Talk:The New York Times/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

medical journals published by Times Co. in past

I recall that The New York Times Company once owned a group of medical journals, then ran an exposé in the Times about hospitals, and then found health advertisers boycotting the journals, so the Times Co. sold the journals to preserve the editorial independence of the Times. This, I think, is notable counterpoint to criticisms of Times journalism. However, I'm having difficulty finding the story, which I think the Times itself reported, and it's hard to imagine other media didn't report it as well. I emailed the Times but haven't heard back. Does anyone know about this and have a source? Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 03:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

New York Times before 1851

Hi. Was there a predecessor of the New York Times before 1851? On [1]/[2] it is mentioned, that John McLoughlin (McLoughlin Brothers) worked for New York Times in 1827. Does anybody know about New York Times in 1827? Greetings --Heiko (talk) 13:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Infobox image

thumb|225px|right|The new front page image used in the infobox.

The infobox image has been changed recently from a 1914 front page (i.e. on which the copyright has expired), to the September 12, 2001 front page. I certainly think the 1914 image is not ideal -- it is extremely old and is not representative of the paper today -- but I also think the 2001 image currently being used, from the day after 9/11, is perhaps better suited to the September 11 attacks article, rather than this article. I think the best solution is just to upload a recent front page (at low resolution) and use that. Any thoughts? --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 16:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The image should be recent, and representative of what the paper normally looks like. The 9/11 edition is not representative of a "normal" front page, simply because it has an overly large headline, which is not normally characteristic of the paper. I would like to see a front page image from a day without much big news, so the image is not distracting from the subject of the article.Blazerbryant (talk)

I also agree that a typical image would be better. Will Beback talk 07:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I've uploaded a more typical front page from the "Today's Paper" feature on the Times' website (they keep an archive of previous front pages; I didn't uploaded today's because of the unusual layout and content devoted to the midterms). It's from September 29, 2010; I browsed randomly through a few recent front pages until I found it, because I wanted to skip ones with unusually large images and those which were otherwise unlike the majority of the Times' front pages. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 20:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Lede paywall paragraph overly long

The last paragraph in the lede has become overly long for an overview, per WP:LEDE. It contains almost all the information on the metered paywall. I think it should be cut at least in half, and that content moved/merged to the pricing section where the rest of the paywall and subscription content resides. — Becksguy (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The paywall information should be mentioned in the lede, but the graf is far too long. MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I waited a few days for additional comments. Receiving none but MP's above, I'm going to be bold and rewrite per discussion. — Becksguy (talk) 04:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. — Becksguy (talk) 06:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The WWII section should be before the 1980s & Reagan section for chronological reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.201.32.33 (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Really it should go before any of those subsections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.201.32.33 (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Keller handoff

I believe the handoff by executive editor Bill Keller, announced today, deserves mention in this piece, and probably in the lede. I would suggest a one-sentence recap like this: "The newspaper's editor is Bill Keller, but it was announced on 2 June 2011 that Keller would step down in September, and be replaced by Jill Abramson, who will become the first female executive editor in the paper's history." One might argue that personnel changes in the newsroom don't warrant mention, but in this case I believe that's incorrect. As The Guardian points out [3], the fact that The Grey Lady has chosen a woman as top editor for the first time in its 160-year history is important. Given Times staffer Nan Robertson's 1992 book (Girls in the Balcony) on the history of gender relations at the newspaper, such a handover at the paper of record warrants inclusion. MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Not in the lede, for sure, but certainly in the "Discrimination in Employment" section. That section, indeed, needs some whacking down in view of WP:WEIGHT; there's no evidence that the NYT's hiring policies were more or less discriminatory than other papers' back then. PhGustaf (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree that the 'Discrimination in Employment' section is way too long, but disagree about placing the news about Abramson in that section. By putting it there, you're suggesting that its only relevance is to rebut claims of discrimination. It might have a bearing on that, but as The Guardian's piece suggests, the news has broader ramifications. Placing it within the discrimination section trivializes it. I believe the news needs a brief, one-sentence mention in the lede. MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with MarmadukePercy, per my comments at User talk:Becksguy#Your opinion, and the following comments. The appointment of a female executive editor at the NYT is of major and broad significance. And it's not just our opinions. Multiple sources now report on this story:

The Guardian [4]
Reuters [5]
PBS Newshour [6] Broadcast interview of Abramson by Jim Lehrer
Politico [7]
Huffington Post [8]
Wall Street Journal [9] (Paywall)

Quotation from Abramson, as mentioned by MarmadukePercy, in the PBS Newshour interview with Jim Lehrer that ties into the Roninson book: "But I also did shout-outs to people like Nan Robertson, who I never even got to meet, who wrote "The Girls in the Balcony" and was part of a generation of women who had such a hard time being hired as reporters. And she went on to win a Pulitzer Prize." The one sentence recap by MarmadukePercy belongs in the lede. — Becksguy (talk) 04:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It definitely warrants inclusion in the article, just not in the lede. First, per WP:LEDE, the lede is where you summarize the most important aspects of the article, not where you put unique information that doesn't appear elsewhere. Even after we do mention it in the article, it's doubtful this is one of the most important aspect of an overview of the Times and its 150+ year history. But it again, it does deserve a place in the article (and I agree with the comments above about the discrimination section. Including it in that section would be incorrect and verging on Synthesis.) --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

potential resource

NY Times in discussions to sell 16 regional papers DECEMBER 19, 2011, 4:59 P.M. ET. by Associated Press in the WSJ 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Neutality Tag

I placed a neutrality tag on this article becuase undue weight seems to be placed on sections 6 and 7, "issues over coverage" and "ethics incidents." These sections seem very pointy, inserted by those who have a perception that the NYT is in opposition to their particlular political perspective. Looking at articles on other major newspapers such as the Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, and London Times, they do not have such extensive discussion of instances of controversy, so these long sections seem out of place. Mmyers1976 (talk) 02:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Compare Fox News, which has a longish "issues" section plus an entire article related to Fox News Controversies. A significant proportion of the latter is a regurgitation of Media Matters talking points. I think the comparison is appropriate -- Fox and the NYT are perceived as the leaders in the left-wing and right-wing media spaces, respectively. I would add that the number of issues discussed in the "issues" section is only a small proportion of what is out there. And yes, I did add some emphasis to the ethics section, and the whole "rape hoax" thing does really stick in my craw. It is difficult to imagine anything worse that a newspaper could do than support trumped-up charges against innocent defendants. This action on their part shows a level of bias On the question of "undue", I went to nyt.com and did a search on "Duke Lacrosse rape" with a filter set to "articles" and got 455 hits. So they were giving a lot of weight to a case which, in their eyes, supported their political perspective. It is perfectly fair to have this article reflect that. William Jockusch (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

That's getting kind of forum-y. It doesn't matter how you personally feel about the subject, it's what the notable and reliable sources say. At the moment there seems to be to much weight given to the opinion of that book on the case, at least for this article. There are millions of quotes of various people's opinions of the Times out there, why is that one relevant enough for inclusion? Not to mention that it's a pretty inflammatory quote (and of course, non-neutral, but it is just opinion) I think it should be removed. (also using hit counts to establish whether something is appropriate or undue is never allowed). --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to add more rape hoax sources if you feel it needs more support. http://grayladydown.net/?p=5 http://www.amazon.com/Rush-Injustice-Prejudice-Correctness-Overshadowed/dp/1595551182/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_2 http://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/2011/07/10/pot-meet-kettle/?singlepage=true And the Fox issue is relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Jockusch (talk • contribs) 19:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

None of those would be considered reliable sources for factual material. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that one of the more notable issues about Fox News does concern its alleged bias and reporting. Regardless of how you feel about the issue, Faux News is a common nickname for a reason. It reflects a widespread perception of the source as unreliable. If you believe it to be reliable, the fact still remains that Fox News is far more controversial than the New York Times.99.6.157.136 (talk) 22:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

That depends on whom you listen to. For example, if you were to ask all the recent Republican Presidential candidates, I'm sure you'd get more complaints about the NYT. Likewise with Fox and the Democrats. I would therefore suggest that overall, the levels are similar. In the TV media space, Fox has a tremendous number of viewers, far more than anyone else, and should therefore be considered the most notable TV news network. Furthermore, Fox demonstrates biased reporting by the NYT all the time. Therefore, in the overall TV media space, the amount of notable complaint about bias in the NYT is large. Now if you don't listen to Fox much, I imagine you'd have a different impression. William Jockusch (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It should not be hard to add sources to this section. The Times' ombudsman himself took Duff Wilson to task for his error-ridden article about the case (and that was even before it was revealed that Wilson's source wasn't even offical-just Gotlieb's hand written notes). Selena Roberts never-corrected claims can also be debunked by early News and Observer articles about the players cooperation with the police, as well as court depositions from the players' civil suits. I can start working on this if it helps. Cheerio HoundofBaskersville (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a great idea. William Jockusch (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Also interesting is the level of notability of the controversies themselves. In the NYT section, we have two separate failures to report instances of mass murder which killed millions of people -- namely the Golodomor and the Holocaust. In the case of Fox News, we have Howard Dean complaining that they are a "right wing propoganda machine" and Fox using the wrong image of Sarah Palin. Which controversies are more notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Jockusch (talk • contribs) 15:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

If you actually think this is a reasonable argument, this clearly shows your biases. The two instances of failure to report mass murders are from over 70 years ago, at a time when Fox News wasn't even a figment of anyone's imagination. The only reasonable way to make such comparisons is to look at the same time period, i.e. within the last 10-15 years or so. Benwing (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, within the last 15 years, we have the Jayson Blair scandal as well as the Duke Lacrosse reporting. The Lacrosse one is clearly the worse of the two -- the NYT's reporting was routinely torn to shreds on a very popular blog [10], including such gems as writing a long article insinuating possible guilt without mentioning a videotape of the defendant elsewhere while the crime was supposedly occurring. And said videotape had been shown on the national news. So the NYT was reporting in a manner supportive of an attempt to convict a demonstrably innocent person of rape. Meanwhile, the folks at Fox did show the wrong footage of Sarah Palin . . . who is worse?William Jockusch (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The tags are still on the article. It can't be a Good article with one, let alone two neutrality tags. Will give a couple more days for this to be sorted out or I will start a reassessment. AIRcorn (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems like whoever tagged it may have lost interest. William Jockusch (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, but that doesn't mean the tag isn't warranted. I don't think the Fox comparisons matter much, as this article is rated Good it is held to a higher standard than Fox News Channel, which isn't. I also read the two sections outlined and didn't find anything overtly non-neutral in their writing, but do tend to agree on the undue aspect. I think most of the trouble is spreading them out into sub-sections. Some only consist of two or three sentences and it makes it appear more prominent than it should be. I would suggest condensing them into a single section (something like Washington Blade) or to keep similar titles (don't like Ethics incidents as a title though). They can probably be given appropriate weight better this way. AIRcorn (talk) 05:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm, we could combine failure to report the Holocaust and failure to report the Golodomor into "failures to report genocide". And Jayson Blair and the Duke Lacrosse incidents could be grouped into "hoaxes." The number of subheadings would then be fewer. Not sure if this would address your concern or not..William Jockusch (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is too little discussion of the Blair and Miller scandals considering their long term effect on and ramifications for the New York Times. Scanlyze (talk) 07:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Quotes out of context Section

Could do with a bit of a re-write. It reads fairly badly.203.38.100.131 (talk) 02:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is this included at all? One random pop star complaining about her quote does not strike me as rising to an encyclopedic level? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.100.38 (talk) 12:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree that as written, the section is insufficiently supported. Interestingly, Mohammed Morsi recently said that the Western media [presumably including the NYT, which had a big article on the subject] had taken him out of context when they reported that he said that Jews were "descendants of apes and pigs." Morsi did not state what "context" he was referring to, so it seems likely that the NYT was entirely correct on that one.William Jockusch (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Such a section on Quotes out of Context, may have merit if there was or had been, a recognised problem with the NYT in relation to quoting out of context. As it is, it looks like a thinly-veiled political hijacking. Can someone remove it? (I tried) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.38.100.131 (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Israel Coverage

This section ends with a quote from a NYT editor that dismisses the criticism that comes before it, and in a conclusive way. Is this really an objective section if it's concluded by a sweeping quote from an editor of the publication? I propose removing that quote. Please voice any objections here. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 05:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we should repeat the criticism but not purposefully omit the NYT's response to that criticism? That would seem to violate WP:NPOV. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting that the page essentially becomes an advertisement for the publication if they get to openly refute criticism in a sweeping, conclusive way. I don't see a problem in publishing the NYT's official response, but the way it's written now is not objective. The criticisms are written as cold statements. The response is a pseudo-objective, PR-style quote from the editor. I propose a re-write that says the same things but in the same manner the criticisms are voiced. For example, "New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt maintains that despite the criticism, the publication does its best to present a balanced viewpoint in a field of divergent opinions." Let's skip the pretty quote and have the response in the same language as the criticisms. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 06:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yet you don't have the same objections to the criticism itself? We have two full paragraphs of disparate criticism and a single sentence response by the paper. I don't really see the problem. It would be far better to just run the quote as is than to try to paraphrase it (and possibly alter its meaning). Calling it an "advertisement for the publication" is a bit of an exaggeration, don't you think? --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Largest local metro newspaper

Regarding this diff ("WSJ is a larger metro NYC paper"), made by an IP and then reverted by User:Loonymonkey: Please note the precise wording of that sentence: Although the print version of the paper remains the largest local metropolitan newspaper in the United States, it is the third largest newspaper overall, behind The Wall Street Journal and USA Today, .... The claim isn't that NYT is the largest newspaper based in metro New York. It's that NYT is the largest newspaper that covers local news in New York.

Last time I checked, neither The Wall Street Journal nor USA Today were "local metropolitan newspapers". They are primarily national in focus. Obviously they cover many stories datelined in New York, particularly WSJ with its emphasis on business, a sector of American life that is centered on New York. But one wouldn't depend on WSJ for coverage of local New York politics, or crime stories, for instance.

However, I am no longer a subscriber to either WSJ or NYT, or a resident of NYC, so perhaps someone who is can add to this discussion. I seem to remember hearing at one point that Murdoch would like to position WSJ as a primary read for local news within the NYC market; how far along has he gotten with that, if at all? If we can get some source to say that WSJ (its metro New York edition, at any rate) now is a "local metropolitan newspaper", then we'll have to change the article. _``` t b w i l l i e _` $1.25 _` 19:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Political leaning of The Gray Lady

I've reverted Tbhotch's indignant and inexplicable reversion. The paper is famously liberal. See section 5.1, "Political persuasion overall" with its footnotes 91-95. Current note #94 links to this, written by the public editor himself:

THE PUBLIC EDITOR; Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?

By DANIEL OKRENT

Published: July 25, 2004

OF course it is.

Yopienso (talk) 07:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I've just reverted an unregistered user's removal of Political alignment from the infobox. In comparing it with the infoboxes of several other Pulitzer Prize-winning papers, I find the NYT infobox has far more categories than the other half dozen I checked.

My suggestion: if we delete one, we delete all the extra entries. Otherwise, let's continue to inform readers at a glance of it's political leaning. This heavily annotated article on an iconic newspaper is significantly longer than the other articles I checked, and it makes sense to have more entries in the infobox. Yopienso (talk) 04:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Web Presence section needs work

The section on Web presence seems like it needs to be updated and expanded. There isn't a clear statement about the current paywall although there is a large paragraph about the now-defunct (since 2007) Times Select.

Scanlyze (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Margaret Sullivan

We don't have an article for journalist Margaret Sullivan, currently Public Editor of the New York Times and certainly worthy of an article: http://www.thenation.com/article/173448/margaret-sullivan-ombud-who-cares. Mentioned at The_New_York_Times#Pricing_and_revenue, no link. I cross-posted a remark at Talk:Margaret Sullivan; that article is about a different person. - Jmabel | Talk 19:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Boston Globe sold

Isn't the information in this article about the Boston Globe out of date?Ishboyfay (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 May 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the subsection "Political persuasion overall", the current version states that 50% of Americans considered NYT to have no bias, but the report cited actually reads 20% for that category:

"Among the print publications in the survey, the New York Times is perceived as being furthest to the left. Forty percent (40%) of Americans believe the Times has a bias in favor of liberals. Just 11% believe it has a conservative bias while 20% believe it reports news without bias."

Please fix this error. Thanks!

99.138.160.217 (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Done I'm a bit concerned it was that far off in the first place. Perhaps it was vandalized and no one bothered to fix it? elektrik SHOOS (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

From a CNN interview with the NYT Public Editor:

SULLIVAN: I mean that is obviously something people feel about "The Times," and I think maybe the best way to think about it is that "The Times" reflects its readership, its community. It's an urban paper; it's a New York City paper. I mean that's a reasonable criticism, I think.

LIPMAN: So it is a yes?

SULLIVAN: It's a modified yes with a lot of nuance in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judsonduryea (talk • contribs) 05:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

"Liberal"

An IP and a named account have been editwarring to place the newspaper's affiliation as "liberal" in the infobox, using Newsbusters, an obviously partisan website, as a source. While most people would probably say the Times leans that way, a lot of folks would also call it the voice of the moneyed establishment, and Newsbusters is hardly a neutral source. There needs to be a consensus for such tagging, and far better sources. Acroterion (talk) 01:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I note that there is something farther up the page from February. In general, I dislike using infoboxes to boil down complex subjects into a tiny, contextless bite, and given that the Times has attracted criticism from the left about its focus, at least in its lifestyle sections, on the moneyed classes, I think a one-word summary is inappropriate. Acroterion (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

It's semi-protected, not full-protected. There have been multiple accounts and IPs disrupting the page for many months. It should be removed. It is needed enough evidence the daily is a liberal daily, and according to this, it is not that liberal. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 01:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I misread the full move protection for edit protection, and have removed the contested edit accordingly. As I've noted above, opinions vary widely enough that a simple label is inappropriate, and I very much dislike the misuse of infoboxes to draw broad conclusions on complex subjects. Acroterion (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC).

Please present facts accurately the newsbusters citation was a transcript of a CNN interview. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judsonduryea (talk • contribs) 06:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

As I've noted above, the boiling-down of a complex topic to a single word in an infobox is almost always inappropriate and will not "present facts accurately." I'd apply the same criticism to the label in the Washington Times. There's no such label for the Wall Street Journal, for instance. Just because a field exists in an infobox does not make it obligatory that it be filled in, and a a heavily qualified rhetorical statement by an editor in an interview is not a substitute for critical commentary from nonpartisan outside commentators. One could equally say that it reflects its readership of of the well-heeled. The body of the article is where such discussions should go Acroterion (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok so we can agree that the NYT is not objective media. We can end the discussion on agreement.Judsonduryea (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is not about whether the Times is an objective source, it's about a single-word label in an infobox. Acroterion (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

That was my intention in adding the label, to inform readers upfront that the NYT is not objective media. As discussed in the article there is evidence to support this label. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judsonduryea (talk • contribs) 20:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that "liberal" was a code word that indicated that a given media outlet was not objective. Until now I'd assumed that you were acting in good faith, but since you're moving into trolling now, I think we're done here. Acroterion (talk) 21:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Include CEO on description panel

Forgive me if I have overlooked previous discussion/decisions but should not the name of the New York Times CEO, Mark Thompson appear in the summary panel alongside editor, owner, publisher etc ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.167.121 (talk) 08:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Circulation

The introduction indicates that the paper's weekday circulation is less than a million, citing a 2009 article. However, the infobox claims a weekday circulation of nearly twice that, citing a 2013 audit. Has circulation doubled in four years? Is the methodology different? We should try to make the introduction and infobox consistent with each other, so I'm tempted to remove the apparently outdated circulation sentence from the introduction and replace it with something reflective of the more recent number. Pburka (talk) 05:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Rasmussen as conservative

Was not aware that the Rasmussen polling company was conservative. It seems that the reference is intended to undermine its findings. B575 (talk) 05:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Request insertion of CEO of New York Times who is Mark Thompson, former Director General of the BBC. Mr Thompson has his own Wiki entry. Mogulmeister (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.. --Stfg (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Here. http://investors.nytco.com/press/press-releases/press-release-details/2012/Mark-Thompson-to-Become-Next-President-and-Chief-Executive-Officer-of-The-New-York-Times-Company/default.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.149.100.10 (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Discrimination in employment

The Discrimination in employment section is interesting and important, but only deals with gender discrimination. If it could be expanded even slightly to include racial discrimination, also, that would add a lot to the article. MidwestCuttlefish (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Keep the logo

It is consistent with other wikipedia newspaper articles (eg: The Guardian, the Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post) to have the logo of the newspaper. I think that we should have the New York Times logo as well. So, DO NOT REMOVE THE LOGO.--Gillesp (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

That isn't actually a reason. --John (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Probably make your argument at Template talk:Infobox newspaper. Meantime I will remove these as there really isn't any reason to display the logo as well as the front page which includes the logo. It means we show the logo twice, which looks silly. --John (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The New York Times changed their logo after 1923, so there's no PD image of it on a front page, however, being in print before 1923 compels us to use a PD image (although that is not adhered to by other newspaper pages). 99% of logos are below the threshold of originality ( Wikipedia:Restricted_materials#Trademarks ), especially including Newspapers, which largely use wordmarks. Finally, the logo is separate from a branded product, which, for all intents and purposes, a newspaper is. The fact that an article has a picture of a Mac in it doesn't remove the encyclopedic usefulness of having the logo. These days the New York Times is significantly more than what is represented by a page from 1914. It is one of the most respected brands in America (no, I'm not a shill), with activities expanding significantly beyond that of a simple newspaper. The logo represents all of that, while a hundred-year-old newspaper page doesn't.--Gillesp (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I would support using a more modern front page in the infobox as most newspaper articles do, and moving the free 1914 image into the appropriate section of the article. I would not support having both images on the infobox as it looks cluttered and seems to me to push the limits of WP:ICONDECORATION. --John (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

With no objection after many weeks I went ahead and changed this in line with the consensus at the template discussion. --John (talk) 09:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

RM

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 11:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The New York Times → New York Times – As per WP:THE, WP:CONCISE, WP:CONSISTENCY, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and more. Let's see:

We do not generally use the word "the" in front of article titles unless that word is consistently capitalized in running text (plus one or two other exceptions). But less than a quarter of the time when people say "New York Times" do they put a capitalized "The" before it. [11] Clearly, the common way to refer to the newspaper is to call it the New York Times.
In general, we prefer shorter names when they still clearly identify the subject of the article in question.
Most other articles on similar papers omit the "The". Los Angeles Times, New York Herald, Daily News (New York), International New York Times (!!)... some don't, like the WSJ and friends, but they're not the norm.
But wait! The Times uses "the"! ... But it doesn't have WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Times, while obviously that is inapplicable here.

The name of this paper in common English is the New York Times, not The New York Times. Relisted. Favonian (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC). Red Slash 21:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Per point #2 at WP:THE, "If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the page name." Los Angeles Times isn't titled The Los Angeles Times, and "The" isn't used in the titles of the other newspapers you mention, either. As you can see from the infobox image on this page, "The" is very much a part of the title of this newspaper. In fact, the lead of WP:THE uses this page as an example of when starting a page title with "The" is acceptable: "the title of a work or publication (e.g., The Old Man and the Sea, or The New York Times), or" – Muboshgu (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Did you miss that "The New York Times" is used far, far less than "New York Times"? Did you just miss that evidence that I introduced? Red Slash 05:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  - No, I didn't miss it. I found it less compelling than point 2 of WP:THE. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    - Muboshgu, even in books, newspapers (including the NYT's own work?) and other print sources, "The" is not usually capitalized in running text. I should've looked for this and included it earlier (my apologies); it's rather compelling evidence, I think. Red Slash 20:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose per Muboshgu. The evidence presented really just shows that some newspapers include 'The' in their title while others don't. The New York Times clearly does. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 20:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Do we use official names or common names here at Wikipedia? Red Slash 20:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Support per nom and WP:OFFICIALNAMES. The fact that it's nytimes.com and not tnytimes.com and the International New York Times and not The International The New York Times shows the article is not an inseparable part of the name. — AjaxSmack 02:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose, most commonly known per WP:COMMONNAME as The New York Times, nicknamed The Times, etc. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Support, per WP:THE. While I reject AjaxSmack's reasoning, there is no reason to have a leading "The" in the title of this article. O N R (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose, per WP:THE (what it actually says on the issue, not personal interpretations of the lead or other portions). "For newspapers, the general rule is to follow the name of the publication as it actually appears on the masthead." 2600:1006:B11F:927A:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 03:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Liberal media watchdog"

I'm confused why @NapoleonX: made this edit. It sort of works either way, but Media Matters for America describes itself as "the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation"[12]. A "conservative-media watchdog" seems to be a more appropriate label than saying a "liberal media-watchdog" group. Thoughts?--v/r - T P 18:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I assume he misinterpreted "conservative-media watchdog" as meaning the group itself was conservative, rather than understanding it to mean a group that watched conservative media. It would probably be simplest to just echo the description in the lead section of MMfA's article, which calls it a "politically progressive media watchdog group" – or, better yet, just say "media watchdog group". --V2Blast (talk) 01:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary quotation marks in lead and history sections

There are way too many unnecessary quotation marks in the lead and "History" sections. Most of these are around things like the name of the paper, the names of other newspapers, and half the proper nouns in the "History" section. Most of these are already italicized. Someone should go through it, determine which quotation marks are necessary, and get rid of the rest. --V2Blast (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Just FYI, if you or someone else decide to work on this, you will find that most, if not all, of the errors were introduced in six successive edits by an IP on 2014-07-16. I saw them at the time, but my current connection and device make handling significant changes like that unwieldy and a major chore. 2600:1006:B11F:9E14:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 02:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Online activity vs. web presence sections

There is a content: web presence section and also an online activity section. This seems redundant. 68.81.55.232 (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Old Grey Lady

There is a redirect to this from "Old Grey Lady", but nothing in the article about it. Who is the Old Grey Lady? I can guess, obviously, but the silence here is deafening. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The moniker "Old Grey Lady" has been associated with the New York Times by American journalists, denoting its influence, althiugh I cncur that this shouyld be brought out in the article.Marcd30319 (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

== Proposed merge with Jon Pareles ==

Not merged. The article being requested to merge to this article is not relevant enough to include. Editors can take the Jon Pareles article to AfD or help improve it. Dave Dial (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The majority of pieces with his name in them are written by Pareles himself and/or are from The New York Times itself. The only other sources I see are a profile from Current Biography (which only gives a brief paragraph of coverage), a brief listing from Billboard, and an interview from "Rockcritics.com" (interviews are primary sources and therefore not sufficient secondary coverage). Warrants a brief mention in paper's article, but nothing more. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

No Primary documents are NOT under editorial control. Interviews are under editorial control. The publisher cuts down hours of interviews into one article. They are usually fact checked and then the interviewee has a chance to respond to the fact checker. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The proposal has nothing to do with editorial control, Richard. I am suggesting merging the Jon Pareles article to this one as he isn't notable enough on his own to have a separate article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

You said it needs to be merged because the only reliable source is an interview, and that doesn't count for notability, because it is a primary document. I argued that you are incorrect and that magazines interview notable people, and an interview is under editorial control, so by definition it is not a primary document. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Being interviewed doesn't automatically equate to notability. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2015

This edit request to The New York Times has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please update the following link: http://wallstcheatsheet.com/business/top-10-wealthiest-people-in-the-world-2014-edition.html/?a=viewall to http://www.cheatsheet.com/business/top-10-wealthiest-people-in-the-world-2014-edition.html/?a=viewall Thecheatsheet (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Done Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 01:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

persistent removal of reliable source

Why is this interview with New York Times Editor Baquet "not related to this article?" The source discusses key NYT editorial issues, key NYT financial issues, key NYT political issues, etc. Highly relevant to this article. IjonTichy (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

While it has some relevance, an interview is significant in that it is the opinion/views of the person being interviewed. The question is how much weight should those views be given? As the person being interviewed is the current editor, I can see including some views, but unless reported on by other secondary sources, a brief mention is likely more than sufficient.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The contemporary New York Times

I can't understand that all three front-page specimens that we have on the page are very old designs of the paper (July 29, 1914, September 18, 1851 and surprise, surprise, yet again the July 29, 1914 as a duplication). Yet there is not even one single example of how the contemporary newspaper design looks like. We need to have at least one example pertaining to the modern NYT. Clearly one of the two carrying presentation of the July 29, 1914 issue has got to go, hopefully replaced by a more recent issue 13:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I have now added an issue from November 15, 2012 in "Contents" section of the page. Still one of the July 29, 1914 needs to be deleted or replaced. werldwayd (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

When did they go online ?

Which year did they establish an internet version.--Ezzex (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Jan. 19, 1996 http://www.nytco.com/who-we-are/culture/our-history/#2000-1971-timeline — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.149.100.10 (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 17 external links on The New York Times. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Metro section

This article says that the Metro section is only included in papers distributed in NY/NJ/Connecticut and that the national edition includes a New York section instead.

I live in the Philadelphia area and my paper says "National Edition" on the front but it always includes a Metro section.

(I only get the paper on Sundays so I can't speak for the rest of the week.)

-KaJunl (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

mention by media

The top of this talk page shows "This article has been mentioned by a media organisation: McQuillan, karin (June 13, 2012). "Wikipedia’s Jewish Problem". FrontPageMag.com. (details)."

I clicked on the link and it is dead.

-KaJunl (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Resolved I fixed this/updated the link. -KaJunl (talk) 15:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

China

In June 2012, the Times launched^[1] its first official foreign language site, cn.nytimes.com, in Mandarin. The project was led by Craig S. Smith on the business side and Philip P. Pan on the editorial side^[2]. The site’s initial success was interrupted in October that year following the publication of an investigative article by David Barboza about the finances of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s family^[3]. In retaliation for the article, the Chinese government blocked access to both nytimes.com and cn.nytimes.com. Despite Chinese government interference, however, the China operations have continued to develop, adding a second site, cn.nytsytle.com, iOS and Android apps and newsletters, all of which are accessible in China. Traffic to cn.nytimes.com, meanwhile, has gradually recovered thanks to the widespread use of VPN technology in the PRC and to a growing Chinese audience outside mainland China^[4]. The Chinese platforms now represent one of The New York Times’ top five digital markets globally. The current editor-in-chief of the Chinese platforms is Ching-Ching Ni^[5].

18:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.149.100.10 (talk)

References

Anti-Irish slurs

I feel that this section should be edited. Thoughts: 1) Not sure if the exact date of the article is necessary? 2) Would prefer more focus on the backlash/controversy than on a summary of the article itself. The summary is fine but the balance doesn't seem to be there. There are lots of controversial articles in the Times - in order to warrant inclusion in this Wikipedia article, the controversy should be pretty significant, so we should focus on the response more than the content of the article. 3) I skimmed the article and I didn't notice "slurs" (nor did the section of this page mention "slurs") - rather, I see a tone and some blanket statements/generalizations and insensitivity that are potentially offensive towards the Irish. I think the section should be renamed as when I hear "slur" I think of nouns/specific phrases that are targeted at a group of people; I don't think that's what this is. -KaJunl (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

What's the point of having this category if friends of The Times can delete entries. It a fact that The Times has a long history of anti-Irish slurs and it shouldn't be allowed to censor and cover them up. Here's an example of censored material:

The Times has an old history of these slurs, dating from July 16, 1871 and a repugnant discussion of the Irish character that followed the Orange and Green "riots" when scores of "rioters" were gunned down by panicked militia. [159] In 1875, The Times opined that "New York was not an American City." There were too many Irish immigrants who were not American in their ways and who, if allowed to vote in New York City elections, would "deprive Americans by birth and descent of the small share they yet retain in the control of its [New York City's] affairs." [160]

The Times has a perennial problem with blaming Irish immigrants for the New York City draft riots of 1863, even though opposition to Lincoln and the draft was incited by New York City politicians and businessmen with ties to the South. The leaders of these pro-South interests were Governor Horatio Seymour, August Belmont, Samuel Morse, Fernando Wood, Samuel Tilden, and Manton Marble. None of these leaders were Irish or Catholic. Belmont, for example, was a German immigrant, American agent for the Rothschilds, and in-law of Confederate politician John Slidell, an expatriate New Yorker with Anglo-Scots roots and a Columbia University degree. This anti-Lincoln and anti-Emancipation group’s propaganda organs were the New York World and The Society for Diffusion of Political Knowledge. ^[1] In fact the vast of majority of New York’s 800,000 citizens, including the city’s 200,000 Irish did not riot; there were no more than several hundred violent rioters many of whom were young boys. ^[2] City authorities failed to initially contain the mayhem because virtually of New York City’s self-defense militia had been sent to defend Pennsylvania from the Confederate invasion of 1863. ^[3] The Times’ Bob Herbert was responsible for one of the most egregious draft riot calumnies when he blamed the rioting on Irish immigrants who refused to fight to free poor blacks. ^[4] In fact, New York City troops, many of whom were Irish and German immigrants, fought valiantly throughout the Civil War. Only a week before the riots, New York City units including Irish and German immigrants played a prominent role in defeating the Confederates at Gettysburg ^[5] The commander of the Union Army at Gettysburg, George Gordon Meade, and his chief lieutenant General John Reynolds were Irish Americans. ^[6] To date, The Times had refused to acknowledge, correct or apologize for these calumnies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.44.12 (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Not sure you fully understood what I was saying. I'm not doubting the existence of anti-Irish slurs in the Times. Rather, I'm just suggesting improvements to the section of the encyclopedia article. For example, the title of the section had "slurs" in it, but then the slurs weren't mentioned in the section. I also wondered if this controversy in particular was significantly more notable than the many other controversies the Times has faced, and if so, the section should actually be expanded to mention the controversy. None of what you mention above is in the article, so the context isn't there. E.g. instead of just mentioning what happened, explain the media backlash etc. that made it significant. Hope others can weigh in. -KaJunl (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, were you referring to me as a friend of the Times? I'm just a random reader, and no one deleted the entry. -KaJunl (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. You had added an expansion to the section that was then deleted. Not sure who deleted it, but I don't think it was deleted because of content - rather, it just wasn't written in an encyclopedic style and wasn't entirely neutral point of view. Hopefully someone can take a look and consider rephrasing and reincluding. -KaJunl (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Wolff: The two faces of the Times

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/wolff/2016/01/10/wolff-new-york-times-dueling-magazines/78447158/ Ottawahitech (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on The New York Times. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

How did it become a Jewish community sheet

The article is not a soapbox; the talk page is not a forum. There are lots of other places on the Internet to talk about this stuff.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There should be more on how this newspaper became so Jewish dominated. No doubt this will be called anti-semitic, but that will only confirm the dominance of the Jewish narrative here on Wikipedia, as on the NYT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.35.123 (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Is four weeks' suspension enough?

With repeated mistakes or biased attempts that were largely unexplained, it seems The New York Times' Twitter account needs to take leaf from its own social media policy and hence, take appropriate action as they did before when the perpetrator was a freelance journalist: http://www.dailysabah.com/readers-corner/2016/08/29/is-four-weeks-suspension-enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.74.186.109 (talk) 07:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Inaccuracy perfected.

Public editors[edit] They "investigate matters of journalistic integrity" and serve a two-year term (Margaret M. Sullivan served a four- year term, which is the only exception).[183]

Daniel Okrent (2003-2005) was appointed as the first public editor because of the Jayson Blair affair.

Byron Calame (2005-2007)

Clark Hoyt (2007-2010) served an extra year

Arthur S. Brisbane (2010-2012)

Margaret M. Sullivan (2012-2016 ) Elizabeth Spayd (2016-)

States the current article. So the only exception, apart from the only exception, exists. AnnaComnemna (talk) 10:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Support for Kurdistan Workers' Party

The article is not a soapbox; the talk page is not a forum. There are lots of other places on the Internet to talk about this stuff.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi, I would like to add the below criticism in the pertinent section following the paper's latest manipulation in a series of articles turning a blind eye, even supporting the activities of Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK):

On December 24, 2016, the New York Times published an article and photo which drew a strong reaction from Turkish social media users who critisized it for publishing a photo of a building attacked by the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) but depicting it as if it were bombed by Turkish security forces. Nordland, Rod (December 24, 2016). "NY Times, HRW's manipulation with PKK article attracts major reaction". Daily Sabah. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Any suggestions or help would be greatly appreciated? Thanks. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 10:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, here are two suggestions. First, run a spell check before posting. Second, read WP:SOAPBOX. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 12:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, user 213.74.186.109 should really follow the suggestions of user Rivertorch. In addition I prepared some arguments, why this text should not be added.

1) This incident is not relevant enough to be included in the article about NYT.

2) This NYT article is mainly about the Turkish war crimes and human rights violations in the Kurdish regions in Turkey, specifically the Sur municipality of Diyarbakir, and not about support for the PKK.

3) It is without question that residential neighborhoods in this town were bombed by Turkish security forces. If it were true that for this photo not the Turkish security forces were the perpetrator, it would be no problem to replace this photo by a photo showing destruction for which Turkish security forces are the perpetrator without any question. A possibly careless choice of the photo is not that important.

4) The other reference is from Daily Sabah, which is propaganda of the Turkish AKP regime and in general not reliable.

5) The "strong reaction from Turkish social media users" might have been caused by Turkish propaganda, so it is probably more related to wikipedia articles about press freedom in Turkey than to the article about the NYT.

In any case the above mentioned NYT article should be included elsewhere on wikipedia, in articles about the recent Turkish war crimes and human rights violations in Turkey, as reference. 2003:77:4F17:B139:A5D7:4EAA:9809:8EAB (talk) 12:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits

Dear @EricEnfermero: Please explain what you mean by "we usually don't use wording like this and no external links". How would you rather I word what happened? Could you lend a hand? Thank you. -Human like you (talk) 09:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you might best be served by referring to WP:NPOV, which I think I also linked in my edit summary. Even if we have neutral wording (something without the sweeping manipulation of news), we still have the issue of whether this reference is a reliable source. The external link comment is easy. Please don't place external links (links to other websites) directly in the body of the article. EricEnfermero (Talk) 09:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

And of course there is still the issue above - that this incident has not yet received enough significant coverage to include in the encyclopedia. There may be other criticisms in the article that also do not belong, but they all look well-supported by reliable sources. The Duke lacrosse case, as one example, has been covered so much that virtually everyone in the US knows about it. EricEnfermero (Talk) 09:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Now this answer I will accept. But you, or somebody else, could lend a hand in stopping the MAC address from constantly censoring my discussion. -Human like you (talk) 09:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Podcasts?

There's no mention of NYT podcasts, either independently produced or in conjunction with other entities, such as Panoply Media. Does this warrant its own section in this article? Should NYT podcasts be its own article? Morganfitzp (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. I do not think that the podcasts should be their own article, but they do, in my opinion merit a mention on this article. Eddie891 (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Rasmussen Reports 2007 poll

I'm removing a 2007 Rasmussen poll. My rationale is as follows:

Rasmussen is not in the top tier of pollsters. FiveThirtyEight's objective assessment of pollster accuracy rates Rasmussen as a C+.
The poll is 10 years out of date. If a poll is desirable, there will be more up-to-date polls, or some source reflecting a series of polls over time to track trends in perceptions.
It's primary sources to Rasmussen itself - no secondary coverage.

Happy to discuss further if desired. --Neutrality^talk 20:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Public editor / crime scene photos

I have:

Restored the short section on the NYT public editor, which an editor deleted on the basis of "the position is not around any more" and "why does just this job merit it's own section?" First, just became a position has been abolished doesn't mean it's not significant. The NYT had the position for 15 years, and it was the only major link between readership and leadership - it's distinct from other editors (e.g., politics editor, sports editor, etc.) because it bears on the workings of the newspaper itself.

Deleted the overly long section on publication of Manchester crime-scene photos. This affair is already addressed in New York Times controversies and I question the WP:WEIGHT accorded to it here, in the broad context of an article on a 165-year-old publication. The episode did not receive sustained press attention (I'm seeing articles over one or two days - not longer than that) and the NYT publishes leaked information all the time, including in controversial cases. I struggle to comprehend why we would include an entire paragraph on this, when the Jayson Blair episode (which was of major importance to the newspaper, caused sustained damage, etc.) gets two sentences. In addition, the same photos were subsequently published by other newspapers as well. The coverage here seems disproportionate to me.

--Neutrality^talk 01:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality: I readily admit that I was hasty in adding the Manchester Bombing photo. However, my point of conflict with you is on the topic of public editors. While yes, the public editor is certainly all those things you mentioned, I can still not understand why they merit their own section. Other newspapers employ (or have employed) public editors (or an equivalent). [The Washington Post (mention in passing) https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/patrick-pexton-is-the-post-getting-rid-of-the-ombudsman/2013/02/15/fff68282-778f-11e2-8f84-3e4b513b1a13_story.html] [NPR (three short sentances) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?columnId=2781901]. [The Toronto Star (one sentence mention), The Courier-Journal, Asahi Shimbun, Yomiuri Shimbun http://newsombudsmen.org/about-ono] [CBS http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/public_eye/preview_about.shtml] [The Guardian (one unreferenced sentence), BBC, PBS, Associated Press. http://newsombudsmen.org/regular-members] Yet, there is only a sentence or two mention at most. So why should there be a whole section of the New York Times's page? Eddie891 (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Eddie891: Well, the fact that other articles aren't very good/detailed is an argument for improving those articles, not making this one less detailed. Neutrality^talk 18:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality: I cede your point. You were right, I was wrong. Last time I ever make a bold edit without consulting the talk page.Eddie891 (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks. Neutrality^talk 01:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

American, U.S., or something else

There seems to be some disagreement to which way the first sentence of The New York Times's article should have the country it is based in phrased. Currently the consensus seems to be the country of origin (i.e. American, British, Japanese...), but I would like something to base it on. Thoughts? Should it be (in the case of United States of America) American, U.S, United States, based in America, or something else? For your consideration

American

Other

so clearly, consensus leans towards American. But as I have seen someone change American twice in less then 6 months, I would like to get consensus. Eddie891 (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

"American" is fine with me. "based in the United States" would also be fine. Neutrality^talk 01:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Accusations of bias in lead section

Is it appropriate to devote a one sentence paragraph about accusations of bias in the lead? A prominent newspaper/publication with as grand a history as the Times is bound to have had controversies in its past, or complaints about bias in its reporting. Wikipedia articles for similar publications, such as The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, New York Post, and Chicago Tribune have separate articles or sections about controversies, but none have as grand a statement as the one currently in this article. Jw12321 (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I am removing the paragraph now, because I think it's inappropriate. Other editors please do note your concerns here if there is disagreement. Jw12321 (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe the accusations of bias belong in the lede either. While criticism should be in the article, one editor is edit-warring to include it in the lede with some primary sources. Toddst1 (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Truthseeker315: per WP:BRD, please discuss your proposed changes here before any further editing. clpo13_(talk) 23:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Removed from the lead - needs to be discussed here first. Vsmith (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC) ... and was almost immediately reverted ... aw well. Vsmith (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Toddst1: Please state your issue with the two journal articles cited, and the research from Pew Research Center. Are you stating they are not credible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseeker315 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Clpo13:, ::@Vsmith: Both of you as well, see above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseeker315 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

This is about the presentation of the criticism, not the credibility of the sources. See WP:CRIT for some advice on how this is usually handled in articles. clpo13_(talk) 23:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I've moved the content down to the criticism section under the subsection "Bias". Tweak as needed. Vsmith (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe either the bias criticism or a classification as "liberal newspaper" should be back in the lead. After all, that is what is done with every non-liberal news source in Wikipedia: either "X is a conservative/right wing/etc newspaper" - usually citing the NYT as a reference for the classification - or criticism in the lead (e.g. [Drudge Report], [Breitbart News]). And I think that is absolutely fine! But it should be done here also, since the sources for the criticism are reliable and mainstream as has already been discussed. I see no reason to move the criticism down, having circulated for a long time does not exempt one from it. In fact, I think it would be WP:UNDUE to present it in the current form. I won't edit war, but I suggest an RfC is started to avoid it, since - I imagine - others will continue to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.40.89.76 (talk) 11:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The classification as a liberal newspaper was recently moved down per WP:UNDUE and correctly attributed instead of asserted (per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). I think it should be moved back up (as an attribution) though. This is what is done with most articles on news sources that are widely held as having a certain bias. @Neutrality: mentions that the references are opinion pieces, but they'll almost always be opinion pieces when the issue at hand is an attribution of bias and it's perfectly fine to give them their due weight if the opinion is in fact widely held. So I propose that in addition to the CNBC story and the three Times editorials attributing a "liberal" classification to the newspaper the following references be added: Forbes editorial (attributes a liberal classification), NYPost editorial (attributes a liberal classification, among other criticism), Washington Post story (mentions a study saying the paper targets a liberal audience). Would that be sufficient weight for the attribution to be moved back up? This is done for other major media outlets, e.g. Fox News. If there is no consensus for the change after the aforementioned references are added I intend to start an RfC as there seems to have been some minor dispute in the past concerning this topic (without the new references) Saturnalia0 (talk) 09:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't belong in the lead, at least not in the first sentence and with the "liberal daily newspaper" tag. Rather, discussion of these issues belongs under the "Editorial stance" / "Political stance" section. (This is pretty consistent with how we deal with other papers — in the The Wall Street Journal article, for example, we don't mention political leanings in the lead; we discuss the WSJ' conservative editorial page in the appropriate section in the body of the article.

Editors who want this in the lead are also conflating three different topics — (1) the paper's editorial stance; (2) allegations of bias, or perceptions of bias, in media reporting; and (3) the political views of the paper's readership. All three of these points are distinct. Neutrality^talk 15:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

There have been a number of pages cited in this section where a mention of bias is included in the lead, I don't see a "pretty consistent" way of dealing with it. However, I agree with your second point on making a distinction between the three notions. I haven't done so, as I should have had. That being clear, take for instance Fox News, where there is an attributed mention of bias at the end of the lead. It seems to me that a similar attribution is suited in the same place for this article - there are plenty of references already in the article (e.g. [13] [14]) mentioning a liberal bias (not a liberal editorial stance, not a liberal audience), in addition to the ones (Forbes, NYPost, but not the WashingtonPost one) I mentioned in my last comment.Saturnalia0 (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

You're correct, there are articles of other major newspapers which lack a political stance declaration in the lede. Some of the one's you mentioned simply use the infobox to make outright assertions of a publication's bias. Some others you've mentioned which also lack a bias label in the lede instead contain "political stance" sections which are nearly as long as the rest of the article combined.

Using your own examples as a guideline, which would you prefer, listing the NYT bias in the infobox, or quadrupling the size of the bias subsection? If neither of these is the case, then your concern would appear to be over the validity of the bias accusation, not the appropriateness of it's inclusion in the lede. In either case, it's not your place to raise a concern in the talk page, wait 5 hours, and then unilaterally make the edits you'd like.

50.189.1.9 (talk) 04:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Huh? I didn't say anything about doing that nor is it done in the articles I mentioned. Seriously, take a look at Fox News and then at this. I am adding back the widely held label to the lead, with the corrections pointed out by Neutrality. I am not very worried with having it on the lead but more so with the fact that statements with the same weight are on the lead elsewhere. I believe balance is of utmost importance, and I imagine other editors will agree and try to find some balance between articles of different outlets. Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

There's a precedent for WP articles on newspapers to keep the editorial stuff in the body and not in the lead. I see your opinion about the Fox News, but I think that the Fox News article is problematic and WP:Undue, not this article. Also, Fox News is not a newspaper, and the precedent is only for articles on newspapers, not for websites like HuffPost or Breitbart for example. Marquis de Faux (talk) 04:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Unfinished sentence

In the lede of the page, there is a sentence that currently reads thus: " Following industry trends, its weekday circulation had fallen in 2009 to fewer than one million." And then what? The sentence seems to imply that its weekday circulation had fallen below one million, but is not still below one million. How should this sentence really end? Eddie891 (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Defamation Lawsuit against The New York Times

An editor (User:VoteCounter) has consistently been adding this content. "===Linking Sarah Palin to Giffords shooting=== On June 14, 2017 (the day Rep. Steve Scalise was shot), a New York Times editorial falsely linked former Alaska governor Sarah Palin to the attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords:

"In 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl, the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs."^[1]

The Times subsequently issued a correction after multiple critics pointed out the falsehood and admitted that "no such link was established."^[1]^[2]

On June 27, 2017, Palin filed a $75,000 defamation lawsuit against the New York Times over this editorial.^[3]" I have reverted it, but in interest of not edit warring, I am explaining my reasoning here. The two Wikipedia policies that apply here are WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. While this is an embarrassing mistake for the New York Times, It is a relatively small incident in the newspapers 150+ year history. I don't have enough time to explain in more detail now, but I will be back later with more detail. I am open to changing my mind if someone provides enough good reasoning. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

^ ^a ^b Matthew Balan (June 14, 2017). "NY Times Hypes 'Link To Political Incitement' in 2011 Shooting of Rep. Giffords; Twitter Erupts". Mediaite.
^ "No evidence Sarah Palin's PAC incited shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords". Polifact. June 15, 2017.
^ "Sarah Palin sues New York Times". CNN. June 15, 2017.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The New York Times. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Poor writing

The history section, at least, needs a lot of rewriting to meet the standard of good English. There are missing commas, garbled sentences, failures of grammar. I hope someone with the time (which I don't have) and inclination will do it. Zaslav (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Should obituaries in the New York Times not be counted toward notability for people that lived in the New York Metropolitan area

Closing this discussion as requested at Wikipedia:Requests for closure. The consensus here appears to be that at present, because the NYT only prints a handful (up to 5) obituaries a day, typically these are substantial and provide a reliable source of notability. It's also been noted, though, that Wikipedia requires multiple sources, so an obituary in the NYT alone, with no other reliable sources providing evidence of notability, is insufficient for an article. It's also been noted that many years ago, as well as the same 5 or fewer full-scale obituaries, the NYT published short death notices; the consensus here suggests these shorter pieces are not an assertion of notability. Fish+Karate 09:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should obituaries in the New York Times NOT be counted toward notability for people that live in the New York Metropolitan area because it is a local paper when tributing local people? Does Wikipedia actually ban local content when accessing notability? We are excluding the paid obituaries that are carried as advertisements in this argument. --RAN (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Example: "New Jersey is in the circulation area of the NYT, an NYT obit for a New Jersey figure is not a sign of notability." and He was in the local distribution area of the NYT, so coverage of him is an example of local coverage. Nothing shows that he rises to the level of notability

Comments

This has come up at multiple AFDs. Out of the about 7,000 people that die each day, which is about 500 people in the New York metro area, the Times prints about 5 obituaries. I would say it is the defacto standard for notability, and there is no rule excluding reliable local content. We require multiple sources, and an obit counts as one source. It would be very rare to find someone with a NYT obit that did not have more coverage elsewhere. --RAN (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
They count and they are not a local source (outside the Metro section, where they put local content.) The NYT is a national paper and it's absurd to suggest that they would qualify as local purely because they have "New York" in their name; their obituaries, like almost everything else outside the Metro section, only covers people of national significance. That said, read Wikipedia:Notability (people). Local or national or whatever isn't the real issue; the real requirement is "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." A New York Times obituary obviously qualifies as one such source (again, I think it's absurd to suggest otherwise - you would have to argue that the Times is not reliable). And while just one sources is technically not enough, I find it fairly impossible to picture a situation where the Times would write an obituary for someone who was not covered by at least one other independent source that met the criteria. --Aquillion (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
It depends. (Summoned by bot) At the present time the Times prints only five obits or fewer every day, and they definitely are strong evidence of notability. However, as a perusal of Times editions of years past will indicate, the Times used to print many more obits, sometimes of obscure businesspeople and physicians who we would not consider to be notable. So therefore my answer would be that it depends upon when the person died. Today, strong evidence. 1950s, far less. The more obits printed by the Times customarily during that time period, and of course the length of the obit itself, needs to taken into consideration in making that determination. As for the specific regional issue raised above, I would agree that a recent obit of a deceased person would be powerful evidence of notability despite that person being in the circulation area of the Times. The Times is a national newspaper and cannot be considered a simply local source at the present time. I'd have to go back to the Times Machine to check 2000, but I am pretty sure that by then they were quite selective. I believe that policy goes back to the early 1990s and even before. One last point: this is a very good question but it really belongs in an RfC at the RS noticeboard or some wider venue. Coretheapple (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I looked at some issues from the 1950s and while I do see more obits, there are very clearly (at least) 2 categories: they still published about 5 major obituaries a day, but also printed about 15 minor/shorter ones, each of just one or two paragraphs in length. Usually there are some mid-sized ones in the middle of the page and a bunch of smaller ones at the bottom. Those people might be of questionable notability but I wouldn't doubt the notability of anyone who got a top-level obit. If you look at the "times machine" page view the distinction is obvious: top-level obits are at the top of the page, headlined in larger type, often have a photo and are at least 3-4 paragraphs in length. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they used to print death notices, especially in the 1800s of prominent people that were just a few sentences. They were prominent, but not always notable. There would not be enough information for a full biography if there was only the death notice to go by. That type of few sentence permastub can possibly be added to a list of people, when appropriate. There is no reason to have a three sentence stand alone article on them, based solely on this. --RAN (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Not a local source, it would be irrational to exclude a source because an individual happened to live in the NY vicinity. This is indirectly a manifestation of that old WP misnomer 'notability', which, in WP-speak, is not really a synonym of "importance", but more a necessary aspect of verifiability. Pincrete (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
It depends per Core. As noted there, with only five obits published daily currently with no clear indication of local bias, a long-form NYTimes Obit should count towards notability (read, not a local source). In the past, not so much as Core points out. But I would agree with Aquillion that it should be an easy test to corroborate an obit of a NYC resident published by the Times with another RS - maybe not the same day but soon enough, which should help with notability tests. --Masem (t) 16:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
It depends I agree with the points made by Masem and Core. Rockypedia (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Judge by the length and depth of the obit - as I suggest in my response to coretheapple above, it's true that the NYT used to print more obits than they do nowadays, but even then, if the Times devoted significant pagespace to somebody's death it's still a safe bet that they are likely notable, and that obit should carry some weight in a deletion discussion. If their obit was more than a couple paragraphs long and ran at the top of the obits page, it's very likely the person is notable. If it's three sentences and ran at the bottom, not so much. If it's in between, then I would definitely want to see what other RS say about that person before making the call on notability. But I definitely don't buy excluding the NYT as a "local" source that can't confer notability on NY/NJ-based people, that's just silly. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree, a contextual judgement is the best approach and the NYT shouldn't be treated as a straight up or down local/nonlocal source. Jasphetamine (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

They count – Every obituary in the Times is a valid RS regardless of the locality of the deceased. Even in earlier eras, obituaries were considered news content and they can be easily discerned from common death notices. SteveStrummer (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2018

This edit request to The New York Times has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "The New York Times (sometimes abbreviated as The NYT or The Times) is an American newspaper" to "The New York Times (sometimes abbreviated as The NYT or The Times) is a mostly liberal, left leaning American newspaper". 2605:6000:D584:200:75C3:E7F9:2D57:7C50 (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Why? As a counterexample, note that the entry for Fox News reads:

“

Fox News (officially known as the Fox News Channel, commonly abbreviated to FNC) is an American basic cable and satellite television news channel owned by the Fox Entertainment Group, a subsidiary of 21st Century Fox.

”

PaulCHebert (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

New York Times new inclusion of overlooked women in the obituaries

I added content about the 'Overlooked' women/obituary project begun by the NYT this month, along with the references. Just wondering if this is the right place for this important development. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vizzylane (talk • contribs) 18:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe move it to (possibly a new subsection of) the Content section? It certainly does not exclusively pertain to the print newspaper, but that’s what the current placement would seem to suggest. ―BlaueBlüte (talk) 19:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

How many journalists work for it full time?

It's hard to find a reliable source. I suspect it's nothing like the 1000+ they hint at. Ttocserp 17:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

2o17 annual report says 1,450 journalists. Eschoryii (talk) 12:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Contradiction within introduction

The intro states "The New York Times is ranked 18th in the world by circulation." The link within this sentence states that Nanfang Daily is ranked 18th in the world by circulation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdjfhaskdf (talk • contribs) 23:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

DoneFixed to say 17th in ranking.Eschoryii (talk) 12:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Senate Denies General Officer Promotion

Would Your News Agency be interested in a story about the U.S. Senate denying a general officer a promotion from one star to two stars based on a Department of the Army (DA) Inspector General (IG) investigation in Wiesbaden, Germany, if there is a cover-up? Hi— I’m contacting your news agency because I’ve tried to provide this story to larger news organizations and I believe their postal mail, email, and text messages are being censored. A similar story about a Navy admiral took years to get in the news, so I’m not terribly worried. The basic story will eventually break (basic story: In 2016 the U.S. Senate denied a general officer a promotion based on an IG investigation and, wow, is U.S. Army Europe/USAREUR still doing a lot to cover it up). I used to work in Wiesbaden, and I was there when the general had his promotion denied. I sat in a session in which civilian employees were essentially asked if they were being forced to do things they didn’t want to do, and I am fairly certain that’s how the DA IG investigation report will read – once we get our hands on it (I've been trying to break this story for the past two years). If you can obtain a copy of the DA IG report, please post a PDF copy of the report online along with the story when you break it. I can expand on the story once it hits AP newswires. I’m sure it will be redacted, but I can fill in a lot of the blanks. Feel free to call U.S. Army Europe (USAREUR) Public Affairs Office (PAO) at this number: +49-611-143-537-0005 or 0006 Outside Germany, add your country's International Direct Dialing code plus "49" before the desired number. It’s usually 011, but some telephone carriers have different ones; so, normally dial the whole number like this: 011-49-611-143-537-0005 or 0006 Keep in mind that anything the USAREUR PAO says may be part of a cover-up. For instance, if they don’t confirm the basic story, they are perpetuating a cover-up that’s been ongoing since 2016. For some reason they really, really, really do not want the DA IG report to get in the news. Don’t know if this is Pulitzer-level stuff, but it might be.

Current Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request status and how-to: If you would like to be the first news agency to break the story:

Email the DA IG FOIA Office here: usarmy.pentagon.hqda-otig.mbx.saig-zxl@mail.mil
Ask for a copy of the “calendar year 2016 IG investigation report that caused the United States Senate to deny promotion to major general officer rank (O-8) for the Deputy Chief of Staff for U.S. Army Europe, headquartered in Wiesbaden, Germany (DA IG FOIA Records Release Office knows the name of the general officer, because I emailed them the name).
An alternate method to obtain the IG report would be to re-initiate the FOIA request by going here and using a Department of Defense (DOD) IG FOIA account to request the report: https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/public/home
I initially requested the Wiesbaden report through DOD IG FOIA, and they responded by re-directing me to the DA IG FOIA Office. That’s how I know the report is at DA.

I’ll contact your news agency to talk about the cover-up after the basic story finally gets in the news. -- The reason I’m asking for assistance in obtaining the IG report is because I believe my FOIA requests have been blocked as part of the cover-up. Whoever you talk to can say whatever they want, but the key to this story is the DA IG report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DF:9BD8:C141:81E1:A85E:A969:7ECD (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, there. We are not, and do not represent, the New York Times. We're all volunteers here at Wikipedia, a volunteer encyclopaedia, and undertaking reporting in our roles as volunteer editors is a bit out of our purview, wouldn't you think? Perhaps Wikinews would be a better venue. Thank you for your inquiry, and I'm sorry we are unable to help. I wish you the best of luck in your endeavour. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 20:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Controversies

Do the M.I.A. complaints from 2009 and the Irish student controversy from 2015 really merit inclusion? They seem minor compared to the others listed and are not really adding much. Are we giving them undue weight? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.119.94 (talk) 13:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

"Employment of open racists"

The provided source does not say that Jeong is an "open racist", and I have therefore removed the edit. PaulCHebert (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

In addition to the sources not supporting the wording most people seem to be using, I have serious WP:DUE issues. We don't list every twitter brouhaha concerning a writer on the page for the publication they write for. This might be appropriate for her article, but currently it's far below the level of notability necessary to mention it on the article for the Times. --Aquillion (talk) 01:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Left wing paper

Left Pretty clear the paper leans to the left me thinks. Needs to be in the info box under 'political alignment' like wiki does with other papers. Reaper7 (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

No, it reads Left-Center. Also, tell me more about this organization. Should take them seriously? PaulCHebert (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

'Leans to the left' means centre Left. Yes the paper is left or centre left. Depends on which one you think it is more appropriate and which links you wish to use. Reaper7 (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that that site passes WP:RS. It doesn't have any reputation that I'm aware of; at the very least, it would be WP:UNDUE to place the opinion of such an obscure site so highly on the page. The debate is already covered in the "accusations of bias" section, and this source's opinion doesn't seem to add anything to that. --Aquillion (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Aquillion comments above. I don't see that the quoted website is WP:RS and in any case this whole case is WP:UNDUE.David J Johnson (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

If we find a decent source - would you be open to stating the paper's political affiliation like other papers have done on wiki - or are you fundamentally against the New York Times having a political affiliation section in its info box like other papers do like The Guardian, Chicago Tribune and the New York Post for example? Reaper7 (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I question the need for and utility of such sections in the first place. --Khajidha (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

--> I keep running across Wikipedia stuff that is just plain agenda driven. Obviously, staff members of the "Gray Lady", the "Newspaper of Record, have read this posting yet none have bothered to cite references or help with a neutral description of the paper. > "The cyber security breaches have been described as possibly being related to cyberattacks that targeted other institutions, such as the Democratic National Committee.CitizenDaveS (talk) 04:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Styling of short name

The article is inconsistent as to the Times or The Times, and this should be corrected. Note that there is a newspaper called The Times, but it isn't this one. For that reason, and because it just seems more natural to my eye, I favor the Times and I will make those changes in about a week per WP:BRD unless there is a consensus here for The Times. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Done - [15] ―Mandruss ☎ 04:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

On a related note, I have made this edit as a no-brainer. The Philadelphia Inquirer doesn't state that it's sometimes abbreviated as The Inquirer, Chicago Tribune doesn't state that it's sometimes abbreviated as The Tribune, The Washington Post doesn't state that it's sometimes abbreviated as The Post, and Miami Herald doesn't state that it's sometimes abbreviated as The Herald. I could go on until my fingers were numb. Show me three separate cases where NYT is called The Times in a fresh context. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Mergefrom Daniel Andrew Gross and Steven Goldstein

There is a WP:1E/WP:BLP1E article solely concerned with the New York Times and not much else. It's a short stub which should be merged into the NYT history section. -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 04:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Survey

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

Support I am the nominator -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Alternately, the article Daniel Andrew Gross and Steven Goldstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) should just be deleted, since it is only about a low-notability NYT social page. If it isn't deleted, then it needs to be merged here, since it is only about the changing of the NYT column title and listing criteria of that social page. -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 05:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Suggest a merge to a more specific page: LGBT culture in New York City. Klbrain (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

something is broken on this page

I can't figure out what's causing it, but there's a huge section just missing. Someone must have accidentally stuck some code in that is hiding it. Can someone who understands the markup better than I do take a look? It has to be between Democratic National Committee and Laura Yuree Kim's most recent signing of the page --valereee (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Yep, yep. Looks like someone accidentally stuck a ref tag in there, immediately after "Democratic National Committee". I've taken the liberty of removing it. Hope no one minds! —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2019

This edit request to The New York Times has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

The Weekly is a new television series from The New York Times, set to air on FX and stream on Hulu. Every Sunday, The Weekly will cover one story at a time with Times journalists who have reported on that issue for months, and, in some cases, years.

The half-hour show has a 30-week commitment with FX and will premiere on June 2, 2019 at 10 p.m. ET/PT. The show will also exclusively stream on June 3, 2019 on Hulu. The series trailer is available at nytimes.com/theweekly.

Citations: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ny-times-ceo-talks-new-fx-hulu-doc-series-weekly-1190415 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/the-weekly/the-weekly-premiere-trailer-date.html

I am Laura Kim, and I work at The New York Times. I am a senior digital strategy editor for "The Weekly."

valereee I've made the changes, as you advised. Please let me know if there is anything more I need to do. Television show The Weekly is a new television series from The New York Times, set to air on FX and stream on Hulu. Every Sunday, The Weekly will cover one story at a time with Times journalists who have reported on that issue for months, and, in some cases, years.

The half-hour show has a 30-week commitment with FX and will premiere on June 2, 2019 at 10 p.m. ET/PT. The show will also exclusively stream on June 3, 2019 on Hulu. The series trailer is available at nytimes.com/theweekly. Laura Yuree Kim (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Laura Yuree Kim Welcome to Wikipedia! I've left a message on your talk page, which you can access from the inbox icon above, third from the left at the top of every page. --valereee (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Reply 23-APR-2019

Edit request declined

The proposed text contains wording which would not normally be used in articles. Describing an item as a "new television series" does not follow MOS:RELTIME.
The proposed text also discusses the items as WP:FUTURE events (i.e., "Every Sunday, The Weekly will cover one story at a time").
The requisite <ref> tags have not been placed in the text. The placements of these ref tags are to indicate to the reader and the reviewer which reference applies where.^[a] (See WP:INTEGRITY.)
The proposed references are not placed in the citation style currently used by the subject article (WP:CS1. See also WP:CITEVAR.) As Wikipedia is a volunteer project, this formatting is generally expected to be completed before requests are submitted for review.

Kindly reformulate your request to align itself along with these suggestions, and feel free to re-submit that request at your earliest convenience. Regards, Spintendo 19:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Notes

^ More than one reference was provided with the current request, but not the directions for which reference is to apply to which claim statement — either to the claims individually, or to the entire passage as a whole.

Laura Yuree Kim If you'll make sure to insert new responses always at the end of the section, and always with a signature of four tildes (at the end of your post, just hit tilde four times), it'll help the rest of us see the conversation in the correct order.

The above denial was caused by two things. First, WP doesn't generally announce what's coming up in the future; we instead report on what's being said about what's already happened. So after the show airs, if there's coverage in reliable sources, we'll report on that.

Second, to make life easier for the volunteers who work on WP, we ask that you formulate your requested changes in a specific way: Give us the exact wording you'd like to have replaced/inserted and tell us where in the article to insert it or what exact wording it needs to replace. Finally, we ask that you format the source for us. We shouldn't have to do more than copy-paste. For a source, what we're looking for is an article about the new show in a reliable source (not the NYT, as that's affiliated) and more than a short mention.

I know this is a lot to process. We do want to help you make constructive changes, but we're all volunteers here. --valereee (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Valereee Hello. Thanks for your patience! Here is a revised entry. Can you put it under the Products section, under Podcasts? User:Laura Yuree Kim (talk)

″The Weekly″ is a new television series, produced by The New York Times and Left/Right.

The half-hour show has a 30-week commitment with FX and streaming plans with Hulu. ^[1]

Laura Yuree Kim (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Laura Yuree Kim (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

References

^ Erik Pedersen "‘The Weekly’ Teaser & Premiere Date: FX’s New York Times Docuseries","Deadline", April 9, 2019

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2019

This edit request to The New York Times has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the first paragraph, the NYTimes is listed as having 127 Pulitzers and in the last paragraph as having 125. 108.12.220.48 (talk) 00:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Done. El_C 00:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC about including the recent controversy regarding the publication of an anti-semitic cartoon

Hello. I'm hoping to add under section 7.6 (Israeli-Palestinian conflict) details of the recent publication of an anti-semitic cartoon and acknowledgement of such by the NYT editorial board [16]. This is the first time NYT has acknowledged the publication of something which in its opinion, contained anti-semitic tropes.

This is especially to better counter-balance the statement in source citation 244 that by the NYT public editor Clark Hoyt that the newspaper "has tried its best to do a fair, balanced and complete job — and has largely succeeded".

I also think comment from the cartoonist can be added, in which he contends that there was no anti-semitic intent: [17] Joshgladwin Joshgladwin (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I support this, but in a separate section. Interesting that this information is not already there. Two flagrantly anti-Semitic cartoons printed within days of each other, an editor was disciplined, and Sulzberger said he would update the Times' bias training. See here: ttps://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/business/new-york-times-cartoon-anti-semitic.html YouNotSneaky! (talk) 02:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC) (blocked sockpuppet. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC))

There is a section about this in the New York Times controversies and as of right now I think that is sufficient. It would seem that the issue has already resolved itself, but if it ends up being more significant or has legs (for example, if there ends up being a longer-term pattern or there is an advertiser boycott as a result), then we should look at adding it to the Main page. Generally, I'm hesitant about adding current events to the Main page. Tfkalk (talk) 01:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose as per Tfkalk's reasons above. Jschnur (talk) 07:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Oppose as per User:Tfkalk, who made the point that i would have, and better than I would have as well. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Criticism and controversies: World War II

The original text did not tackle the complexity of the Max Frankel's article "Turning Away From the Holocaust" nor did it bring out the salient point, viz. that the omission of the Holocaust and its Jewish victims was a "staggering" failure and not, as the original stated, "a consistent policy to minimize reports on the Holocaust." My edit brings to the fore the real pain that Max Frankel communicates in his piece and it details the concerns that Ochs and Sulzburger had about the NYTimes never being perceived as a Jewish newspapers. This view of judgement impacted any reporting regarding Jews and Israel.

I additionally quote from the newly published "Print to Fit, The New York Times, Zionism and Israel, 1896-2016 by historian Jerold Auerbach which is a comprehensive overview of The New York Times' reporting and editorials with regard to Israel and Zionism. The book begins with an analysis of Ochs's perceptions about Judaism and the Jewish homeland.

Minor edit: Leff is cited as a separate source but is indeed quoted by Frankel in his original article. My edit: In the same article, Frankel quotes Laurel Leff, associate professor...

Jaytee1818 (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2019

This edit request to The New York Times has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change

to

Journalism portal
New York City portal 82.14.227.91 (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Done Alduin2000 (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

"The New York Times" existed before 1851

The Library of Congress has an entry for "The New York Times" published in the 1830s, from 1834-1837 (https://lccn.loc.gov/sn83030677), which predates the date of the first publication listed here. I did not check any other decades. That paper was published by William Holland, Edward Sanford (possibly this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Sanford_(New_York_politician)), and Edgar W. Davies. It is likely not connected to today's New York Times, but considering they have the same name, it might be a good piece of information to add to this article. Toniklemm (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Category:Companies based in Manhattan

Should the article be in this category? Newspapers themselves aren't companies, and the category already contains The New York Times Company (which actually is a company). Geolodus (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

No link to separate criticism and controversy page

Apparently, there’s a separate Wikipedia *article* for New York Times controversies. However, as far as I can tell, *this article* about the New York Times itself does not link to it, providing instead an abbreviated controversies *section*. Kinda sneaky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyhurter (talk • contribs) 07:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Elimination of Copy Editors - Typo

Ironically there is a typo in the section about the elimination of copy editors causing more typos. The section should end with the phrase "has lead to more mistakes" as opposed to "has had to more mistakes." A full corrected copy of that paragraph would read thus: Elimination of copy editors The New York Times announced plans to eliminate copy editing roles from the production of its daily newspaper and website content in June 2018. Executive Editor Dean Baquet defended the cuts, saying that the Times needed to free up funds to hire more reporters by eliminating editing roles. (The opinion and magazine sections have still retained their copy editors.) The duties of copy editors —checking for style, grammar, factual correctness, tone, as well as writing headlines — were merged into all-purpose editing roles. Editors currently not only edit the content of the stories, but also, in many cases, provide the final read before publication. Many publications, such as the Chronicle of Higher Education, have suggested the elimination of copy editors has lead to more mistakes, such as typos and factual errors, in the paper.[294] The journalism research organization similarly suggested in a blog post that the elimination of copy editors would decrease internal expertise and hurt the quality of the daily news report.[1]

Ranat1 (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2020

This edit request to The New York Times has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add "liberal" in front of "American newspaper". This would more accurately represent the current political stand point of the new york times. Supported by this article.

Jeffrey Milyo & Tim Groseclose, 2005. "A Measure of Media Bias," Working Papers 0501, Department of Economics, University of Missouri. Rednuii (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit not made. The NYT's editorial stance is already mentioned in the body of the article. A 15-year-old working paper is not a good source either, especially given that Milyo & Groseclose's study used a criticized methodology ("To date, their method involves hiring a bunch of college students to comb through some (but not all) of the archives for some (but not all) American news outlets and then counting up some (but not all) references to some (but not all) think tanks and then comparing some (but not all) of these references to the amount of times certain members of the U.S. Congress refer to some (but not all) think tanks."). Neutrality^talk 00:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Tor-logo-2011-flat.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion. The sooner the better. They are being used to advertise Onion and Tor on hundreds of pages. werldwayd (talk) 05:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Tor link in infobox

The tor website link in the infobox seems a bit...much. Shouldn't we move it down to the external links section? That's what we do for the mobile website link. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The Tor link in the infobox is totally unwarranted. I suggest it is removed or demoted to external links. Those who want to use anonymity in browsing specific sites, they can go to the Onion site itself and the Tor engine and seek the links they need from there. werldwayd (talk) 04:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

A Tor link is also placed at Deutsche Welle, BBC News, BBC News Online. Having said that, now I have serious doubts about all Tor links on non-Tor pages of Wikipedia. Now I think they should't even be used in any infobox besides the Tor infobox, in English and in other languages as well. These links are not the ownership of the media outlets where these links were inserted. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:GlobalUsage/Tor-logo-2011-flat.svg shows how pervasive and abusive these links are. It gives the impression the links were inserted by a related party which also raises conflict of interest issues. At best, it is just promotional and nothing to do with all these big media companies. I am removing Tor links from non-Tor pages as much as possible. werldwayd (talk) 04:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Image of NYT cover in infobox

The cover in the infobox has been changed in favor of a simplistic design about the deceased in corona virus. Intriguing as this may be, I find that the use of the current cover image is a highly unrepresentative depiction of The New York Times. We have picked an anomaly in design made for one day for some visual impact (a novelty at best) as actually representing what The New York Times newspaper generally looks like. It couldn't be further from the truth. It is a highly misleading in that regard. I suggest reinstatement of a cover like File:NewYorkTimesFrontPage-15Nov2012.jpg or better, a newer but representative version of the paper in the infobox as it actually looks like 364 days of the year rather than this "once in a lifetime" thing. The current depiction in the infobox could be used further down in the article possibly with a brief discussion of the special design(s) of the paper on specific unique circumstances. But it has no place in the infobox as the cover of the NYT. werldwayd (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The list of names is not representative of NYT covers, so the non-free image is not replaceable. It's possible it could be replaced with an out-of-copyright cover from the 1920s, but I have my doubts about whether that is adequately representive/replaceable of NYT in 2020. b uidhe 03:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree as well. To corroborate: the creative director at the New York Times said that "he did not remember any front pages without images during his 40 years at The Times, 'though there have been some pages with only graphics,' he said, adding, 'This is certainly a first in modern times.'" [18] This is not representative of NYT covers, and does not make sense to be in the infobox. Margalob (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I was about to revert the change, but the old image it replaced (see File:NewYorkTimesFrontPage-15Nov2012.jpg) is too low res for my liking. Calidum 17:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree, but the 2012 cover is still better than what we have now. Of course I would love to see a better resolution cover and a more recent cover. It may be related to corona or the protests, but at least it would be more representative. Another idea which we do for many other newspapers is to use the first ever cover of a publication. That's a solution we should consider. But the present infobox cover should go, or demoted to a lower level where specific design issues are discussed. There were criticism as well of the judgement of NYT editors of which profile to choose and if there was actual approval of the immediate relatives of the victims being sought. Many prefer that their loss is kept private and the use made their life more traumatic making them live the tragedy once again. werldwayd (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

There is now an active discussion on the deletion of our present cover image in infobox here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2020_June_3#File:New_York_Times,_May_24,_2020_cover.jpg as it may not be public domain as a newspaper and thus does not constitute a free usage of the image. Those interested here may take part in the discussion there because if that image https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:New_York_Times,_May_24,_2020_cover.jpg is cancelled, it will be removed from here as well. werldwayd (talk) werldwayd (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I voted on both discussions, but I'll reiterate my thoughts for reference: the 2012 cover is more illustrative of what NYT normally looks like than the 2020 cover, which is not free. Yes, there are no graphics on that cover, but there is text next to each person that has enough expression to have authorship under US law. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 14:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Missing 'political = ' affiliation tag in boilerplate.

Newspapers have 'political = ' and their political bias listed directly below 'founding =' in their infobox. It's what the command exists for. But it is missing on this articles infobox. Could someone please add it in? 121.210.33.50 (talk) 05:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Please don't. It's been added in the past, reverted, discussed, and there's no consensus to put it in. If you look back at the discussions on the template's talk page (Template talk:Infobox newspaper) you'll see that the purpose of the "political" (not "political bias") parameter is to denote newspapers that are formally and avowedly aligned with a certain political party or movement, as is often the case in Europe but rarely the case in America. Here the mainstream press, including NYT, profess a devotion to objectivity or at least nonpartisanship, so putting a "political" allegiance in the infobox would be misleading. One can debate endlessly, and many people do, the extent to which the NYT fails to live up to the standard of objectivity, but any encyclopedic coverage of such concerns belongs in the text of the article where nuance and counterargument can be aired. The NYT's "bias" or "allegiance" or "affiliation" is too complex and disputed an issue to be summed up in one or two words in an infobox. _``` t b w i l l i e _` $1.25 _` 14:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2020

This edit request to The New York Times has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Mexican billionaire, Carlos Slim, owns nearly 17% of the New York Times. Externalexistence (talk) 23:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Carlos Slim's ownership is documented at The New York Times Company. Danski454 (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Writers and editors

Bahar1397 today started a new section called "Writers and editors", which I deleted under WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The contents so far were:

Meghan Louttit, Deputy Editor, Digital News Design

Philip B. Corbett, Associate Managing Editor, Standards

Lian Chang, Product Design Director, Multimedia

Diane Brayton, Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary

Pui-Wing Tam, Deputy Editor, Business

We list the publisher and principal editors in the infobox because these are the folks with executive responsibility for this publication's actions and coverage. Just looking at the titles in the foregoing list shows these are mainly deputy/associate officers. They also appear to have been selected at random. Why the business editor and not the metro editor? Is "product design director, multimedia" a person who works on the news side or the advertising side (e.g., design of multimedia ads or other revenue products)? The one person who may meet the NOTDIR standard for inclusion is the executive vice president -- but of course, that's neither a writing nor editing position (with the title general counsel, I'd presume this is the organization's chief legal officer), so it wouldn't belong in a section with this name. _``` t b w i l l i e _` $1.25 _` 21:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Israel and Palestine. Genocide called "anti-Zionism"

[19] Make of this what you want. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Number of Subscribers

Please update the number of digital subscribers to 5,000,000. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/06/business/media/new-york-times-earnings-subscriptions-coronavirus.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:BF18:1759:3483:228A:F04F:B87D (talk) 05:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

[1] ttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/world/asia/the-new-york-times-introduces-a-chinese-language-web-site.html

[2] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Pan

[3] ttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/26/new-york-times-china-wen-jiabao

[4] ttp://qz.com/374299/how-the-new-york-times-is-eluding-chinas-censors/

[5] ttp://investors.nytco.com/press/press-releases/press-release-details/2015/The-International-New-York-Times-Launches-Chinese-Monthly-in-Hong-Kong-and-Macau/default.aspx

[6] ttp://hidden-civil-war.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-society-for-diffusion-of-political.html

[7] The Armies of the Streets, p85, p198

[8] ttp://hidden-civil-war.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-militia-mobilization-of-june.html

[9] ttp://hidden-civil-war.blogspot.com/2013/08/new-york-citys-passion-play.html

[10] ttp://hidden-civil-war.blogspot.com/2013/11/a-treasure-trove-of-new-york-city.html

[11] ttp://hidden-civil-war.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-norths-greatest-hispanic-general.html

[Balan-12] Matthew Balan (June 14, 2017). "NY Times Hypes 'Link To Political Incitement' in 2011 Shooting of Rep. Giffords; Twitter Erupts". Mediaite.

[PalinGiffordsPolifact-13] "No evidence Sarah Palin's PAC incited shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords". Polifact. June 15, 2017.

[PalinGiffordsLawsuitByers-14] "Sarah Palin sues New York Times". CNN. June 15, 2017.

[15] More than one reference was provided with the current request, but not the directions for which reference is to apply to which claim statement — either to the claims individually, or to the entire passage as a whole.

[16] Erik Pedersen "‘The Weekly’ Teaser & Premiere Date: FX’s New York Times Docuseries","Deadline", April 9, 2019

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[a]

[1]