Talk:The New York Times

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The New York Times article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	The New York Times was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 16, 2008 Good article nominee Listed February 26, 2018 Good article reassessment Delisted
	Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 18, 2004, June 13, 2009, September 18, 2014, and September 18, 2019.
Current status: Delisted good article

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Brands High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Journalism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance). New York City High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Media High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Mackay Radio Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite NPOV : Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments Newspapers High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. New York (state) High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: McQuillan, Karin (June 13, 2012). "Wikipedia's Jewish Problem". FrontPageMag.com.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: Rindsberg, Ashley. The Gray Lady Winked: How the New York Times's Misreporting, Distortions and Fabrications Radically Alter History. Hungary, Midnight Oil Publishers, 2021.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. Laura Yuree Kim (talk · contribs) has been paid by The New York Times on their behalf.

Section sizes Section size for The New York Times (56 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 5,252 5,252 History 12 19,990 1851–1896 1,720 1,720 1896–1945 3,240 3,240 1945–1998 6,397 6,397 1998–present 8,621 8,621 Organization 17 15,631 Management 2,990 2,990 Journalists 6,603 6,603 Editorial board 4,457 4,457 Unionization 1,564 1,564 Content 12 12,934 Circulation 1,358 1,358 Newsletters 4,337 4,337 Political positions 195 195 Crossword 428 428 Cooking 2,591 2,591 Archives 1,567 1,567 Content management system 2,446 2,446 Style and design 21 7,301 Style guide 3,402 3,402 Headlines 2,351 2,351 Nameplate 1,527 1,527 Print edition 18 9,815 Design and layout 6,892 6,892 Printing process 2,905 2,905 Online platforms 117 6,861 Website 601 601 Applications 1,415 1,415 Podcasts 1,513 1,513 Games 3,215 3,215 Other publications 23 3,955 The New York Times Magazine 327 327 The New York Times International Edition 151 151 The New York Times in Spanish 1,695 1,695 The New York Times in Chinese 1,759 1,759 Awards and recognition 27 3,323 Awards 427 427 Recognition 2,869 2,869 Controversies 154 6,182 Israeli–Palestinian conflict 4,522 4,522 Transgender people 1,506 1,506 Notes 24 24 References 15 134,364 Citations 34 34 Works cited 18 134,315 The New York Times 51,965 51,965 The New York Times Company 17,197 17,197 Books 2,748 2,748 Reports 534 534 Magazines 318 318 Journals 2,882 2,882 Podcasts 1,122 1,122 Articles 57,531 57,531 Further reading 4,148 4,148 External links 1,712 1,712 Total 231,492 231,492

The article no where mentions that the newspaper has not endorsed a Republican for president in 70 years. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_election_endorsements_made_by_The_New_York_Times 64.31.13.163 (talk) 08:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions the number of Democratic and Republican presidents endorsed by the Times: "The New York Times has endorsed a total of twelve Republican candidates and thirty Democratic candidates." I believe this is sufficient and see no need to specifically highlight that they haven't endorsed a Republican president in 70 years. Frankserafini87 (talk) 04:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure a letter[1] complaining about the NYT recent Is/Pal coverage warrants an entire paragraph in this encyclopedia article about a 172 year old newspaper, per WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. The paragraph is currently verbatim identical to one in the Screams Without Words article. It's very obviously DUE in the latter; here I'd say one sentence is the very most that is DUE. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this subsection needs to be removed. Editors should discuss the contents of the criticism section. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a letter from "50 tenured journalism professors and scholars", so it has considerable weight. It's probably the most due type of criticism. Also covered by the Washington Post and elsewhere. The big question is why a 172-yr-old publication let its standards slip. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BobfromBrockley is not arguing that the letter doesn't have merit, but that it is too recent. There are prior instances where the Times has been accused of pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli coverage. "Screams Without Words" is a major controversy — I recently spoke to Erik Wemple, who said that the upheaval resulting from that article is significant — but it is the only content in that paragraph. I personally would argue an open letter is not important unless it serves as the impetus for greater action. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bob wasn't arguing for its total omission either, just a reduction. Now we have the input of NewsGuild of New York president Susan DeCarava, a single, relatively obscure individual, but not that of 50 scholars of journalism. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An article being controversial or causing upheaval doesn't indicate bias, low journalistic standards, or unethical reporting, though. Accurately reporting the brutality of the attacks would obviously be controversial to anti-Semites and biased parties, too. The main source for this section builds a better case for the NYT having high standards for their accuracy, not evidence they slipped as @Iskandar323 suggests.

The only established evidence cited of their journalistic failings is the fact that someone on their team leaked their internal memos, which is an egg-on-your-face moment. I've yet to see any evidence of poor journalistic standards; the leaked memos didn't substantiate that claim. We should expect journalists to demand high burdens of proof from one another, not treat these internal expectations as evidence of a coverup or bad reporting.

What I see is people concerned with how Palestinian's would be portrayed, regardless of accuracy, and broke journalistic ethics of the paper by leaking internal discourse. However, none of the internal discourse substantiated the claims themselves. Pingpong947 (talk) 11:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should a letter from individuals [2] merely requesting a review of NYT reporting carry enough weight to necessitate a section implying it as fact? You can find 50 biased or uninformed people for any cause. The results of a review might suffice, but not the flimsy request for one.

Even the journalist's cited statement falsely claim that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) found genocide "plausible." In reality, they only said Palestine had "plausible rights to protection from genocide,[3]", which isn't even close to the claim. This serious misreporting by "journalism scholars and professors" raises doubts about their reliability compared to the NYT reporters they're criticizing.

With no mention of the UN's in-depth report deeming the accounts of sexual assault credible[4], the section seems extremely weak at best, and purposely biased at worst. It seems it only serves to cast doubt on substantiated reports of rape without providing substantial evidence to the contrary. Do we really value the request for an investigation more valuable than an actual investigation by the UN which validated the reporting in question? Is this the bar set for an encyclopedia?

The first paragraph lacks serious criticism or examples of inaccurate reporting in the NYT article. Every accusation employs the logical fallacy known as begging the question; it assumes the examples cited are evidence of the bias and unethical journalism, but never establishes them as such.

For example, there is no reason to expect an evenly distributed number of terms like "massacre" applied for each group. Consistently reducing demonstrable massacres perpetrated by one side to more favorable terms would meet the burden of proof required to show bias. This section provides no such evidence. Israel responding with missile strikes on civilian infrastructure utilized by Hamas is quite literally not a "massacre." Interestingly, the next paragraph refers to 10/7, an event that was unquestionably a massacre of Jews, as an "armed incursion of Israel" for some reason.

Regarding their use of terms like "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide", the source provided makes it clear that these guidelines were strictly for accuracy in reporting, nothing more. Establishing a high bar for codified legal terms like the crime of genocide is the mark of journalistic integrity and accuracy, not impropriety. Given that the governing body in charge of investigating the crime of genocide found no evidence Israel is committing it, why is the NYT reminding their staff not to misuse it cited as evidence of their poor reporting? In addition, the criticism for the use of "refugee camps" is nonsensical and at odds with the cited source.

Finally, the last sentence deceptively conflates two tangentially related issues. It misleadingly implies that the NYT's admission of "material handled improperly" is related to their accuracy on the 10/7 rapes. However, the quote is referring to whether members of their staff leaked information about the article itself before publication. Why does the article abruptly shoehorn in a quote referencing a staff member leaking details of the story prior to publication? It seems contradictory when it's the details from this leak that the whole section is based on. At the very least, it should be written more clearly to avoid readers believing they relate to their journalistic accuracy.

In closing, I'm unconvinced of the impartiality of this entry or the encyclopedic value of the information it contains.

Pingpong947 (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Elijahpepe, I was wondering if you could explain why you felt that my edits adding the NYT's reporting on human zoos was unworthy of inclusion in this article? The NYT has revisited the controversy at least twice, and numerous other sources have reported on it. Unbandito (talk) 03:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless a controversy significantly affected the Times, such as the backlash surrounding Jayson Blair's plagiarism that resulted in executive editor Howell Raines' resignation, it should not be included. Your sentence is better suited for List of The New York Times controversies. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe this belogns on the List article either unless there's reliable secondary coverage with respect to NYT's reporting. The references for the paragraph were either primary (NYT's original report, and a more recent retrospective) or were not reliable (a blog post discussing the NYT coverage). You ideally need multiple sources that are both reliable and secondary to qualify this as a "New York Times controversy" instead of being primarily in "Legacy" (or a more appropriate) section on Ota Benga. Soni (talk) 04:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see your point. I am going to re-introduce the material with some better secondary sourcing in the Critism section, rename that section to Controversies, and work on making it into a better summary of the List of The New York Times controversies article. This should address some of the concerns around recentism in that section as well. Unbandito (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The New York Times was under fire for headlining its story on violence against Hindus in Bangladesh after ex-PM Sheikh Hasina fled the country as ‘revenge attacks’. The American newspaper course-corrected after backlash on social media. After backlash NYT removed ‘revenge attacks’ and changed title from "Hindus in Bangladesh Face Revenge Attacks After Prime Minister’s Exit" to "Hindus in Bangladesh Face Attacks After Prime Minister’s Exit".

sources:

• https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/nyt-violence-against-hindus-bangladesh-revenge-attacks-how-western-media-gets-the-india-story-wrong-13802799.html
• https://www.news18.com/world/new-york-times-calls-anti-hindu-violence-in-bangladesh-revenge-attacks-makes-amend-after-facing-flak-8994173.html
• https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/bangladesh-hindus-were-attacked-in-revenge-screams-new-york-times-header-changes-it-after-furore-748268
• https://news.abplive.com/news/world/new-york-times-backlash-labels-bangladesh-anti-hindu-violence-as-revenge-attacks-1708985
• https://www.freepressjournal.in/world/new-york-times-changes-controversial-revenge-attack-headline-after-backlash

2402:A00:152:85D3:8C46:3BAA:3392:A208 (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why are we using the 2024 image of the website? must be some better historical image with something interesting on that day, rather than Jan 2024. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Bruce Weber (reporter) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 19 § Bruce Weber (reporter) until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Add this information to the section about Transgender people: Adding to New York Times' controversy over its coverage of transgender people, the news source regularly features journalist Pamela Paul whose anti-transgender opinion articles featured in the New York Times were made into a legal brief in favor of Idaho House Bill 71. Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).</ref>This bill passed making it a felony for clinicians to provide gender-affirming care to minors in the state of Idaho. ProduktenGmBH (talk) 05:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's universally acknowledged that the NYT is a liberal newspaper. Why not to add that in the first sentence? Thanks 2001:B07:ADD:C4B2:8024:E80B:F27:43 (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]