Talk:The New York Times/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Controversies section

It's a bit long, with the Cotton controversy now. Is it getting excessive emphasis? Coretheapple (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Our paragraph on the Cotton controversy is well balanced I think. But the entire controversies section is very long now and could possibly be reflected in a separate page. werldwayd (talk) 04:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

We have New York Times controversies which some of the more recent controversies could probably be split to (M.I.A. quotes out of context, Irish student controversy, and some others seem possible candidates for splitting). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it's notable that the The Wall Street Journal does not include a controversies section, despite the lead section acknowledging that WSJ's editorial board "has promoted views that differ from the scientific consensus". I argue the controversies section for the NYT article is getting excessive emphasis. • in vivo veritas • 02:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

The WSJ article does, however, have "Bias in news sections" and "Climate change denial" sections. I think the lack of a controversies section for WSJ stems from the fact that criticism of the WSJ being aired on Wikipedia mostly centers around political stances it takes (or is alleged to have taken), while a more substantial amount of the criticism of the NYT on its Wikipedia page includes actual events of journalistic malpractice, e.g. Jayson Blair, or specific incidents that became cultural controversies, e.g. Tom Cotton. I'm not sure if this is because the WSJ has done a better job avoiding actions that lead to controversy, or because Wikipedia editors are paying undue attention to missteps at the NYT vis a vis the WSJ, or because some fundamental difference between the WSJ and NYT readerships or place in the national conversation results in cultural commentators and fellow journalists calling out the latter for its missteps more often than the former. What I do know is that the NYT encyclopedia entry would be incomplete without mentioning several of these controversies; if you can think of a better way to organize them in the article or a better name for the section, go for it. _``` t b w i l l i e _{`</sub> $1.25 <sub>`} 22:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the "Criticism and controversies" section is just too long and sometimes the controversies chosen are very arbitrary and selective, if not outright subjective. I think the article is just too long and the controversies section should be tackled in a separate article. In such an instance, the controversies could be sub-divided into various sections according to their nature and perhaps some more criticisms could be added thay way or context added to some specific ones. werldwayd (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

We already have a List of controversies involving The New York Times. I agree with Eddie891 that it'd be OK to move a lot of the detail in the main article over to the list article. But we should retain a few paragraphs of prose explaining that the NYT has been at the center of several controversies over the years, naming some examples. Not EVERY controversy currently listed -- a handful of the most prominent ones that have had long-lasting implications for American society or jurisprudence, or that have come to define the NYT to a wide swath of people (e.g., Pentagon Papers, accusations of liberal bias -- as summary mentions without going into too much detail). The fact that the NYT is controversial is a huge part of the NYT's reputation. Those who view it positively appreciate its role as a national fact-checker and a premier outlet of deeply reported journalism, which if done correctly will necessarily be controversial from time to time. Those who view it negatively perceive the NYT as one of the leading exponents and exemplars of various (to them) controversial cultural and political beliefs. You can't understand the NYT's place in America, or the world, without understanding not just individual controversies, but the fact that controversy is baked into its reputation (again, for good and for bad). _``` t b w i l l i e _{`</sub> $1.25 <sub>`} 17:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2020

Add the descriptive adjective "liberal" or "left-wing" in the introductory paragraph to bring the article in line with Wikipedia articles on other publications, such as Fox News, which is characterized as "conservative."

Personal political preference aside, the majority of the NY Times' current political stances are clearly "liberal" or "left-wing" and should be characterized as such to eliminate bias. This characterization does not carry negative connotation; it clarifies the political leanings of the newspaper. FakeNewsPress2020 (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Seagull123 Φ 19:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

"Gray Lady" in Introductory Section

Few writers call the Times the "Gray Lady" and few readers are aware of what the phrase means. Even in the mid-1900s, writers needed to clarify what this phrase meant. When it is used, it is almost always used for historical or negative connotations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Q746371 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Political Stance and "Newspaper of Record"

I propose adding a clarification of the Times political slant ("centre-left") or moving claims of "newspaper of record" to the body.

If a user is familiar with the Times, they'll already have formed an opinion. If they aren't, it is helpful to let them know that, of the papers in the US, the Times leans left. This is not a criticism of the accuracy of the paper. This is a note about its well-documented political stance.

This is primarily for the benefit of international readers. Many claims of "newspaper of record" come with a political stance. There has been endless debate about the degree to which the Times leans left, but it would be misleading to readers unfamiliar with US politics to characterize the Times as authoritative without political leanings.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Q746371 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• No need to clarify that. And please, don't add or change material without reliable sources as you did here - diff. And also I recommend to read this - MOS:LEAD.--Renat (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • There were ample sources in the body, but I can move them to the lede. Q746371
    • Your content removal is non-constructive. I see no reason to remove the content.--Renat (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
      • I gave reasons why it was constructive in the talk page. You ignored the reasons without commenting in the talk page. Please state why you believe you are right. On Wikipedia, you need to achieve a consensus or discuss why you disagree with editors. Q746371 — Preceding undated comment added 21:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
        • You clearly don't understand how Wikipedia works. If I revert your edits - you should not revert them back again. You are forcing me to report it, because you definitely trying to push your POV and add "centre-left" word instead of "national" without consensus.--Renat (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
          • Please do not resort to ad hominem. I reverted your edits because you made them without explanation despite well-researched sources. Your unwillingness to state any reasons against the change speaks volumes. Q746371 — Preceding undated comment added 23:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
            • I am done. Do whatever you want. I removed this article from my watchlist.--Renat (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Standard of Record Usage

The phrase "standard of record" has evolved from its original usage when it was applied to the Times. If you want to include the phrase, so do in the body where there is space for nuance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Q746371 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

References

• There is a wikilink to "newspaper of record" in the article. The New York Times is newspaper of record. This is important information and it should be in the lead section. Stop removing content, please.--Renat (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• I don't agree with this user (who has since left wikipedia), but I don't consider it worth our attention, so I'm deleting this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Q746371 (talk • contribs) 30 December 2020‎

• I advise you to sign your messages. It is very inconvenient when you are not signing your messages. And I don't think it's appropriate to mention here who left Wikipedia and who didn't. What is the point of mentioning this? Are you following another member's activities? Please, discuss only relevant information here.--Renat (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• Let's not start this again. The comment is appropriate because it contains information that is not just about a user, unlike the comment preceding this one. DenverCoder9 (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

MBFC and AllSides

The following was reverted, but I believe this revert was a mistake:

Independent media ratings organizations have characterized the Times as "lean left" and "center-left".

It was reverted with the comment "WP:MBFC and Allsides Times review didn't pass editorial control". WP:MBFC is listed as unreliable because it's self-published. This makes it a bad source for "X is true", but a good source for "MBFC said X is true", which is the use in this case.

I did not find Allsides on the list of editorial control.

These are the sources Knight/Gallup chose to rate the political slant of newspapers in their poll. If anyone has other sources, I'm happy to use them. DenverCoder9 (talk) 01:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

References

WP:MBFC (Media Bias/Fact Check) is not a reliable source. Allsides (1, 2) about The New York Times is also not a reliable source, because we can use Allsides as a reliable source only if the review has "Editorial Review" checked. Without Editorial Review checked it is just some random review, based on voting results. The New York Times review does not have "Editorial Review" checked. WP:RSP will help you to learn how to identify reliable sources.--Renat (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

You're missing the point. WP:MBFC is not reliable as a citation for fact, but it is a reliable source for the statement "MBFC stated..." DenverCoder9 (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Says who?--Renat (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Views on Britian

The UK is 20% of the English speaking world. It may seem insignificant from an American perspective, but the paper's coverage of the region merits at least as much attention as the dismissal of a fraction of copy editors. DenverCoder9 (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• It is unclear what you are trying to achieve.--Renat (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think I understand your criticism, or whether you've voiced one. When a paper takes a POV of a country as large as the UK, that's significant. Please state your reasons for believing that it is not sufficiently significant. DenverCoder9 (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Political Stance

A user deleted a large portion of the article with a long edit comment. Let's bring it to the talk page.

The deleted sections were:

1. University of Michigan and Stanford University study - the suggestion was to add discussion about the methodology?

2. A 2014 Pew Research poll - the criticism was that the poll was too old. There are older ones in other articles, but if you have a more recent one, I support adding it.

3. A note about editorial vs. news stances - no comment was given. DenverCoder9 (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• I've reverted (the onus is on the proponent of new content to obtain consensus for it, which is lacking here). My thoughts are the following:

• Change from "Editorial stance" to "Political Stance" - I didn't see that as an improvement. The section is about their editorial line. Complaints about alleged bias in their news coverage, to the extent they are included in this article, should go somewhere else.
• Some of the new content is about readership demographics ("A 2014 Pew Research poll found that readers of the Times held generally liberal views..."), which is distinct from editorial stance. Maybe this would be due weight in a separate section that covered readership demographics in general, but its insertion there seemed to be suggestive. A 2014 poll is also dated.
• Budak/Sharad/Rao study - This based on a subjective "Crowdsourced Content Analysis" from volunteers recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk. The methodology seems unclear. The article does not seem extremely highly cited and the methodology seems poor. The authors are also not experts in media studies, as far as I can tell; their expertise is in other fields. Not due weight.
• "Views on Britain (2020)" section - extremely poorly sourced and recentistic. It's one complaint from "British author and political commentator Douglas Murray" and "Kelly Jane Torrance at The Spectator"? Why is this encyclopedically notable? This is two pundits complaining in generic terms. I'm seeing nothing noteworthy in the context of a paper with a very long history. Also not due weight.

--Neutrality^talk 00:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

1. The point isn't to have separate sections: it's to collect it into a single section.

2. A history of readership statistics, as well as being notable in its own right, is part of political stance.

3. I certainly wouldn't call it uncited. If you don't consider it enough evidence, look at some of the articles citing it.

I don't mind debating these points. Our time is better spend copyediting. I'll remove this from my watchlist. DenverCoder9 (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Chinese language section not up to date

The Chinese language section of the article is not up to date, specifically, the link to the the supposed second Chinese language site, cn.nytstyle.com, I believe it's removed, but I cant find any sources saying that it is. How should we update this? --Justiyaya (talk) 13:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The New York Times Editorial Board

The Editorial Board is an iconic column within the NYT and may require a section or article. Yug (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

"... beginning with the Mortara Affair and continuing to the present day."

@Buffs: about this - diff. It was pulled from where? Please be more specific. --Renat 15:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

RenatUK See The_New_York_Times#Controversies. It includes both referenced subjects. Per WP:LEAD, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." As a summary of what is already referenced below, it does not need duplicative references (it's redundant, by definition), but we can certainly add them if you feel it's necessary. I'm not against the phrasing you currently have in place, I just think it could be more descriptive...for something that comprises a quarter fo the article, if you have something else, I'm all ears. Buffs (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Buffs: The_New_York_Times#Controversies starts with "Failure to report Ukraine famine", not with "Mortara case". --Renat 16:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to start with that then. I'm not married to it...but the Mortara case was in the 1850s (it is also mentioned at the beginning of the article: "One of the earliest public controversies was its involvement with the Mortara case, the subject of 20 editorials in the Times alone."). Buffs (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@RenatUK: Which do you prefer? Buffs (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Buffs: 1) "beginning with the Mortara Affair" means "the earliest controversy was the Mortara Affair", but the body says says: "One of the earliest public controversies" not "The earliest". 2) I can not verify text-source integrity now. See why - diff. 3) If the Mortara case was so important - it should be extensively described in the body. If it is not in the body - it will not be in the lead. --Renat 16:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@RenatUK: "Controversies" are a quarter of the entire article, so they are discussed quite a bit. I'm open to other phrasing. What do you think would be better phrasing? Buffs (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:BRD

Demanding others follow BRD, but refusing to discuss is just another way of saying we own this article...Let's actually discuss this. Buffs (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm Sorry you feel that way Buffs. Have you ever thought of running for Adminship? 2600:8806:4802:2E00:5482:F88A:9FF:6C24 (talk) 01:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

A comment from an anonymous IP who's first edit is to taunt me? I'm shocked... Buffs (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

How is it possible that there are people picking fights on WP who still don't understand how IPv6 works? This isn't even the first time this person has made reference to you in particular: [1]. --JBL (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• I mean, there's a pretty extensive discussion above that clearly didn't show a consensus to add anything about controversies to the lead, and I'm not seeing what has changed since then. My views are exactly the same as they were the last time you brought this up - no significant reliable sources describe the New York Times as significantly defined by controversies or as particularly controversial, so it is WP:UNDUE for the lead; you are correct that the controversy section is a bit bloated, especially with recent things, but the appropriate answer to that is to continue to work on trimming it and not to put it in the lead. This is part of the problem with WP:CSECTIONs in general and part of the reason we should probably consider restructuring the article to avoid having one - they become dumping grounds for marginal things, since the very existence of one makes editors feel that it has to be "filled out" with every opinion piece. Especially for a topic with as extensive of a history as the New York Times, this lends itself to undue focus on minutiae or very short-term coverage. I suggest moving most of the sections there (WWII, the Iraq War) into the history section and rewriting into a more neutral tone that covers the overarching nature of their coverage in those eras, move the Blair affair into their history for now as a notable event, move the Israeli / Palestinian section to the sub-article as largely an opinion-piece kerfuffle that isn't a major part of the Times' history yet, and rewrite the "accusations of bias" section into a more neutrally-worded section on the Times' editorial perspective. --Aquillion (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  Since you voiced your opinion, others have concurred with my point both in edits and the talk page. By my count, the support/defend is about even. Others have reverted and demanded BRD, but refuse to discuss or offer options.

  The substance of your premise is flawed: "no significant reliable sources describe the New York Times as significantly defined by controversies or as particularly controversial" Then you are willfully blind. Here's several scores of books and articles to the contrary: List_of_controversies_involving_The_New_York_Times#References. Even outside that list (which is not exhaustive) NYT controversies take up a solid quarter of this article (even after cleanup of incidents that some felt were WP:RECENTISM). While I think at least some of those are notable enough to be on this page, I didn't dispute those as a sign of good faith. The article itself shows that 50% of the general public in the US, 50% they disagree that they believe "all or most" of the Times's reporting. This isn't a minor, fringe view (unless a Pew Poll isn't enough for you). Likewise MOS:LEADREL clearly states "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article. If there is a difference in emphasis between the two, editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles. This admonition should not be taken as a reason to exclude information from the lead, but rather to harmonize coverage in the lead with material in the body of the article."

  To repeat, it isn't just that there have been vague controversies, but politically charged ones that have had international ramifications. Omitting that information would be a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD.

  So, there you have the application of WP:UNDUE and how it is to be applied. You cannot have a quarter of the article cover a point and then omit it from the lead.

  If you don't like this phrasing, I'm fine with something else. PLEASE propose something else if you don't like what I've written. You have yet to address these points. Buffs (talk) 01:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• By a quick nose count, I see only you and possibly Bill Williams supporting your proposed addition on talk, with myself, Calidum, Neutrality, X-Editor, and Snooganssnoogans opposing - I may have missed someone, since it was a quick skim, but I don't see how you could reasonably describe the discussions above as trending your way. As far as the rest, I've answered your feelings on this topic, even if you don't accept it; nothing in the section supports the idea that these are major politically charged ones that have had international ramifications, at least no moreso than any story involving the Times has international ramifications. In fact, the one you most recently re-added seems to be focused on something barely related to the Times; the best source you could find was an opinion piece that mentions the Times all of once, without criticizing it, and a reference to The Ukrainian Weekly that, again, only covers the controversy about Duranty's Pulitzer without criticizing the Times directly at all. If that is the best you can find for controversies that you consider leadworthy I'm not sure what else there is to discuss - you've had ample time to make your arguments and the fact is your sources are weak to nonexistent. As I said, the controversy section is bloated and should be restructured; if you want to avoid that outcome you should focus more on highlighting important controversies, and especially high-quality, broad-focused, mainstream coverage that supports the idea that these controversies are a major part of the Times' history (for example: there is no reasonable way to defend the controversy over Duranty's Pulitzer as a major part of the Times' history.) Without that, as I said, I think it makes more sense to move the historical aspects to the history section and rewrite them to be more neutral and less accusatory. It is silly to suggest that the Times' WWII coverage, or even its coverage of the Iraq War, is primarily defined by controversy - we can cover those aspects better in more balanced sections in the history section that work such disputes into its larger history. --Aquillion (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• First, you're ignoring those that restored my edits (at least 3 others). Second, "barely related to The Times"? Are you serious?! The Times played a pivotal role in the coverup of a manmade famine in support of Russia/Communism. Pretending there's only a couple entities that covered a barely notable story is absurd [2] [3] [4] [5]. Their part in shaping public perception at the time of what would become Holodomor is well documented whether you consider it a Genocide or just bad policy. Third, no one said "the Times' WWII coverage, or even its coverage of the Iraq War, [was] primarily defined by controversy" (it's so easy to knock down straw men, isn't it?). The fact is, their coverage of notable portions of those topics were highly slanted and controversial. At this point, it seems your intent is to whitewash all of The Times' wrongdoing...which is, ironically, what they did at the time. They were the publishers and they were responsible. Buffs (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• If we include people who removed your edits, things are even more lopsided. And those sources focus on Duranty, not the Times. The first one is an opinion piece, the second is a blog from an advocacy group, the third is a book by an author with no relevant expertise, and the fourth, again, focuses on Duranty, who is mentioned only in passing. Nothing there supports the idea that this is a particularly significant event in the Times' history. WP:DUE weight is relative; aspects are covered with a focus and tone appropriate to how heavily they factor into the subject's overall reputation in that area. So if you concede that the Times' coverage in these areas are not primarily defined by controversy, then we should cover them in a more neutral manner, with controversies mentioned only to the extent that they are highlighted in (for example) general coverage of the Times, rather than a handful of axe-grindy opinion pieces strung together to form an WP:UNDUE section. Our job isn't to whitewash the Times or to flood the page with fever-swamp fantasies about how its coverage is part of some conspiratorial coverup; our job is to reflect what the highest-quality mainstream sources say, with a balance appropriate for their focus, and to cover lesser aspects with appropriately diminished focus, down to none at all (or spun off onto a subpage) for things that are marginal compared to the Times' overall reputation and history. This one is plainly marginal - even the sources you provided, which are largely WP:BIASED in one direction and mostly of low quality, still present it more as something about Duranty than about the Times. You're welcome to add it to his article if it isn't already there, but if you can't provide mainstream sources that don't focus on Duranty in the next few days, I'll spin it back off to the subpage (and honestly it is nearly WP:UNDUE even for that.) --Aquillion (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• Adding: In your edit summary for this edit, you made it clear that your position is that you want to imply, in the article text, that the NYT knew the information was skewed, and published it anyway. I'm going to need a mainstream non-opinion source stating that unambiguously, otherwise I feel you've conceded that your framing attempts to falsely tar the NYT's reputation via WP:SYNTH - not even synth; it is, essentially, just your own personal speculation. As far as I can tell, none of the sources (not even the most strident of the opinion-pieces you've posted) imply any intentional wrongdoing on the part of the Times itself. Now that you've conceded that your preferred version carries that implication, you need sourcing to back it up. --Aquillion (talk) 05:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

...the sources you provided, which are largely WP:BIASED in one direction and mostly of low quality, still present it more as something about Duranty than about the Times. Of course they are biased against the Times...it's an article about what the Times did that was wrong. You aren't going to find a reporter who likes the Times and how they report to say "you know, these guys are doing a bad job". The Wall Street Journal, the CATO institute, the Oxford University Press, and Atlantic are hardly biased against the Times or "low quality" sources just because you don't like what they have to say. It seems more and more clear that you deny that there is even a bias at the Times, even though they admit a serious leftward bias. Everything that agrees with that is derided by you regardless of the source. The Times published it. They are indeed liable and responsible for its content. They were openly criticized in the 1920s and 30s for their coverage (as noted in the aforementioned book).

So if you concede that the Times' coverage in these areas are not primarily defined by controversy, then we should cover them in a more neutral manner, with controversies mentioned only to the extent that they are highlighted in (for example) general coverage of the Times, rather than a handful of axe-grindy opinion pieces strung together to form an WP:UNDUE section. That's a funny way of saying "You proved my assertion was a false straw man argument, so that justifies just doing what I want anyway". The Times has had plenty of problems in its reporting and tons of controversy. Just because they aren't "primarily defined by controversy" doesn't mean they don't have significant problems that should be mentioned in the article. If they are 51% good stuff and 49% bad, that would mean they aren't "primarily defined by the bad stuff" even though it's a notable portion. Your logic is highly lacking here

Lastly, I'd kindly ask you to watch your tone. NO ONE is looking to flood the page with fever-swamp fantasies about how its coverage is part of some conspiratorial coverup. I never even insinuated it. All I was looking to do was add a SINGLE sentence in the lead (one I was happy to have you rephrase) addressing the controversies of the Times to comply with the WP:MOS. Instead of a reasonable compromise being established or even being offered, you have framed me as some sort of conspiracy nut. I don't see a problem with the Times being left-leaning. More power to them. Do whatever they want. But let's not pretend that they are some sort of bastion of balanced journalism free from significant controversy when they are not. The 1619 Project alone is controversial enough to warrant serious discussion/mention for the modern era as the author of the project herself said she would be proud if the riots of 2020 were called the 1619 riots and should be.

Now, instead of saying "nope" with no alternative offered, why don't you offer at least ONE sentence in the lead that could reflect the content of a quarter of the article? I'm down with adding whatever context you feel is necessary, but "nothing" is a non-starter. Buffs (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Of course they are biased against the Times...it's an article about what the Times did that was wrong. You aren't going to find a reporter who likes the Times and how they report to say "you know, these guys are doing a bad job". If you take that view of sourcing, it's hardly a surprise that your proposed edits to the page have so many problems. Balance is determined by looking at mainstream coverage and considering more biased or fringe coverage in proportion to its representation among reliable sources; it isn't reached by, as you appear to be, starting from a position of "the Times obviously did something wrong" and then trying to write a section using only sources biased enough to say that. The reality is that, based on mainstream coverage, the New York Times is - overall, in the field of reporting - a bastion of balanced journalism free from significant controversy. They are considered one of the world's leading papers of record and have among the strongest reputation of news sources in the United States. That does not mean that everyone will always agree with what they say, or that they will always get everything right, but I 100% stand by my characterization of the dissent from that broad consensus as consisting, largely, of fever-swamp fantasies - the sources you've presented to contest it consist mostly of unreliable or aggressively-partisan outlets. Since you are making an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, you need better sources than this to support it. As I have said, I do agree that the controversy section is inappropriately bloated and intend to continue trimming it and restructuring the article until it's more properly integrated with the article text per WP:CSECTION; you've repeatedly failed to produce significant mainstream sourcing to support the idea that the Times is controversial or that controversy has played a significant role in its history, which suggests that the problem isn't that controversies were left out of the lead but that the controversy section has become bloated over time, as WP:CSECTION warns can happen. (And which, of course, is a good reason to take it apart and restructure the article to avoid having a section that becomes a magnet for additions that violate WP:NPOV by relying entirely on sources that are biased in one direction.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

My comments are about YOUR interpretation of the sourcing, not my interpretation. As for "bastion of balanced journalism free from significant controversy" (WP:BOOSTERISM), literally half of the US doesn't trust it (that's ACTUALLY quoted in the article). When you insultingly call opinions that dissent with your own "fever-swamp fantasies", "unreliable", and "aggressively-partisan outlets", but they come from such "extreme" outlets like The Wall Street Journal, the CATO institute, the Oxford University Press, and Atlantic (who is pretty clearly "aggressively-partisan" in the opposite way). It's increasingly clear you have no intent to offer any compromise (but claim we should follow WP:BRD...what you really want is WP:BRI) and you aren't interested in collaboration or following WP:MOS. Buffs (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

NYT vs WSJ - breaching scientific doctrine

Posted the below in main page lede with sources:

Alongside its rival the Wall Street Journal, the Times' editorial board has promoted views that are at odds with the scientific consensus on climate change[20][21][22][23], acid rain[24], and ozone depletion[25][26].

Simple reasoning: if breach of scientific dogma is noteworthy on WSJ lede, then the same is true of NYT.

Words were removed by User:Neutrality on grounds of:

1. "some of this not supported by sources cited;"

- Which sources do not corrobate?

2. "other parts are WP:SYN;" [=Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. ]

- Which parts are WP:SYN?

- No 'conclusion' was 'reached'. Various individual NYT-promoted views are at odds with the regnant Science.

3. "and fails to give date/time period;"

- all 7(!) sources were dated!

- WP:NOTNP [=Wikipedia is not a journal of current news].

4. "serious issues with due weight;"

Due weight for the WSJ but not for NYT?

If breach of scientific dogma is noteworthy on the WSJ lede, then the same is true of NYT.

User:Neutrality, you are falling into WP:RECENT [=Recentism on Wikipedia is where an article has an inflated focus on recent events] and a double standard is being applied with regard to WP:10YT [the 'ten-year test': In ten years will this addition still appear relevant?].

If breach of scientific dogma is noteworthy on the WSJ lede, then the same is true of NYT.

Is the Journal actually _promoting_ "breach of scientific dogma" on their editorial page? Are there editorials by the editorial board of the Journal promoting anti-scientism? Are there editorials by the Times board doing the same thing? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 01:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The WSJ and NYT have both published Opinion pieces contra scientific dogma. --nesher 08:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a particularly bad edit. The sources don't refer to their editorials or criticism of their editorials (at least that can be plainly seen by readers) and in some cases may show that contrarian opinion pieces (not editorials) were published, which might only demonstrate that the NYT has a higher tolerance of differing views in their opinion pages than does the WSJ. soibangla (talk) 01:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

That's a joke, right? [6] Inf-in MD (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

You don't understand the issues here. You are conflating things. Not gonna explain it to you. soibangla (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I understand that someone offering up the NYT as a model for 'a higher tolerance of differing views in their opinion pages', given the Cotton/Bennet fiasco is joking, or hasn't been paying attention to recent events Inf-in MD (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

WSJ also published "contrarian opinion pieces". What's the difference? --nesher 08:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Most of your citations weren't even from the New York Times editorial board. They were random op-eds and columns cobbled together to make a point (e.g., WP:SYN). Neutrality^talk 17:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The same is true of the WSJ. --nesher 08:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

You will need secondary sources pointing out that the NYT let far-out anti-science wackaloons write articles propagating their ideas. For the WSJ, we do have such sources. Linking the primary sources and claiming they are against "scientific dogma", whatever you mean by that, is not enough. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• This is clearly something that would require secondary sourcing unambiguously saying that the New York Times has promoted views that are at odds with the scientific consensus on climate change; we cannot just cite it to op-eds you feel fit that description. Going over your sources, none of the NYT references are usable. The only two secondary sources you cited are Public representations of scientific uncertainty about global climate change - which is far more cautious with its wording than you are, saying merely that coverage emphasized doubt; it focuses on a piece from 1991 and does not focus particularly on the NYT in that (if anything the reference to the NYT reads to me more as an example of how such language is unremarkable in the press.) And Language as a Scientific Tool is essentially the same. Regarding the WSJ, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but at a glance, the coverage there is much more specifically about the WSJ, focusing on how the WSJ has been exceptional and remarkable in that regard, with its board uniformly rejecting climate change and providing one of the main forums for climate change denialists. No comparable sources exist saying anything similar for the Times; the Times being used in two sources as an example of the way the news media in general has historically used language that minimizes climate change is not remotely similar to extensive coverage of the WSJ's strident promotion of climate change denialism. --Aquillion (talk) 11:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Here is one such secondary source: [7] Inf-in MD (talk) 11:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Aquillion, your points are well taken. Thank you. I have changed the language and restricted to secondary sources. --nesher 12:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

For illustration, Zehr highlights the NYT three times and directly names or cites six NYT articles on Page 89 with regard to promoting scientific uncertainty. Definately not WP:SYN. --nesher 12:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Zehr:

The salience of scientific uncertainty was reflected in several features of these articles. In many articles, scientific uncertainty was the main topic. For example, a high profile 1991 New York Times Magazine article, entitled “Heating the Global Warming Debate,”31 focused extensively on scientific uncertainty in the debate over rates of global warming. After an initial large print statement that read: “In 1988 scientist Jim Hansen testified that the world was getting hotter: But how hot? And how fast?”, the author situated the problem. “Environmentalists conjure images of disaster; industrialists appeal to scientific uncertainty; the media seize on any hint of controversy with intemperate zeal. And climate experts offer scant relief, insisting as they do that the day-to-day fluctuations ordinary people notice aren’t nearly as significant as the long-term trends about which they themselves seem to agree.”32 Then, at several successive points throughout the article, the author referred back to the theme of scientific uncertainty.

Several other articles also situated scientific uncertainty as the main topic.33 In other articles, scientific uncertainty appeared in key places. These included titles such as: “Cloud Data Cast Doubt About Atmosphere” [NYT]; “Global Warming: Experts Ponder Bewildering Feedback Effects” [NYT]; “With Cloudy Crystal Balls, Scientists Race to Assess Global Warming” [NYT]; “Global Warming: Uncertainty and Action”; and “U.S. Water Resources Versus an Announced But Uncertain Climate Change.”34 These articles included an opening or closing paragraph (or both), that helped to frame uncertainty within the article.

A 1991 New York Times article on an international global warming meeting was typical. It began: “In a contest between uncertain science and uncertain economics, negotiators from around the world convened in Nairobi yesterday for what promises to be a contentious effort. . . .”35 Further references to uncertainty were placed at several points throughout the article. In another example, a 1992 Chicago Tribune article addressed a theory put forth by a horticulturist that rising CO2 levels may have beneficial effects in the form of increased plant productivity. However, the article closed with an uncertainty caveat: “But he says that rather than propagating theories as facts, ‘the honest observer has to conclude he does not really know what will happen.’ ”36 In a third example, scientific uncertainty was developed in a New York Times article in a section entitled, “The Science.”37

• Please stop inserting this content into the lead section without consensus. This kind of thing is more suited for Media coverage of climate change. It's dramatically undue weight here. More, importantly, you've misrepresented the source. Your text refers to what the Times' "editorial board" "has promoted" when all of these studies were about coverage generally. The Romps & Retzinger 2019 article specifically excluded editorials (they excluded "all op-eds, letters to the editor, editorials, blog posts, newsletters, advertisements, etc."). Please stop. Neutrality^talk 14:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• 1. Undue weight for NYT but due weight for WSJ? With abundant cited secondary sources for both?

2. The Editorial board determine and are responsible for all coverage in newspapers. Certainly 'standard news articles'. Straw man.

3. 'cited very outdated sources' - WP:NOTNP, WP:RECENT.

4. "cherrypicking means selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source". WP:CHERRYPICKING. N/a.

Serious issues with WP:BIAS.

----nesher

• The ...for example... in the block you quoted makes it clear it is using the New York Times as an example of what is typical in that era; the papers actually place very little focus on them. Again, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS your comparisons to the WSJ are meaningless (if you have problems there you can raise them there; context and sources are generally different between articles), but even if if you insist on making that comparison I suggest you compare this to the much more exhaustive coverage on that article, which unambiguously states that climate change denial is the position of the WSJ editorial board and that they, specifically, are a major forum for it. --Aquillion (talk) 06:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay, not policy, and we should treat similar issues the same. Your reasoning here is circular - ----nesher is complaining that our article on the WSJ is full of material that is missing in this article and should be added, and you are using that fact to support a claim that it should be this way because our article on WSJ has much more exhaustive coverage. Inf-in MD (talk) 10:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

"Is an essay" does not mean "can be ignored completely". The point is that articles about different subjects are different, and there is no rule that if an item is mentioned in one article, it must also be mentioned in others. The WSJ is on a totally different level of science denial from the NYT, there are many more reliable sources saying it engages in anti-science propaganda than for NYT, and therefore it makes sense that it is mentioned in the WSJ article but not here. User Nesher is trying to bundle both articles together, implying that they need to have the same coverage of the denialism subject. But that is the same trick as when people demand that since the Trump article says that he lies a lot, the article about <insert random Democrat politician here> must also say that he lies a lot. It just does not follow. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

"Is an essay" means "some people think so" (and others obviously do not). In the context of making an argument about what to add or remove from an article based on Wikipedia policies, it most certainly means we can ignore it. Perhaps the WSJ engages in more of this behavior than the NYT, and if so, we could have more coverage of this in the WSJ article than here - based on reliable sources - but we can't simply not mention it here at all and rely on the fact that our article about the WSJ has more coverage to justify that. That's circular. Inf-in MD (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

If something has very little relevance for the subject of an article, as in this case, then, yes, it is alright to not mention it. Nobody used that circular logic you are talking about. There simply is more coverage for WSJ spreading anti-science propaganda, not just more coverage in "our article about the WSJ". --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the essay: When someone quotes an essay at you, that means that the essay contains detailed explanations. per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS your comparisons to the WSJ are meaningless means you should consult the essay for details why they are meaningless. If you ignore that completely just because the article linked is an essay, you are guilty of WP:IDHT. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

If we were having a debate on changing Wikipedia polices to allow or disallow disparate treatment of similar subjects, yes, an essay with arguments in favor of allowing would be relevant. In the context of a debate on what to include or exclude in this article, based on existing policies, essays can be ignored completely. Because they are not policy. The argument I responded to was "I suggest you compare this to the much more exhaustive coverage on that article" (my emphasis) - which is circular. Inf-in MD (talk) 13:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC) strike sock

You will not be able to find as much coverage in reliable sources of that alleged anti-climate science stance of the NYT as is already in the WSJ article. It simply does not exist. Demanding a package deal for the WSJ and NYT articles is still the same as people demanding that articles about leading Democrat politicians have to say they are liars because the Trump article says that about him.

This discussion is pointless. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK idea (for if this ever becomes a GA again)

...that in 1870, The New York Times declined a five million dollar (equivalent to 108 million dollars in 2020) bribe from William Tweed to not publish an exposé about him? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

It is not eligible as per WP:DYKRULES 1d. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tbhotch, ack. Another DYK rule that serves to enforce that only niche content no one cares about will ever appear there. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC

Should the following text be added into:

A)The article lede.

B)The article body.

C)Not this text, but something should appear about criticism of the NYT's climate science coverage.

D)This text (and/or theme) should not appear in the article.

The Times' editorial board has promoted scientific views of uncertainty with the scientific consensus on climate change, significantly omitted basic climate facts in its articles, and offered a denial discourse leading to informationally biased coverage of global warming.

----Nesher (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

References

• Not this text, the whole thing is much too wordy. Does "significantly omit[ting]" something mean that much content was omitted, or that the omissions cause important changes to the meaning ("significance") of the text? What is a "basic" (as opposed to non-basic) climate fact? Should we even be calling them "facts" in our own voice? What the heck does "scientific views of uncertainty with the scientific consensus on climate change" even mean? Etc. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• Absolutely not: this entire exercise is absurd. soibangla (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• No (D). Unless this criticism is widely covered in secondary sources (these are primary), but I don't see where it is. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

  Public Understanding of Science, Environmental Research Communications, and Forbes seem appropriate secondary sources, no? Buffs (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

  It's my understanding that the first two are primary sources, as the journal is publishing its own research to that effect. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

  Even if it is a primary source, it is verifiably accurate to say that the "NYT was criticized..." as it is notable, verifiable, and in accordance with policies about primary and secondary sources. Buffs (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• (C) Not this Text (too long), and not in the lead, but certainly worth reporting what reliable secondary sources like Public Understanding of Science or Environmental Research Communications , or the Forbes article I linked to above, do in the body of the article.Inf-in MD (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• (C) Not this Text Per WP:LEAD this would need to be in the body of the article first. I don't particularly see this specifically as necessary in the lead as long as some criticism of the Times is mentioned in the lead (after all, criticism and controversies comprise nearly a quarter of the article). A sentence or two is sufficient in the body of the article. Buffs (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• No / (D). Completely unsupported by the provided sources, which provide no valid interpretation under which this could be remotely WP:DUE - they are entirely passing mentions that give it no focus whatsoever. They overtly make it clear they are talking about the entire media and not the Times specifically (using it as one of several example simply because its prominence shows the universality of what they are discussing); using them, as is suggested here, to imply a specific problem with the Times is flatly misusing them as sources. None of the provided sources say anything specific to the Times and they should not be added, or used, in this article in any capacity, nor has any indication been provided that any sources exist which would support any version of the proposed text. -Aquillion (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• No / D. Not supported by the cited sources. As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, these sources are about news coverage generally, not the Times "editorial board" - in fact, the Boykoff 2004 cite specifically excludes editorial content. That you keep proposing content not supported by the cited sources, even after this has been pointed out to you, is disruptive. And moreover, you can't make a broad assertion about that the Times supposedly "has promoted" without reference to time: the Zehr 2000 article deals with news articles from 1986 to 1995, a long time ago, and yet your proposed content misleadingly suggests that this is a recent or ongoing thing. That leaves the Retzinger 2019 source, which is out of context and undue weight for the reasons Aquillion suggests. Please stop wasting our time here. Neutrality^talk 00:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

  "Please stop wasting our time here." For someone named Neutrality, you're sure espousing a lot of uncivil statements. Why don't you Assume some good faith and just express your disagreement without disparaging others by questioning their motives. Buffs (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

  It is a waste of time for one editor to continue to propose material not supported by the source, consuming other editors' time. Full stop. Neutrality^talk 19:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• No / D. What might be one journalist's opinion becomes a blanket view of the entire organisation? Just no. Seasider53 (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

  It isn't "one journalist". It's a solid 50% of the country. Buffs (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

  Where does it say 50% of the country believes the NYT misrepresents climate change? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• C. RS tell us their coverage is skewed, but this text is almost impenetrable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
• C or D - the current text is laughably bad. What's a "denial discourse", and how do you offer it? Korny O'Near (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
• Default to D, unless and until a better version of the specific wording is provided.(Summoned by bot) I can imagine supporting some version of C, but it would need to look drastically different. For one thing, having looked at the sources provided in this discussion and the article at present, I would say that if this information is to be included, it's almost certainly go to have to involve attribution to appropriately contextualize what these sources are actually saying; as has been observed above, there are significant time constraints operating on this reporting that need to be communicated to the reader so the information is appropriately framed by the fact that most of the souring is twenty years or more out of date. And though I think the questions asked by the IOP source are reasonably important ones, it's still must be remembered that it is a primary source, and one with a novel methodology that sort of involves setting their own goalposts. But primary or not, I think it's more than permissible as an WP:RS to cite this piece. That said, as a WP:WEIGHT matter, it doesn't justify language that leans into Wikipedia's voice: we should rather be more particular and specific as to what is being said, when, and by whom, for these handful of sources that we are working from.

There's definitely criticism here that warrants some mention, but the devil is very much in the details on this one, and the original proposed version is so out of step with where the prose needs to be with regard to detail, nuance, and attribution, that I would need to see another approach expressly spelled out before shifting my !vote. Those caveats said, there clearly is some sourcing to support the perspective that, at a minimum, the NYT has had a mixed record on this topic over time. Now, if it happens to be the case that the NYT was abreast of (or even ahead of) the average news media when it came to the issue of global warming (an argument I intend to neither advance or reject) in certain periods, that still would still not completely obviate even dated criticisms from the record in our article, if sources discuss them. A major news outlet in America in the 80's and 90's could be well ahead of the curve and still be truly terrible in its climate science reporting, and some of the criticism seems to be unsurprisingly reflect that. But again, there's just not nearly enough to be endorsing those views in Wikipedia's voice, given the larger world of sources on the topic and the various scopes of time involved--and certainly not at the level of the stridently negative (and more than a little vague) tone proposed in the prompt. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• C or D: The major issue with the current wording is that it implies the Times currently endorses those views. Two of the three sources are from 15–20 years ago, so that is not a fair portrayal of their current stance. Moreover, I find that source 2 (the most recent source) is somewhat difficult to apply; yes, they are omitting basic facts, but they are not denying it and one could easily argue that not every article needs to explain every detail of global warming. After all, shouldn't the Times report what is new, not what is already established fact? (Imagine someone implying that because the Times doesn't start every article about Joe Biden by saying that he was lawfully elected and the election was not fraudulent, they therefore must believe the election was "rigged". That wouldn't be a fair aspersion to cast.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion largely per the aboves. Two of the cited sources are outdated and the "study" seems to imply the Times should include every fact about climate change in every article about climate change, which is simply not what newspapers do. This whole situation seems to be a case of whataboutism (see the above section). -- Calidum 17:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• D/ Oppose any inclusion Neutrality (in reference to the NYT), "Not supported by the cited sources... these sources are about news coverage generally, not the Times "editorial board" ... specifically excludes editorial content... news articles from 1986 to 1995, a long time ago, and yet your proposed content misleadingly suggests that this is a recent or ongoing thing... which is out of context and undue weight" the entirety of this applies to the WSJ lead being completely undue, outdated, and misleading, but I guess people will continue rallying to the NYT's defense and ignore the WSJ. Meanwhile the WSJ lead has accusations of inaccuracy in the Editorial Board's reporting on asbestos, pesticides etc. that are decades old with a single source not even referring to the Editorial Board specifically, but unfortunately nobody else seems to care besides me. Bill Williams 03:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
• D The key sentence in the cited sources is: "This suggests that print journalism is a largely untapped resource for educating the public." The "criticism" is essentially not that the Times has written inaccurate articles, but that the Times is not actively "promoting" a viewpoint that it would be to the public's "benefit" to know. DenverCoder9 (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Holodomor Coverage

Minimizing the contribution/responsibility of the publisher by insinuating it was all one person belies the fact that they have an editorial board who should have known to better check/cross check sources. Sticking with a generic title doesn't specify single points of blame or unfairly focus on one or two aspects. Buffs (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Arguing that they have an editorial board who should have known to better check/cross check sources is WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. If you believe the NYT is the focus of coverage - and if you believe, and want to imply, that the editorial board is at fault - you must provide sources stating such specifically. So far all the sources you have provided focus on Duranty, so the section needs to follow their lead. --Aquillion (talk) 02:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Buffs that the editorial board and the paper itself deserves blame. But our shared opinion does not govern the content of articles, we must go by what the sources say. Gamaliel (talk) 02:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I've posted multiple articles above. Claiming "No sources focused on the NYT have been provided" is gaslighting. There's literally an entire book on the subject (see above). Pretending the Times had nothing to do with their employee's actions is splitting hairs. If we're going to go with "Well, it's what the individual did", I guess NASA didn't have anything to do with getting Neil Armstrong to the moon... This is ridiculous logic Buffs (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

If you think content from the book should be added to back up the claim that the Times as a whole is at fault, then feel free to add that content to the article along with the source to back up that claim. X-Editor (talk) 04:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

No one ever says "the Times as a whole is at fault". This is what the Times did. They published it DESPITE concerns being voiced. That's not in dispute. Buffs (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

There are numerous reports criticizing content that came out of the New York Times. That should be enough to merit its inclusion. The subtitle of the controversy should definitely not place the blame solely on the author. DenverCoder9 (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

If you really claim that criticizing the NY Times for Holodomor-denial is WP:SYNTH, yet another article directing its criticism squarely at the times: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/walter-duranty-ukraine-new-york-times-mr-jones-agnieszka-holland DenverCoder9 (talk) 01:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2021

Update the onion link to v3 (www.nytimesn7cgmftshazwhfgzm37qxb44r64ytbb2dj3x62d2lljsciiyd.onion). BTDMaster (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I have found that the URL is served under the HTTP header onion-location: https://securityheaders.com/?q=nytimes.com (can be verified by hand with "curl -v nytimes.com"). Is this primary source sufficient in this case? BTDMaster (talk) 10:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Kleinpecan (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Controversies

...comprise over a quarter of this article. At least a single sentence in the lead appears to be in order per WP:DUE, WP:BIAS, WP:LEAD. Buffs (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC) (postdated)

The text you are trying to weasel in is piss-poor writing. Plus, most of the 21st century controversies are not related to so-called liberal bias. The paper's reporting leading up to the Iraq War certainly wasn't liberal bias. Neither was publishing an op-ed by Tom Cotton. And we also don't need to accuse the paper of "cancel culture" because some old whites are getting in trouble for using the n-word. -- Calidum 15:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were starting with insults and condescending remarks; thought we were being collegial/objective here. There is no way you'd support the reverse, like describing BLM as "some young blacks just getting in trouble for whining and rioting". Why don't we just try and keep it civil and objective rather than insulting people based on race/calling the contributions of others "piss-poor", shall we?

If you don't like the phrasing, you're welcome to change it, but you need to address the concerns I mentioned above regarding WP:DUE, WP:BIAS, WP:LEAD. WP:BRD is not "we'll just keep what I want" but a chance to discuss the MERITs of the arguments brought forth. Removing a single, short sentence in the lead describing what comprises ~a quarter of the article is indefensible. You don't think it's liberal bias? That's fine. We can change the sentence structure or rewrite it to address your concern. But removing it altogether is inappropriate. Accordingly, I'm putting it back in, but rewritten to (hopefully) address your concerns.

As to the substance of your contention. Reporting leading up to the Iraq War in 2003? It was in line with what most worldwide powers believed. It ended up that Saddam was bluffing to keep the US guessing/apprehensive/make them fearful of what he might do; then his bluff got called. The NYT was fooled too. The internal outrage over even allowing Cotton to write an Op-Ed led to the ouster of the editorial page editor; yes, the outcome was indeed due to liberal bias (even allowing a conservative opinion = fired/dismissed/asked to resign). As for "using the n-word", his use was completely benign and only in verifying what he heard. When people are fired for asking about facts because some people are offended?...yeah...that's cancel culture to a T. Buffs (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

---

I challenged the recently added content. I don't believe this is well-sourced (some of this is The Blaze etc.), proper weight, or encyclopedically significant. I also think the heavy emphasis on a recent controversy is not good in the context of a 170-year-old newspaper. Finally, a generic statement in the lead that "prominent and long-running newspaper has had controversies" seems obvious and uninformative in any case. Neutrality^talk 21:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

NYT controversies comprise a full quarter of the article and have their own article to boot. That's not undue weight. It is a summary of the article below per WP:LEAD. Likewise, it isn't just that there have been vague controversies, but politically charges ones that have had international ramifications. Omitting that note would be WP:UNDUE weight.

That some of this includes the Blaze as a source doesn't make it untrue. When a conservative commentator makes a comment in a conservative publication, it is their voiced opinion and, therefore, acceptable as their stated opinion. It doesn't mean that such a statement is more or less true just because the source focuses on a single "side of the aisle". This is not the isolated opinion of a single person or a few. That the NYT is viewed as left-leaning is a widespread, mainstream view (see above). That section has been present for 3+ months. It was not "recently added". Insinuating that I added it is misleading. I will be happy to provide more sources if you wish. Which parts need better sourcing in your opinion? Buffs (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Please don't re-add challenged content without consensus. Onus is on the proponent (i.e., you) to establish consensus, which has not been achieved here. And yes, leaving aside the fact that this is all unencyclopedic recentism, the sourcing and framing is just terrible. "critics of the Times" = WP:WEASEL. The Blaze: not usable. Opinion columns in Fox News, New Statesman, and National Post = low quality/not usable to support supposed trend or theme. The Wrap = low-quality entertainment-industry blog. To the extent this is really about Dean Baquet and Donald McNeil Jr., we have articles on each man. Lots of people have opinions; not every opinion needs to be included in an encyclopedia article. So I, like Calidum and Snooganssnoogans, oppose all this content. Neutrality^talk 22:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

"Please don't re-add challenged content without consensus. Onus is on the proponent (i.e., you) to establish consensus, which has not been achieved here."

This cancel culture content has been in place for over 3 months. As such, the onus is on YOU to establish consensus for its REMOVAL.

As for its content, as stated above, you don't get to dictate that conservatives publish their opinions in left-leaning papers in order to be included. The fact is, the sources are being listed not for accuracy per se, but for the fact that the conservatives used those media to publish their thoughts. Those thoughts, as expressed, are completely accurate as far as it is their opinion, in this case, criticism. This is explicitly allowed. Framing it as "terrible" solely based on the medium is absurd and unreasonable

For these sources, there is NOT WP-wide consensus on FoxNews. Dismissing it out of hand just because you don't like the publisher is out of line.

Unilaterally declaring New Statesman, and National Post "low quality/not usable" is not appropriate. Same for "The Wrap". They are easily reliable enough for the quotes they give.

Critics of the Times is not WP:Weasel. It is an introductory sentence/phrase. Perhaps you should read your own cited rationale; it doesn't say what you think it says "...weasel words above may be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph only when the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution and accurately support that statement." The sources clearly indicate that it is indeed their opinion. Regardless of the accuracy of the facts that underly that opinion, the opinions of these critics is clear and supported by WP:RS for the given claims. If you want more sources or indications that this is not just an isolated opinion/incident, it isn't hard to find. [8] [9]

Criticism of main-stream media is inherently NOT going to largely be covered in main stream media. Criticism of the Times is growing and has been for some time: [10]

Buffs (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Buffs: If you want to discuss the reliability of the sources you mentioned, then I would suggest going to WP:RSN first. X-Editor (talk) 05:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@X-Editor: So, now, in order to make any changes to the page, we need to have a consensus amongst everyone and approval from a separate board...unless it's something supporting a leftist/left-center point of view, then changes are made at will. Yeah. We don't need that. We just need people to objectively apply WP policy as it's already written. Buffs (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

So, let's look at the sourcing on that. Just because it comes from a partisan news source doesn't make it inaccurate or unreliable (which is what is being insinuated). What in the article is an inaccurate statement. What in those sources is an inaccurate statement? This has been pointed out multiple times and some are using WP:RS as a club to quash dissenting views by blanketly labeling sources as "unreliable"

• Regarding the portion of the page devoted to controversies, it's certainly true that the controversy section is too bloated - most of the things in it are extremely minor relative to the Times' history and should only be covered on New York Times controversies, not here. There's also a severe WP:RECENTISM bias. And overall the amount of text devoted to controversies is WP:UNDUE - the Times is the foremost paper of record in the world; as one of the foremost papers in the world, it's naturally going to attract discussions, but it's misleading to give the impression that it is itself particularly controversial. Look at how many things we cover in the past two decades compared to the paper's 170-year-long existence - there is absolutely no reason to think (and no sources claiming) that the Times has gotten more controversial recently, so it's clear we're giving undue weight to recent controversies. I would say that the bare minimum for mentioning things here rather than on the subpage should therefore be the existence of both WP:SECONDARY sources and WP:SUSTAINED coverage; and that anything from the past 20 years should be given extreme scrutiny in particular, requiring coverage that treats it as a major event or a defining aspect of the Times, rather than just a handful of pieces discussing it for a news cycle or two. Based on that I'd remove:

• The 2016 election section (extreme recentism, ultimately just a subset of the "Accusations of liberal bias" section; sourcing doesn't really support the idea that this election is unique - people have made similar complaints about the Times for almost every election.)
• Hatfill v. New York Times Co. and Kristof (no sustained coverage outside of mentions as the case progressed; too specific)
• Iran (excessive reliance on a single source)
• Hiring practices (excessive focus on a single suit without sustained coverage)
• Elimination of copy editors (recentism, excessive reliance on two opinion pieces, excessive focus on one event with no evidence of long-term impact or overall notability.)
• The Tom Cotton editorial (extreme recentism, overly-specific, no evidence of sustained coverage.)

These are not, at least based on the sourcing we have currently, major events in the Times' history, nor are they significant long-term controversies that define how the paper is viewed and discussed. They belong on the subpage, not here. Possibly also move the "Failure to report Ukraine famine" one to the subpage as too specific (and being another subset of the left / right debate) - we should list broad categories of controversies here, and leave specific blow-by-blow events to subpages. --Aquillion (talk)

• Per WP:CRITS, the controversy section should probably go or at least be trimmed down. Certain items could probably be moved to the history section if we decide to keep them. -- Calidum 14:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Now we're arguing to remove all criticism based on an essay (one without widespread acceptance) over WP:DUE, WP:BIASWP:BIASED, WP:LEAD and in a manner that violates WP:CIVIL? That just goes against all precepts of our policies and guidelines.

To Aquillion's points, only the Times generates this much controversy. No other paper has this many controversies. If "people have made similar complaints about the Times for almost every election" then it's notable and consistent. Tom Cotton's article is nationally significant as it involved a sitting US Senator. Utilizing Russian propaganda and downplaying impact of a famine that wiped out almost double the people killed in the Holocaust (reducing opposition for Russia's actions)...that's historically significant worldwide; their reporting was a primary force in reducing international outcries. "Too specific"? More like "Not specific enough"! Buffs (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Instead of vaguely waving at the same blue links over and over, I suggest you take a minute to actually read what others are writing. You might learn a thing or two. And by the way, if you want to chide me for citing an essay, you should realize WP:BIAS is also an essay and has nothing to do with your argument. -- Calidum 17:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Typo; fixed. (I'm PRETTY sure you could tell what I meant since the CLEARLY intended link is right at the top).

Re: "I suggest you take a minute to actually read what others are writing." I have both read and addressed many of those remarks. Instead of condescendingly insinuating that I am either incapable of reading or don't bother to read what others have written, why don't you address the points I made? Buffs (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• To Aquillion's points, only the Times generates this much controversy. No other paper has this many controversies. If it is true that the Times is disproportionately controversial relative to other papers (that is, the percentage of coverage it receives focuses more on controversy than the coverage most other papers receive), that would certainly justify discussing it. I think that that's a patently WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim to make about the original paper of record and requires high-quality sourcing. Do you have any neutral, relatively non-WP:BIASED high-quality WP:RSes stating flatly that the New York Times is, as a whole, a controversial paper? Do you have such sources saying that it is more controversial than other papers? I honestly don't think it's true and I'm skeptical that you can find any serious sources for it. The fact that controversy exists isn't automatically notable, since it has to be judged relative to the overall coverage the Times has received. That is, WP:DUE weight is relative - if eg. the Times attracts 40,000 academic papers in a year, only a dozen of which focus on Times-related controversies, it would be WP:UNDUE to treat that as a central aspect of the topic, whereas for a less high-profile topic that many would be much more significant. I'll also note that the sources you've tried to use to date come, on the whole, from a very narrow sliver of voices in American politics - Breitbart and The Blaze and company can churn out ten-thousand thinkpieces a year calling something controversial, but if their tiny ideological bubble is the only place where that's true, then it isn't WP:DUE the same weight as ideas that are broadly accepted in the mainstream. --Aquillion (talk) 11:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• How is that an exceptional claim? The standard you seem to want to apply is academic papers. Academia is HIGHLY idea skewed left. The idea that they are going to provide some form of unbiased criticism is laughable at best; certainly not in any quantity. Likewise, the idea that Breitbart, The Blaze, et al represent "a very narrow sliver of voices in American politics" is laughable. I'm not saying they represent the majority, but the views espoused there are in line with a solid 20-30% of the population, a solid minority. Those opinions (and I stress OPINIONS) are notable and need no verification beyond the fact that such opinions are widespread on the right side of the political spectrum. Authors expressing those opinions in such publications are reliable for those statements. No one is taking extraneous, unverified claims (like "The New York Times killed babies!") and treating them as fact. Your idea is that ALL information from such sources does not meet WP:RS standards, which isn't what the policy says; please re-read. Example: If Ben Shapiro writes an opinion on DailyWire, DailyWire is a WP:RS for the fact that he wrote it and what he wrote. Any publication that publishes information is reliable for that much including The Times, The Blaze, or The Sun. They are HIGHLY reliable sources for the fact that such opinions exist. It doesn't lend any weight whatsoever to the accuracy of their claims or whether they are credible. They simply exist. There is a difference between saying such criticism exists and saying such criticism is accurate. As such, these are reliable sources that such opinions exist. Buffs (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• You said only the Times generates this much controversy. No other paper has this many controversies. You didn't say "so-and-so says that the Times is controversial" (which would obviously be a much weaker and less significant thing to say, especially if you could only cite it to the fringe bubble of sources you mentione); you stated it as fact. That's a plainly exceptional claim - you are saying you personally feel that the Times, the original paper of record, is actually the most controversial paper in the entire world. You need high-quality secondary sources to back up; fringe media with no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy is obviously not sufficient. Likewise, your (baseless) assertion that those fringe sources are popular and represent the beliefs of a meaningful number of people means nothing; if the beliefs you are citing to that partisan bubble of low-quality sources are actually widespread, you should be able to find high-quality secondary sources stating that they are widespread. --Aquillion (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• You deem every source that contradicts you as unreliable. Kinda hard to meet that burden of proof. Buffs (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• What makes a source a WP:RS is if it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If you believe those sources have such a reputation, take it to WP:RSN, but I don't think you're likely to convince many people. My issue (and the issue that got them depreciated or marked as generally unreliable in the first place) isn't simply that I disagree with what they say, it's that they have a reputation for publishing things without properly verifying or fact-checking them, and in some cases a reputation for publishing outright lies. --Aquillion (talk) 02:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

What makes a source a RS is wholly dependent on the claim being made. If we're talking about publishing misleading and outright lies, that's definitely in the NYT's baliwick too 1 2 3. Per WP:LEAD, A sentence in the lead is not only appropriate for something that is a quarter of the article and has its own subarticle, but practically mandated. There's no way this fits the criteria of WP:UNDUE. Buffs (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

If you want to challenge the reliability of the New York Times based on what you feel those sources demonstrate, you're welcome to take it to WP:RSN. I don't think they come close to showing that it lacks a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, though; simply disagreeing with the 1619 project isn't the same thing as it being a lie (and it has also received wide acclaim); a lawsuit alone proves nothing, since anyone can sue for any reason; and obviously the New York Post itself is a tabloid whose opinion carries little weight. But even beyond all that the key point is the broader reputation; the Times is in some respects the most highly-decorated paper in the entire world and widely viewed as the newspaper of record, so trying to claim it is controversial, let alone unreliable, is WP:EXCEPTIONAL and requires the highest-quality sources, not... that.--Aquillion (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

It strikes me as strange to add to the lead that the NY Times has had its share of controversies. It goes without saying for any old and important institution. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't "go without saying". It's literally a quarter of the article along (as well as a whole separate article) with other such references scattered amongst the article. WP:LEADREL:

"According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article. If there is a difference in emphasis between the two, editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles. This admonition should not be taken as a reason to exclude information from the lead, but rather to harmonize coverage in the lead with material in the body of the article."

As such, some statement should be included. I'm not married to this specific verbiage, but a single sentence explaining their have indeed been VERY notable controversies/scandals/manipulation with international implications is certainly warranted. This was my attempt to be as neutral as possible. I'm open to rephrasing, but not "No, we aren't going to mention that!" Buffs (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

It's a violation of NPOV (WP:UNDUE) to give readers the impression that the newspaper of record is embroiled in controversies, as if it were Breitbart News. Every newspaper, every institution, every prominent figure "has controversies". By placing it in the lead, the article simultaneously communicates nothing substantive (all institutions have controversies) and misleads readers into thinking the NY Times is a newspaper of dubious and contested reliability. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

They ARE of contested reliability: 50% of America doesn't agree "all or most" of the NYT articles are credible. From the article "A Pew Research Center survey in 2012 asked respondents about their views on credibility of various news organizations. Among respondents who gave a rating, 49% said that they believed "all or most" of the Times's reporting, while 50% disagreed." I'm not against rephrasing, but eliminating it all together is disingenuous/inappropriate for WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD. Likewise, I'm fine with the phrasing from the Pew poll too. I'm not against changing it to something else, but controversies SHOULD be referenced in the lead. Buffs (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Buffs: the hilarious irony is that snoogansnoogans refuses to allow any controversies of the New York Times in its lead, but demands in an RfC[11] that the Wall Street Journal article say "the editorial board promoted" random controversial things that only random guest editors wrote a few times, which is rarely cited elsewhere (for a bunch of the claims there are only two sources on the entire internet), while these New York Times controversies are well cited elsewhere in other websites and in the body of this article. Bill Williams (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Tagging controversies section

I recently tagged the controversies section with {{Criticism section}}, as (like with most controversies/criticism sections) it appears to violate due weight with recentist and newsy content. Buffs reverted me (diff), and coming to the talk page here, I see that they (with a small assist from LilBillWilliams) have been arguing against several others (courtesy pings: @Calidum, Neutrality, Snooganssnoogans, X-Editor, and Aquillion:) to try to get more information on controversies into this article. How do others feel about whether or not the tag (and the changes that it suggests) are warranted? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)^{edited 23:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)}

The controversies section, to avoid confusion further to my own. As an aside, did the RfC at the bottom of the page result in anything? Discourse stopped and nothing seems to have changed, in the article, regarding what was said. Pardon me if I've missed it in this wall of text that is now the talk page. Seasider53 (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed the criticism vs. controversies section thing; they're essentially the same. The RfC at the bottom didn't get a formal close, but it seems clear editors did not want the proposed line added, and if something about that particular controversy were to be added, it'd need discussion/workshopping. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The RfC below seemed pretty against its inclusion in that form. Buffs (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Well, at the very least the tag should remain as long as the discussion is active. The purpose of such tags is to draw attention to a discussion so that a conclusion can be reached; and if anything, it seems like there's a rough agreement that the section is currently undue (I count at least myself, you, and Calidum agreeing, in the recent discussions. I think the current section definitely has clear WP:STRUCTURE issues (Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.) The hard part is determining how to trim or restructure it, but a tag is the first step in that. I have a specific proposal above, I think - I suggest moving most of the sections [in the current controversies section] (WWII, the Iraq War) into the history section and rewriting into a more neutral tone that covers the overarching nature of their coverage in those eras, move the Blair affair into their history for now as a notable event, move the Israeli / Palestinian section to the sub-article as largely an opinion-piece kerfuffle that isn't a major part of the Times' history yet, and rewrite the "accusations of bias" section into a more neutrally-worded section on the Times' editorial perspective. I think that would cover most of the important parts in a more neutral manner. What do you think of that? If there's at least a reasonable level of support for it, I could take a stab at that rewrite; then, if people object and there isn't a clear consensus either way, we could run an RFC based on the specific changes involved. But I'd want to see if anyone has any refinements first. --Aquillion (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  That sounds like a definite step in the right direction to me. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  Given the extreme breadth of controversies, they certainly need to be included. I think a quarter of the article is slightly much, but there's a lot of unnecessary detail in the article that could also go (like the layout changes over time encompassing 2-3 paragraphs). I personally don't find all the quotes that appealing and thing they need to be incorporated in some manner. We should take caution in eliminating this section and avoiding eliminating the link to the Controversies article. If the information was simply incorporated into the prose of its history, I'd be fine with that. Controversies need at least a single sentence or two in the lead. Buffs (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• This is the same thing that happened over at CNN. The controversies section gets too bloated with specific instances, then the section becomes undue and large chunks or the whole section gets deleted. The section has to exist as per Summary style, as was recently established over at CNN via RfC. Otherwise List of controversies involving The New York Times is a POV fork. That being said, unless there is a well sourced general criticism of the media organization in question, the specific criticisms should go on the spinoff article. The only content on this article that currently seems appropriately general to include is the “accusations of liberal bias” section, but that would be a WEIGHT problem if it was the only content in the section. A quick scan of the controversies article doesn't yield anything general either.

It may be appropriate for a general conversation over on Wikipedia:Criticism to produce a general approach to handling media organizations and their specific controversies. Integrating such specific instances is going to produce a Fox News or The Guardian-type situation(criticisms riddling the article with little organization), which I know is the usual approach for criticisms broadly defined, but for the reasons I explained above I think these articles warrant a unique approach. SmolBrane (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

...so I think everything but a small summary should be moved to the spinoff article. SmolBrane (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Adding liberal in lead

Pinging @Pyrrho the Skipper: who reverted my edit. I would like to add liberal in the lead to indicate that it has a left-leaning bias. I would like to know if this would be a good change or not. Interstellarity (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this to the Talk Page. Do you have a source to provide for this? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Pyrrho the Skipper here. Interstellarity (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

AllSides is currently the subject of an RfC, which is currently leaning heavily towards not inherently reliable. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Pyrrho the Skipper: Why are the New York Post and Fox News listed as conservative in the lead while there aren’t any that say liberal? Any ideas? Interstellarity (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

And there it is. Calidum 14:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Fox News came out of the much later rise of conservative media in cable news and talk radio, and they are explicit about that "Fox News was very transparent in its view that existing media outlets had a left-leaning slant and that it intended to provide balance by providing a right-leaning slant in its news coverage." (Harvard Business Review). The New York Post is also owned by Rupert Murdoch. Maybe you could try this argument on MSNBC, but not the NYTimes, which has a long history of reputation for objective journalism. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Pyrrho the Skipper quoted from the Harvard Business Review: "Fox News was very transparent in its view that existing media outlets had a left-leaning slant and that it intended to provide balance by providing a right-leaning slant in its news coverage."

• The NYT was one of the "existing media outlets."
• That same article states, "These developments have also influenced traditional print media outlets, including major national newspapers like the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, which are now more likely to be perceived as partisan in some of their news coverage."

I'm going to make a suggestion in a new subsection. YoPienso (talk) 04:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Perception that the NYT skews liberal

Since the body of this article has a subsection titled "Accusations of liberal bias," I have two suggestions:

• Change the word Accusations to Perceptions.
• Include something about the paper's perceived liberal bias in the lead.

Here are some references to reliable sources that report said perception:

• Almost twenty years ago, the retiring public editor of the NYT was dismayed at how liberal the paper was. He wrote,

Start with the editorial page, so thoroughly saturated in liberal theology that when it occasionally strays from that point of view the shocked yelps from the left overwhelm even the ceaseless rumble of disapproval from the right.

• Eight years ago, The Washington Post reprinted a Pew Research graph titled "Ideological Placement of Each Source's Audience" that plotted the NYT surprisingly far left. (You have to scroll down a little to find the chart.) You can find in point 3) below the chart this assertion: "People who read BuzzFeed, Politico, The Washington Post and The New York Times all tend to be more liberal." NB that this source reports on the audiences of the media, not on the media's own voice.
• Then there's "The 1619 Project," printed in 2019 in the NYT Magazine. A Missouri lawmaker characterized it as "seek[ing] to tear down America, not lift her up It seeks to divide, not unify. It aims to distort facts, not merely teach them. It does so as leftist political propaganda masquerading as history." YoPienso (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The "liberal bias" complaints are only a subsection in the controversies section, which is currently tagged with potential POV concerns. Given it's marginal place, it doesn't see WP:DUE to include that in the lead. Feel free to change my mind, though. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• None of those really support the degree of weight you're suggesting we give them. The first one is an editorial, reflecting one person's opinions, and can't be presented as more than that. The second one is relatively speaking a passing mention in a single source; your interpretation of it as surprising and significant is just, well, your interpretation (but it would be stronger if you could claim it was unsurprising per WP:EXCEPTIONAL; the very fact that you acknowledge that it is surprising argues against giving it heavy weight on its own.) And the final one is the opinion of a single lawmaker. Since the NYT is one of the most high-profile papers in the world, it is natural that there would be a lot of opinions about it, and we do already cover this particular sort of opinion, but I'm not seeing the argument that we should give it more weight than it has already. --Aquillion (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed; moreover, it's trivially easy to find opinions to the effect that the NYT is centrist, center-right, or willing to pander to right-wing culture-war emoting [12][13][14]. Opinions are cheap. XOR'easter (talk) 05:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

NY Post is Conservative but NYT not Liberal?

Wikipedia consistently labels moderate sources as conservative in the intro including the NY Post. Refusing to do this for the liberal NYT is just more proof of Wikipedia's extreme left-wing bias. 96.59.126.42 (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Look at the conversation above. I'll repeat what I said. From Harvard Business Review: Fox News came out of the much later rise of conservative media in cable news and talk radio, and they are explicit about that "Fox News was very transparent in its view that existing media outlets had a left-leaning slant and that it intended to provide balance by providing a right-leaning slant in its news coverage. . The New York Post is also owned by Rupert Murdoch. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect claim by user: Pyrrho the Skipper that Secondary sources are required.

Pyrrho the Skipper has repeatedly reverted changes based on incorrect understanding on guidelines for primary sources - despite those guidelines being provided to the user. I would suggest the refusal to read the guidelines is Edit WARRING but I will presume in good faith that the user simply misunderstood the guidelines and I have broken them down for said user below to go through at his leisure. In the meantime, however, the edits should very clearly remain in the article.

The source in question is an MIT Open Access study regarding NYT's bias studied through machine learning. It is a primary source. The user claims in the comments for his reversion that primary sources are not permitted and that a secondary source is a requirement.

Primary sources are permitted as long as there is no interpretation of the primary source as per the guidelines here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#Primary_sources_should_be_used_carefully

"Material based on primary sources can be valuable and appropriate additions to articles. However, primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source. This person does not have to be able to determine that the material in the article or in the primary source is true. The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what the article says it does. "

The article passages the user keeps reverting are DIRECTLY from the primary source. The passages are from the introduction and the conclusion of the study - not exactly hard to locate even without using the Find function. No further interpretation has been made and thus it is a valid use of a primary source.

One published by MIT Open Access and based on statistical analysis (and has the source to replicate it) provided no less.

Yogidoo88 (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

But your entry is misleading. This is not "A 2021 study by MIT"; this is a paper by an engineering undergraduate. It's not appropriate as a source for anything in this article. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

It is not up to you to dismiss a study because it is done by an undergraduate. The paper has been published on MIT Open Access and is a valid primary source.

The description can be ammended to more accurately describe the paper's origin, however.

I'll also just mention that a study on the topic of bias using open-sourced machine learning by an engineering and computer science undergraduate at MIT is a valuable insight into a topic plagued with bias.

I hope this has also benefited Pyrrho the Skipper's understanding of Wikipedia's policy on primary sources when quoted directly.

Yogidoo88 (talk) 23:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Let's take it further:

I don't see how a study put out by an MIT undergraduate using open-source machine learning on the topic of bias is any less valid for consideration than:

i) a misleading journalist, leaving selected titbits for their target audience, who also has their hands-tied by their food, shelter and reputation maintainer.

ii) an old potatoe, using rusty biological wires, indulging themselves in endless paragraphs of ramblings usually based on what effectively boils down to hearsay, imagination and what creativity is left.

Which are littered all over wikipedia as sources worthy of consideration. What is the difference between the reputation of an author or the publisher and the student and their educator in putting out work that has the potential to be inaccurate or misleading? Are today's expectations of all journalists and authors that are accepted on wikipedia that much more stringent than undergraduates at prestigious universities?

The section on Pre-prints says they are generally discouraged. It doesn't say that they cannot be used.

In this case the author is not making an exceptional claim. They are adding to claims of other papers already in the article.

The author provides links to the code used to replicate the study as open-source.

The interest comes from the machine learning used to process the information to determine bias, which makes it particularly interesting.

I'm not going to die on this hill. But adding the source with an explanation that is an undergraduate pre-print paper should be permissible, especially when you consider all the other rubbish that usually gets sourced.

For bio-medical articles, I would be much more hesitant. But in the case of determining bias, it's an interesting addition, worthy of a mention - with a suitable introduction.Yogidoo88 (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Refs

• Rindsberg, Ashley. The Gray Lady Winked: How the New York Times's Misreporting, Distortions and Fabrications Radically Alter History. Hungary, Midnight Oil Publishers, 2021.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 10:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Reading the article on Ashley Rindsberg, all I’m seeing is a background in “science and technology” and philosophy (and just B.A.s in both). Does this dude seriously have the credentials to be considered a reliable source? Dronebogus (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

"Political Alignment"

Add one for this paper in the margin. Drsruli (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Ukraine bias

I add few sentences about criticism NYT has received, such as encouraging Ukraine to give lands to Russia and parallels some prominent individuals have drawn with Duranty's coverage. All of it has been deleted as undue. Is it really controversial to include a few sentences of valid criticism? NYT has flawed legacy and their recent statements on Ukraine are appropriate for the section discussing Duranty. LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 03:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I removed sources cited to Twitter. They are some random political commentators, not experts, and we normally should expect better sourcing than self-published sources. Ditto with the photo, which I removed per NOR policy. Even if including the photo could pass the NOR test, its dueness should be established first.

I didn't remove everything. I'll leave discussing the rest to others. Politrukki (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

How many tens of thousands of opinions have been expressed in this publication since its inception? The nature of opinions is that they are not facts, they are matters about which there is disagreement. Just because it's on folks mind in the past 6 months does not make it significant fact about the publication in toto, and your personal opinion about the legacy of this publication reveals that perhaps you had no intention to make your edit NPOV in the first place. SPECIFICO talk 13:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

So a former head of state, Toomas Hendrik Ilves telling his 187.9K Followers that NYT is no better than it was during Walter Duranty is just a "random commentator" that's worth dismissing? Just because medium here is twitter doesn't mean it wrong. I think at least Ilves comment should be added back because he is noteworthy and also because parallel to Duranty is relevant in that section since it starts with Duranty. I don't feel strong about image or any other things that were removed.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

With no disrespect to Ilves, who is good people, Ilves is not a subject-matter expert for the content. Hence, "random commentator" applies in this content, as it would apply to possible tweets about football, astrophysics, and train timetables. Wikipedia is mainly based on secondary reliable sources. Self-published sources are the lowest quality of sources. There are countless of Wikipedia notable persons who have millions of fans, but are mainly experts for statements about themselves. Accepting self-published sources widely would be untenable. Politrukki (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

"New York Time" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect New York Time and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 5#New York Time until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Certes (talk) 13:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Paragraph on specific articles

Genuinely, how does listing specifically controversial articles qualify as undue here in a section specifically on NYT anti-trans articles in 2022-2023?

And even if there was one you didn’t agree with the inclusion of, again, you don’t get to blank the entire paragraph.

User:SPECIFICO Snokalok (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Tagging User:Sideswipe9th and User:Newimpartial, I feel they’d have valuable input Snokalok (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

OP. you appear to be highly concerned about trans issues. This page is about the history, people, achievements, and reception, of a 150+ year old publication. We deal with the recent trans coverage in a section that is already disproportionately large. Cherrypicking various recent comments by semi-experts on the subject is UNDUE and there are BLP issues involved, particularly relating to the editorial board and to Pamela Paul, who has been villified for her recent commentary. The small removal I made gets the section closer to a reasonable size and sourcing. SPECIFICO talk 23:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Whether an editor is concerned about trans issues is not the issue here. Editors on Wikipedia may support LGBT rights. That is normal. If you want to make it about editors, we could also examine your own affiliations. But that's not the issue here, is it? The section here is about trans issues as they have been covered by The New York Times, and reactions to that coverage. I also found those deletions to be inappropriate. There has been significant coverage of these issues in the news media, and that coverage deserves space to be addressed. The content is following WP:DUE. It seems that by your own admission, your main complaint is that the section isn't as short as you would like, but that is not a good reason to delete well-sourced content. Hist9600 (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Journalistic-opinion-taken-as-fact has always plagued Wikipedia (especially in sports articles), so I'm happy to see its progress checked whenever possible. Seasider53 (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• WP:DUE weight is relative. I definitely agree that this aspect deserves a section; but is it, for example, deserving of more space than criticism of the Times' coverage of the Iraq War? Is it significantly more important than the Times' coverage of AIDs, something that doesn't have its own section at all? Based on the space we are devoting it, we're currently treating this as one of the absolute biggest controversies in the Times' history - is it? This sort of disparity can be fixed by trimming in one area or by expanding others, but it's difficult to see every part of the controversy section being expanded to this size. It's also worth considering weight within the section - are these individual articles and the response to them equivalent in weight to eg. criticism from WPATH, or the letters from massive numbers of contributors and the Times' heavily-covered response? Getting too deep into the individual nuts-and-bolts of individual criticisms isn't really necessary on the main article for the Times itself when we have more sweeping and higher-covered criticism from higher-quality sources. --Aquillion (talk) 05:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  Why don’t we have a section on their AIDS coverage? Is such an influential paper using their influence to deliberately make things worse for the gay community not historically notable enough for their main page? Snokalok (talk) 08:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Because nobody has written it, presumably. You could take a shot at it. These sorts of sections are prone to WP:RECENTISM - you can see that it heavily-emphasizes controversies that occurred while Wikipedia existed and omits most controversies from before then. --Aquillion (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I shall. In the meantime, the consensus seems to be against the disputed paragraph, so do as you wish on that front. If we go another 12 hours and nothing's changed, I'll delete it. Snokalok (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with SPECIFICO here. While the section as a whole is due, the paragraph that we're discussing here does not seem to be. Of the six citations in it, the first three are explicitly opinion pieces, and one (the USPATH latter) is a primary source. Only the PinkNews and ScienceBasedMedicine sources seem to be secondary. Some of the prose is also redundant to what was said in previous paragraphs.

As for the rest of the section, it could definitely use a trim. There's a lot of detail on the open letter content that I'm don't think we need to go into as much detail over. There might also be a little bit of OR in the second to last paragraph, I've not read all of the sources in that section yet so maybe there's an explicit link in one or multiple of them, but I would question if the "The next day, the paper published an op-ed" is actually framed that way in the sources discussing this controversy? Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Since I was asked :) I agree with Sideswipe9th about this. Newimpartial (talk) 03:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm very well, I’ll defer to your editorial wisdom Snokalok (talk) 08:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Hats off. Sometimes talk page collaboration actually works as intended. SPECIFICO talk 16:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Excessive blockquotes in the controversy section

The controversy section has no fewer than six blockquotes. Most of these are not individually significant quotes; five out of the six are WP:PRIMARY quotes to the NYT itself with no secondary source - largely to opinion pieces. While an editor presumably felt that these were significant because they reflected the opinions of people working at the Times, we don't need five fairly massive blockquotes. In one case we have two blockquotes to the same person from the same article! Doing so (in the absence of any secondary coverage) places undue emphasis on the opinions of what is ultimately just a few individuals. I don't think that these opinions necessarily need to be excluded entirely (although in a few cases they smack of WP:RECENTISM), but we can summarize them in one sentence each rather than allowing one or two voices to dominate entire sections. --Aquillion (talk) 10:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. I feel that this is appropriate. This is tendentious editing that you've been trying to remove for a while. DenverCoder9 (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

"now colloquially referred to as the morgue."[

Incorrectly implies that "the morgue" was called something else "then" or "at some other time". Which is false, and not supported by the reference.

Also, of course, Anada didn't create the photo library, and the the morgue wasn't created by the addition of the photo library to Anada's morgue. For more information and references, see The_New_York_Times_Archival_Library 1.159.58.220 (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@ 223.29.230.250 (talk) 12:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Rewrite

The History section of this article is incredibly vague. I started a complete rewrite over at User:ElijahPepe/The New York Times. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Rowling, citekill, recentism

With major edits my summaries are always detailed and extend all the way to the character limit, as I did when I cleared most of the junk on the Rowling letters. User:Snokalok reverts this with a summary that it was "Well sourced, relevant consensus material blanked without reason."

It should go without saying that if one is not going to read an edit summary, then they should not touch the edit. I read every single source in that section, checked the history on the section (added by Snokalok in January and February 2023) and checked the Talk page. The consensus, which Snokalok apparently agreed to above, is that WP:RECENTISM holds and that sources on controversies should not just be a string of (relative) junk. Let me reiterate from my summary with more detail: the paragraph misquotes and misplaces attribution as is, with WP:CITEKILL scrambling which source is actually being cited and cluttering the reader with rehashes of the same thing, but with worse takes. Only the Telegraph and The Hill seem to say things that are actually being referenced in the paragraph. What does adding a Mary Sue article bring? It's just an opinion piece that quotes Twitter takes from nobodies, with no original interviews and linking to the same articles the others do. Just because it's considered in general an RS (which doesn't make every article an RS in every case, btw), does not mean that such citations should be thrown in whenever and wherever an editor feels like. Quality over quantity.

On to the NYT internal memo: to understand why this needs some elevated source for notability (like if it were to trigger a walkout or something) one needs the background that this is taught as basic journalism ethics and is the same policy for every mainstream news organization. NPR in 2021 changed its protesting policy to allow case-by-case consideration. While the issue is often raised in academic journalism (this quotes AP policy btw), NPR relaxed its policy to a greater extent than almost any other major outlet. Maybe readers understand this or maybe not, but the point is that there has to be a greater standard for talking about a recent memo reiterating universal industry ethics standards than simply Twitter rage. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Right, it's 2am but let's do this:

"With major edits my summaries are always detailed and extend all the way to the character limit,"

And yet you didn't actually say anything of relevance. A paragraph break a misquote does not make, and it doesn't matter if the quote is him restating the NYT ethics policy, the fact is, that's the quote, and it's relevant. While we're at it, we might as well blank any article that quotes the word "grey" as "gray". If you feel the paragraph break is that relevant, then add it in.

"What does adding a Mary Sue article bring? It's just an opinion piece that quotes Twitter takes from nobodies"

Further RSP source coverage adds notability, something you clearly seemed to feel was lacking given that your edit summary said only the Telegraph made mention of the Times quote. If you like, I can fetch sources more suitable to your tastes. The Guardian and The Independent off the top of my head, but I didn't want to overcite.

"On to the NYT internal memo: to understand why this needs some elevated source for notability (like if it were to trigger a walkout or something) one needs the background that this is taught as basic journalism ethics and is the same policy for every mainstream news organization"

Right, but the fact that it's being invoked here to shut down an open letter criticizing the paper's coverage is still incredibly relevant, and the sources agree. If this was something that wasn't being talked about in the cited sources, I might agree with it being WP:Synth or WP:OR, but numerous sources clearly made relevant mention of that, and in all honesty it is quite relevant. Not to mention, that if we're discussing criticism of the paper, it's only fair to include their response per WP:NPOV, and that's what we've done. Snokalok (talk) 05:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Addendum: The presumably trained journalists who wrote the articles in the first place, seemed to find it relevant all the same. Snokalok (talk) 05:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Right I couldn't sleep so I decided to add more RSP citations featuring both the op-ed and the relevant NYT response. I added in The Independent, The Guardian, and PinkNews. Feel free to go over them yourself, but I think my point stands. This is something the journalists reporting on the matter found relevant. The anecdotal argument of "This is something taught in journalism classes" doesn't hold without a counter, and even if that is true, it doesn't change the established relevance of its deployment here. Snokalok (talk) 07:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:CITEKILL: there are nine citations on two separate sentences. Pick at maximum three sources you want to keep for each (more like two if you have respect for the reader and other editors) -- that's the absolute limit to what any editor here should be expected to read before I'll restore my edit (which again, was careful, after reading every source at the time, and not "blanking"). If you suggest that new sources add a "counter" to me directly, then quote it here or tell me exactly which source has it and where to find it.

Notability of a source or event means it gets a wiki article. RSP means a citation doesn't get deleted outright because the source is unreliable. That's all those terms mean. It doesn't mean you get to drop in citations from those sites whenever you want and declare them sacrosanct if someone removes them.

We're not in the business of criticizing the paper. We put up a curated selection of information with attention to WP policies and guidelines (i.e., what an editor does). In particular, per prior consensus, we're not indiscriminately dumping recent news articles. SamuelRiv (talk) 07:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

"Pick at maximum three sources you want to keep for each (more like two if you have respect for the reader and other editors)"

As you wish. I'll comment again when I've finished trimming the citations. Also I may pass out at some point in the next two hours also, so kindly give it a second.

"Notability of a source or event means it gets a wiki article. RSP means a citation doesn't get deleted outright because the source is unreliable."

I don't disagree that RSP doesn't mean sacrosanct, the entire takeaway from this section that we're disputing is that even The New York Times can't be blindly trusted. But for disputes involving notability of information and due weight, RSP sources count as generally valid examples of such (in addition to the obvious question of reliability).

I *do* disagree with the 'don't get immediately deleted' comment's implication that RSP sources are the only ones that can be used, as a look over virtually any article that's not a BLP or similar will find sources not listed in the WP:RSP page being used for all sorts of claims. RSP just means it's been thoroughly discussed and vetted by the community as a good source.

"We're not in the business of criticizing the paper. We put up a curated selection of information with attention to WP policies and guidelines (i.e., what an editor does). In particular, per prior consensus, we're not indiscriminately dumping recent news articles."

And there's a significant amount of information that's been trimmed already, as you've no doubt seen from reading back through the history of when this section was first written. Ultimately, while I agree that WP:Recentism continues to be a valid concern, I don't think 600 words is an unreasonable section size given the overall size of the article, the depth of coverage, and the impact it's had with regards to legislation and the current overall anti-LGBT crusade. Snokalok (talk) 08:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Right, I've cut it to two for one sentence and three for the other, with one of the three being a source previously used in the same subsection. Let me know your thoughts. Snokalok (talk) 08:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Financial status of the company?

Might be nice to delve a bit into the profitability of the company. As that's missing, but it would be interesting to know how much they earn as they are a paywall news company. CaribDigita (talk) 09:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. This is especially interesting because they were quite profitable before social media, dipped significantly in the mid-2010s before they figured out a business model for the digital age, and are now earning significant revenue. DenverCoder9 (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Stance lede

I made a couple edits to shorten up and improve the concision of the lede to the editorial section. [15] [16]

SPECIFICO, all of whose edits on this page have been reversions, reverted these almost instantly without discussion. I won't dwell on my doubts about whether SPECIFICO read what he reverted. I would normally re-add them given the lack of expressed reasoning against them. However, I don't know if re-adding these 2 qualifies as "aggressive editing", so to stray wide on the side of being nice I'm opening this talk page instead. SPECIFICO, why is the longer wording preferable? e.g. ("in editorial pages" vs. "editorals") 19:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC) DenverCoder9 (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The burden is on you to demonstrate why your version is preferable. I find your two edits make no improvement to the article. It's such a small change this isn't really worth having a discussion over. Might be a good opportunity to let it go. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Please focus on content, not the contributor. Specifico made a wholesale revert with vague reference to NPOV and asked this to be discussed on the talk page. And then failed to show up in this discussion. If you think something is too insignificant to be discussed, please just move on. Politrukki (talk) 08:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

With regards to this, because "editorial pages" captures the idea that both editorials an op-eds are typically liberal. This looks like an improvement, because "in their position" is redundant. As nobody has specifically justified why trimming would not be an improvement and as Specifico has not defended their position, I think it would be best to redo the trimming. Politrukki (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

"a national newspaper of record" v. "one of the national newspapers of record"

The second makes it clearer that there are multiple newspapers of record in the country the times is a record for (the United States), while the first makes it sound as though there may be many nations, each with a single newspaper of record. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

That's not how it is, or was, called. It's Original Research to change that. SPECIFICO talk 13:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

It is not WP:OR to change to a logically equivalent phrase for clarity. DenverCoder9 (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@DenverCoder19: you're right that it's not original research to state that the US has several newspapers of record. Reliable sources mention The New York Times in relation to others (or that's what I believe). But do notice that our article says "a" not "the". Politrukki (talk) 08:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Consider the following sentences:

1. Washington, DC is a national capital

2. Washington, DC is one of the national capitals

The first sounds better than the second, because, while DC is one of many national capitals in the world, the second sentence makes it sound like there are multiple national capitals in the United States.

That's the difference between these phrasings, and why the second is more appropriate for the Times, because it clarifies that the Times is only one of several newspapers of record within the United States. DenverCoder9 (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

"Accusations of Liberal Bias" Subsection

The Arthur Brisbane quoted in this section is not the one discussed in the Arthur Brisbane article, and the link to said article should be removed. 64.203.244.11 (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)