Talk:The New York Times/Archive 1

message: a picture would be really nice here :) perhaps a quick digital photo of a recent issue? or just the title at the top..  Goodralph 19:39, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  picture 

message: Maybe we should change the "Recent Controversies" section to "Controversies" to contain older controversies as well. For instance, I recently wrote an article on the grunge speak hoax, which was an event that showed the Times in an unfavorable light (due to a lack of research on their part before publishing the hoax). I would add this event to this article, but there isn't a section for it at the moment, and it would seem redundant to make seperate sections for old and new controversies. -- LGagnon 01:13, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
:The paper is 150 years old, so the grunge hoax is recent enough. Gamaliel 02:24, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Controversies or just Controversies?

message: As the French newspaper Libération is currently being characterized as "militant" in its article I would like to know whether the New York Times statement [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/899082/posts "Chirac and his poodle Putin have severely damaged the United Nations", "Chirac's Latest Ploy", WILLIAM SAFIRE] would qualify this newspaper as "militant" as well? Just a rhetorical question... Get-back-world-respect 15:12, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Militant?

message: I rolled-back an added paragraph titled "leadership" that exaggerated the paper's actions during the Kent State riots. If nothing else, it had the tone of extreme POV. - DavidWBrooks 16:45, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "leadership"

message: We can't link this articles to every blog that speculates on issues which may or may not be altering Times coverage, because it would completely swamp it. Remember wikipedia is not a link farm! - DavidWBrooks 15:52, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why blog link was removed 

message: Irrespective of how legitimate the argue may be, we can't link to every blog that speculates on issues which may or may not be altering Times coverage. This may well be a legitimate topic of discussion but not here. Wikipedia is not a link farm or a debate forum! - DavidWBrooks 20:11, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why blog link was removed AGAIN 

message: Perhaps somebody can add a heading  with some facts about the New York Times online and also mention the fact that the opinion pages (online) will become subscription only in September. --newsjunkie 19:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NYT online? 

message: The article as it currently stands describes the newspaper as divided into three major sections -- news, opinion, and features.  Does the New York Times use these designations (other than as headings on its web site), and are they useful to the Wikipedia reader?  These "sections" are not necessarily associated with the physical sections in which the newspaper is printed.  For example, the editorials, op-eds and letters to the editor are printed in the main news section Monday through Saturday and in the Week in Review section on Sunday. --Metropolitan90 19:12, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
::I agree, the Major Sections are just wrong and don't represent the NYTimes in any form that I've seen it - either Tri-state region (local) or National editions. Pending no disagreement, I might change it. Anyone else concur or disagree? --Areback 00:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major sections 

message: I deleted the paragraph: "Third, some Times political reporters, such as Elisabeth Bumiller and Adam Nagourney, have been accused by liberals of covering politics in a shallow and unreflective fashion that (perhaps inadvertently) benefits conservatives."  I hope everyone can see why. --zenohockey 15:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberal criticisms 

message: ...quite why the New York Times is considered a liberal paper, it just seems like a nice excuse to have conservatives represent both 'sides' of every issue on TV news programs, which are also marked as part of the great liberal media, best I can figure it, conservatives don't actually watch the channels they take the time to call liberal..
..and don't read the papers they choose to call liberal
*and in today's panel, we have conservative republican op ed columnist Bob Somebody from the NYT, and repressenting our conservative side we have Joe Someguy, Republican Congreesman from the great state of texas, which one is supposed to be the liberal?? the one with NY in his title, duh
It's just silliness, no matter how loyal a newspaper/tabloid/newschannel is to the Bush administration, they'll still be a part of the great left wing conspiracy, I mean who are you going to blame when you control all 3 branches of the government? obviously not the government,
this debate is entirly pointless as there are still people who call the New York Post and New York Daily News liberal papers, rofl--172.174.25.220 13:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I still can't figure out.... 

message: As a corollary to the note above ("info box politics"): The terms left wing and right wing have no definite meaning. It may be opined that this or that is Left or Right, but use of these words constitutes a non-neutral point of view. It is bad enough to use them to describe clearly defined political positions; it is egregious to present them as descriptions of unclearly defined political positions like that of the Times.
Omphaloscope » talk 00:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inherent POV in ''left-wing'' and ''right-wing'' 

message: Any chance of a circulation sectio being added, with numbers and history, possibly using this? --Maru  (talk) Contribs 15:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circulation