. Alio The Fool 18:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

new section on nytimes and holocaust

I have added a new section. I would like to include the New York Times acknowledgement and apology for burying the news of teh Holocaust, but I can't find a source. if anyone has the citation, could they please add it.--Cimicifugia (talk) 06:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)cimicifugia

That addition was inappropriate for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the ridiculous amount of new text added (see WP:WEIGHT and the lack of reliable sources. It read like an opinion essay (also see WP:SOAP) and didn't really have much to do with the article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Cimicifugia, I've suggested on your talk page that a better place for it would be Criticism of The New York Times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timberframe (talk • contribs)

With the caveat that notability of the criticism has not yet been established by reliable third-party sources and it would never be appropriate to add a section that long anyway. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The addition is not inappropriate. The New York Times editorial policy to bury news of the Holocaust is certainly a major chapter in the history of the newspaper, as it made the Times complicit in one of the worst crimes in the history of Western civilization. I found the Times acknowledgement and will add it. The times itself, by the way, in their acknowledgement, used Leff as a source and follows her assessment. She and Deborah Lipstadt are respected academics, published by academic presses, and there is a whole list of other resources on this topic. you can find a page of references on the Newseum website. it is too important a subject, and needs too much corroborating detail because of its unbelievable nature, to be in the subsection on criticism along with liberal v conservative contemporary politics. I think the Times crime in falsifying news of Stalin's massacres deserves a separate section as well. both these scandals speak to the heart of the presses abuse of power through misleading the public on major stories that do not suit the politics of the publisher or editor. THIS IS AS IMPORTANT AS ANYTHING YOU CAN SAY ABOUT THE TIMES.--Cimicifugia (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)cimicifugia

But this article is about the New York Times. The events you write of were minor parts of the history of the New York Times. There's surely a place somewhere for you essay, but this isn't it. This article is not an exposé. PhGustaf (talk) 03:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

And again, please read WP:SOAPBOX. --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, the New York Times decision to bury the news of the Holocaust, making it complicit in America's abandonment of Europe's Jews and the death of six million people is the greatest journalistic failure in American history. It is surely as significant as the Sullivan case, in which the times won freedom of the press rights, to have a section on how the Times abused the public trust. IT IS NOT A MINOR PART OF JOURNALISTIC HISTORY, AND CANNOT BE CALLED A MINOR PART OF THE STORY OF THE NEW YORK TIMES. to suggest it belongs in an article on controversies such as junior reporter being fired and the story of a false rape charge IS A TOTAL MISUNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS MINOR AND WHAT IS MAJOR. This topic is not a controversy - it was admitted to by the times on their 150th anniversary. It is historical fact - totally documented. The Newseum in Washington DC created an exhibit and a film about it.see it here [47]You can read NYT editor Frankel's full acknowledgement here: [48]Victor Frankel, their Pulizer prize winning editor who wrote their 150th anniversary acknowledgement called it "the century's bitterest journalistic failure", admits it was done on purpose, and corroborates Leff's work. He also underlines its historical importance for journalism, in making reporters eager to report on Sudan and Rwanda and not repeat the Times immoral editorial failure. THIS STORY IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT INCIDENTS IN THE HISTORY OF THE NEW YORK TIMES, AND OF AMERICAN JOURNALISM. Just because you don't know anything about it, only shows the importance of including it in this article so that people do know about it. including major, factual information taken from top academic sources is not soapboxing. if you feel my tone strays at times, either let me know which sentences you don't like, or make the tone more neutral. trying to keep out significant information you don't like is not wiki policy. --Cimicifugia (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)cimicifugia

Well, actually, deciding what to keep in and what to keep out is what we do every day as Wikipedia editors. Take a look at the sheer mass of the material you want to include. It's way longer than the entire history section of the article. Perhaps you should write a The New York Times and the Holocaust" article, and then an appropriate paragraph might be added to this article with a link to the new one, the same way we do with the hugely important and influential Times v Sullivan and Pentagon Papers subjects. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

dear jp gordon: Editing and censorship are very different activities. I was arguing against an editorial judgement that was claiming this was a minor story, and belonged on a page with minor controversies. yes, I agree wholeheartedly with your suggestion on the appropriate way to handle this information. it is too long, and in depth and deserves its own article. i will do a new, shorter section for this page, focusing on the Time's 150th anniversary assessment of their own performance.--Cimicifugia (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)cimicifugia

The subject is already mentioned in this article (you did read the article first, right?) It is unlikely that trimming your essay and adding it again will mitigate any of the problems described above. That said, please discuss proposed changes here first and we can address its applicability to this article.--Loonymonkey (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Loonymonkey - being a sarcastic bully is not in the best interests of constructive collaboration. You seem to think "the century's bitterest journalistic failure" in the words of the NYT itself deserves one sentence. I respectfully disagree. I do agree with jpgordon it is on a par with the 'hugely important' Pentagon Papers and Times v Sullivan, which have their own subsection and reference to a separate article. Since the major problem raised by the various wiki contributors here is length, and also relevance, shortening and tightening the topic (leaving out an extensive discussion of motivation)will certainly address "the problems described above." Lastly, what is your problem with the subject, if the quality problems are addressed? The entry had faults, and this has been a good process that will make it better. I read Soapbox, and don't see how it applies to this topic. The editorial decision by the NYT to censor their reporting of the Holocaust to keep readers uninformed that Jews were being targeted is the historical record, acknowledged by the Times itself. It has been thoroughly researched by top academics and specialists. it merited a major exhibit by the Newseum in DC, the one museum devoted to the history of journalism. It is not a controversy, not disputed, not a soapbox topic, not propaganda, advocacy, recruitment or a pet point of view. I suggest you reread the soapbox guidelines yourself. You seem to have a POV about this topic that I do not understand.--Cimicifugia (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)cimicifugia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cimicifugia (talk • contribs)

Hi all - I have added a much shortened and focused article, in a carefully neutral tone. I thank everybody for the helpful feedback. I agree this is a much better entry - more appropriate length, more readable. Once I found the New York Times report on the subject, I was able to do a good rewrite. On a personal note, I would like to add that I am a retired professional writer. I have written three books published in five languages, and many articles and columns. I love the editorial and rewrite process. Drafts always need work. There is a huge difference between collaborative editing, and the bullying by some individuals who want to control legitimate content, keeping out subjects that don't fit their personal or political POV. The subject of the holocaust is one of those that unfortunately does attract that kind of attack.--Cimicifugia (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)cimicifugia

Still a massive violation of WP:WEIGHT, still WP:SOAP. Note that the Frankel article is an op-ed piece, not news reportage, and must be weighted as such. PhGustaf (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Taking a few paragraphs out of a still ridiculously long rant doesn't address any of the problems with it. The consensus is that your additions clearly violate several wikipedia policies (and frankly just read like a soapbox essay). You might want to consider the possibility that your edits actually were incorrect rather than crying censorship or implying that anti-semitism has anything to do with it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

May i mention a source for this issue: The Abandonment Of The Jews has numerous mentions of the times in its index, most of these index listings covering the underreporting at the paper. the book doesnt accuse the times exclusively of this: nearly everyone gets carved a new one by the author. The author doesnt accuse the paper of antisemitism, or charge it with anything significantly worse than many other papers and power brokers that could have made more noise about the holocaust. He does point to the important role nyt plays as a "paper of record" for defining how the event was covered. its considered an important work of research. if added to the article, I think this helps the argument for keeping this criticism here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

This article and this situation in particular was referenced in Front Page Magazine: "Wikipedia's Jewish Problem" [49]. "[my own editorial comments-decided to take them down]"Wishbonesoccer (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible Bias?

Excuse me for interrupting here, but I have been at Wikipedia for 1 1/2 years, and have noticed something about Wikipedia, especially on AfD's. I was a regular contributor about 7 or 8 months ago, and I noticed that whenever a citation or a link was needed, it was taken of the NY Times. Another regular thing I noticed in the AfD's was there was an article in the New York Times about it, so it hasto be notable. Why is nearly everything in this encyclopedia to do with The NY Times? Please explain.

Thanks, Eurovision 2009 and 2010^{Sasha Son}_{Sakis Rouvas} 15:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times is one of the most respected newspapers, has won 101 Pulitzer Prizes (more than any other news organization), and "is regarded as a national newspaper of record". Just as the Oxford University Press is preeminent in English academic publishing, the NY Times is preeminent in American newspapers. People tend to use it as a source because of it's gravitas, weight, and reputation. Although an article in the (hypothetical) Mudpuddle Gazette may be just as reliable as an article on the same subject in the NYT, no one has to defend the NYT as a source, whereas no one knows anything about the Gazette and therefore it may be challenged as a source.

However, it's not true that nearly everything has to to with the NYT. I see vast numbers of references to many other sources, including books, academic journals, magazines, other newspapers, broadcast journalism (such as ABC News, CBS News, & NBC News, or individual stations with news teams), news wire services or news agencies (such as Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France-Presse, UPI, BBC News, Bloomberg, CNN, Market Wire, etc.), and websites of professional and scientific organizations (such as the American Psychiatric Association).

Sources with full internet content presence tend to garner more citations because they are easier to find and to link to, but I've also seen many dead tree citations (citations to books or other publications without full content on-line, where one has to find the source in a library).

— Becksguy (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thankfully the Gray Lady herself is taking care of this. Wikied editors are the people most likely to run afoul of their new metering system, so one by one their links will vanish as editors find themselves unable to verify them. So this is a win-win as the NYT folds and other sources are brought in. Hcobb (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually that shouldn't make much difference. A source does not have to be available on line to be used. It just has to be verifiable. As in walking into a library. Almost all scholarly journals aren't on line without payment, unless one has academic access. And the vast majority of all published books aren't on line at all. — Becksguy (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I admit to using Google Piracy Books for refs whenever possible, but the metering system is on a per-book basis there. Hcobb (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

For more details on this ridiculous case of Wikipedia burying the news that the New York Times had buried the news of the Holocaust, find and read "Wikipedia's Jewish Problem" by Karin McQuillan - FRONTPAGEMAG.COM, July 13th, 2010 (http://frontpagemag.com/2010/07/13/wikipedias-jewish-problem/)75.85.83.0 (talk) 01:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Political bias

The following source suggests a significant act of political bias by the Times. Whether it is isolated or systematic may or may not be relevant to whether it is significant enough to be placed in the entry. However, I post the link here for everyone's consideration: http://www.webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=gaynorm&date=081022. In sum, it states that in the midst of the 2008 presidential campaign, the Times specifically declined to report potentially damaging information about Barack Obama regarding ACORN from an informant that had previously provided a lot of information to the Times, because doing so would be "game changing" so late in the campaign, i.e. because it would harm Obama's chances of election. In the future I may try to incorporate it if I have time. --达伟 (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"webcommentary.com" is not a [[W{:RS|reliable source]], nor is it in anyway notable to this article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The reliability of the source itself may be debatable; but that doesn't mean the events described are definitely false. There may be other sources out there providing more info on the event. Regarding "notable" to this article--what article would it be notable to? It suggests a possible incident of political bias?--达伟 (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Political stance

My edit was reverted, I've since changed it back. Is it not fair to say the paper hasn't endorsed a Republican since 1956 and has many liberal commentators on its opinion pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.149.20 (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Your edit was problematic in that it was your opinion, and did not come from good reliable sources. I think if you look up this page you'll see more reasons why that kind of edit is looked at with concern. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not my opinion that the NYT has not endorsed a Republican for President since 1956. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.149.20 (talk) 03:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly what research is for. It's highly likely that a systematic study was done, and probably quite a few, that meet the standards of Wikipedia on this very issue, and therefore can be summarized and cited. You may also find it helpful to define your terms. For example, the paper has far more news coverage in a day than would ever fit on the editorial and op-ed pages. If they stopped running editorials and op-ed pieces, they'd lose a few readers, but if they dropped all their news coverage, they'd lose almost all their readers. So, studies of Times opinion slants versus studies of Times news coverage slants might come to different conclusions. Also, the slant is important relative to something: other newspapers in the same city? other national newspapers? other newspapers of record (whatever that means exactly) or other broadsheets (if paper size correlates with anything meaningful)? other news outlets such as broadcast and now Internet? And op-ed in many papers is intended to give a contrary viewpoint, so if the Times has liberal op-eds then is the paper conservative? You may find studies in academic journalism reviews, for example. Have fun. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

on India, criticism of one editorial appears excessive

The Times' being opposed to India is a serious issue if it's true. But a criticism based on one editorial is almost certainly giving it undue weight. I imagine every day the Times receives critiques of its editorials for many reasons, including for serious grounds, and so perhaps this particular critique can now be taken out of the Wikipedia article. Thoughts? Nick Levinson (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. It wasn't obvious until I read the sources and realized they were all of one day. If someone can show a larger pattern, we can put them back. --GRuban (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Done: I took it out. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 03:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This appears to have sprung back up recently, with several reversions of a section on India. I went through and looked over the references; what the text of this section said and what the references indicated were often not quite the same, and the concept in general seemed to be a stretch. I'd encourage other editors to review it, and the editor pushing for inclusion to discuss here before reverting it back in again. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The earlier objections to the inclusion were that only one article on NYT caused criticism. This argument is no longer applicable, as more general criticisms of NYT's Indophobic stance have been sourced.117.194.201.7 (talk) 08:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The sources, though, included blogs and opinion pieces, and many were short mentions of the NYT alongside other news outlets. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The infinity foundation is not a "blog". It's an independent nonprofit based in Princeton with connections to academia. As for the opinion editorials, we can discuss the relative merits on a case-by-case basis. I daresay that, overall, the standard of sourcing for the Indophobia section is at least comparable, if not better, than citing Pakistani newspapers for accusations of bias regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict[50].117.194.201.7 (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This newspaper has been criticized by any number of groups who feel it is biased against their POV. President Richard Nixon was one notable critic, for example. But devoting a medium-sized section to the Indian critics seems like excess weight. Maybe a sentence or two could summarize it adequately.   Will Beback  talk  23:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not such a bad idea, actually. You have a point in that the section on India was larger than it deserved to be. So, what is the best way to summarize the content? I reproduce it below for reference.117.194.199.31 (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd start over by checking the sources. For example, the first sentence of the proposed material says:

• There were criticisms levelled at the New York times from India following the Pokhran-II nuclear tests that the New York times promoted religious misinformation concerning India and Hinduism.

Here's what the cited source says:

• The venerable New York Times informed us in 1998 (in the course of its discussion of India's nuclear bomb) that the Bhagavad Gita venerates Shiva, the destroyer among the Trinity! Since the Bhagavad Gita is available on the Internet, search the text and discover for yourself how many times the word "Shiva" appears. In the 700 shlokas of the Bhagavad Gita, Shiva is mentioned 700 minus 700 times.

But that source spends just as much space criticizing other newspapers. Is it worth adding to this article that "Several newspapers, including the Times, were criticized by a Rediff.com columnist following the nuclear tests. According to the column, the Times made a mistake about the role of the god Shiva in the Bhagavad Gita."? That seems pretty trivial. I'd leave it out entirely rather than re-writing it. Regarding the rest of the material, summarize, trim lengthy attributions, omit less important views.   Will Beback  talk  20:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not a trivial matter, but a major gaffe in the NYT's understanding of Indian religion. Considering that the NYT boasts of accuracy, why didn't they do any fact checking? The seriousness of this error comes from the fact that Shiva is an observance of Shaivite and Shakti Hinduism, which is based on normative Vedic scripture, and not Vaishnavite extrapolations like the Pauranic texts (of which the Bhagwad Gita is a part). This would be as serious as the NYT claiming that Sunni Muslims have apocalyptic visions of the Mahdi (which is largely a Shia thing). If a reporter from NYT did that, CAIR would be on his ass faster than you can say the Takbir. The seriousness is compounded by the fact that NYT refuses to correct the error, even though it has been pointed out to them repeatedly by Indian Americans. This is one indication of an anti-Indian bias in their journalism.59.160.210.68 (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I looked up the original New York Times article. It is a profile of Indian nuclear scientist Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, who is Muslim.

According to one Indian biography, Dr. Kalam knows by heart sections of the best-known of all of Hinduism's sacred books, the Bhagavad-Gita. If so, this would give him another link to Robert Oppenheimer, the physicist who led the team that tested the first American atomic bomb, in the New Mexico desert on July 16, 1945. According to some accounts, after the pre-dawn flash signaled the birth of the atomic age, Oppenheimer quoted a line attributed to Shiva in the Bhagavad-Gita: Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.

-Self-Made Bomb Maker; [Biography] John F. Burns. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: May 20, 1998. pg. A.6

So the article isn't really talking about the Bhagavad-Gita directly. It's talking about Oppenheimer's famous quotation, and the fact that Kalam is familiar with the book despite being a Muslim. The reporter even makes it clear that he isn't vouching for the sources, he's just passing along other accounts. I'm not saying it isn't wrong, but it isn't a sign of gross bias against India.   Will Beback  talk  20:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It is an indication that the NYT doesn't do any fact checking. Robert Oppenheimer was a self-identified Vedantist and knew what he was taking about when he quoted the line (which was believed to be recited by Krishna, a Vaishnavite God, not Shiva, a Shaivite God by definition). If this was some shitty tabloid, it wouldn't be such a big deal. This was the New York Times, and is supposed to have a better standard of research. The fact that they didn't bother to research this despite their having the resources and the expertise to do so says something. The thing about APJ Abdul Kalam is another matter. Dr Kalam is a Tamil Muslim, and their theology is often a syncretic blend of Islam and Indian religions.117.194.194.167 (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's what the source says:

The venerable New York Times informed us in 1998 (in the course of its discussion of India's nuclear bomb) that the Bhagavad Gita venerates Shiva, the destroyer among the Trinity! Since the Bhagavad Gita is available on the Internet, search the text and discover for yourself how many times the word "Shiva" appears. In the 700 shlokas of the Bhagavad Gita, Shiva is mentioned 700 minus 700 times.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2000/aug/23gopi.htm

I don't see where in the NYT it says that "the Bhagavad Gita venerates Shiva, the destroyer among the Trinity!" The columnist may have misremembered the article. Another point about the draft, is that we have a single source for this criticism, yet the draft the says "criticisms", plural. Elsewhere it refers to "critics", but cites just one critic. Maybe the best thing would be to consolidate this down to one sentence, something like, "Some Indian commentators have complained about what they perceive to be bias or ignorance by the Times in its coverage of Indian and Hindu topics." That'd be a more appropriate weight.   Will Beback  talk  21:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

So, basically, anti-Indian bias is to be inferred by a careless factual error, where Shiva is said when Krishna is meant? Newspapers make mistakes, that is how the world works. Even one sentence on this is giving the issue undue weight. john k (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The whole thing is ridiculous. Any inclusion of this material is a violation of due weight. Start an article on Indian criticisms of the New York Times, if you like. john k (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Orientalist and postcolonial rants aside, there are some well researched criticisms of NYT's Indophobia in peer-reviewed journals, like the 'Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television', media analysts from the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, and others. I had easy access to these publications in the past (thanks to the miracle of JSTOR), but my present institution does not subscribe to humanities journals (just science/tech ones). I will have to obtain them using the city university's libraries and proxy servers, which will take some days. I would welcome anyone willing to assist in this endeavor by looking at media studies journals regarding this issue if they have immediate access.59.160.210.68 (talk)