Talk:The New York Times

message: 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)
thread_title: Political Bias

message: Q2, What format should we use for citations and references? 
* I am happy with whatever style we choose, as long as we stick with the same one for all subarticles for NYT. Soni (talk)  02:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference Formatting Style 

message: Q5, Are there any new sections, that are not in scope of one of the sub-articles, that we want to add? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing that jumps out to me from a quick skim of the current NY Times website, they have a Canadian edition that is wholly separate from their International edition. We currently don't mention their Canadian edition in the article, is there sufficient sourcing available on this to create a section for it? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The Canadian edition is an identical version to the U.S. edition. As far as I know, there are about four reporters posted in Canada. The Canada bureau does not have a chief since Catherine Porter became a Paris reporter, though I am aware that the Times has been in the process of hiring a bureau chief since October. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  New sections 

message: :::Right, because there aren't problems already with editors stealing my content without attribution. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the problems here might be somewhat ameliorated if you stopped viewing what you write as "my content", and started considering content you contribute to an encyclopedia, that others in turn modify. Do you have specific examples of users "stealing" your content and not attributing it? Eddie891  Talk Work  23:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: See Special:Diff/1210328620, which also includes content from other editors. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've taken care of the attribution problem in that article's history now, and warned the editor. If there's any other examples of this from the same or other editors, leave a note with the diffs and pages copied from on my talk page and I'll take care of it :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Confirming that this is my final comment on this talk page and my final involvement in the article. Again, no longer my article and all the work is hereby no longer mine; I have discovered now that the work that I put into the article and the expertise I provided is irrelevant. Not sure why the perspective of someone who worked on this article for seven months has not been properly realized, but to each their own. Congratulations on the good and featured article, as it appears that I'm unable to write either. I credit everyone for writing the content in this article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: *  Nobody except you yourself is asking you to step away from the article. All everyone is asking is for you to treat it as an article "multiple" editors are working at, and to discuss edits with others. It's your choice to not discuss the edits or be "not realised". Soni (talk)  04:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: To elaborate: I refuse to play chess when I have only half the pieces, and I refuse to argue when I don't have support, regardless of how large paragraphs should be or the consistency of citations. There is reasoning behind the decisions I made, but I'm afraid those decisions are no longer mine to make. I couldn't write the best featured article I could. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Side discussion About attribution 

message: Strands has not been mentioned yet. I created an addition, but I wanted to make sure I referenced it correctly. Can anyone take a look? MrWackley (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strands Addition 

message: Change The Times was founded as the conservative New-York Daily Times in 1851 to The Times was founded as the liberal New-York Daily Times in 1851 as the NYT is a liberal newspaper 71.241.132.98 (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

text: To clarify: this is not correct. The New-York Daily Times was explicitly founded with the principle, "We shall be Conservative", regardless of what you might view the paper as now. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2024 

message: I'm unsure a letter 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Recentism? 

message: It seems important to address the NYT journalism standards in this article. In fact, I would like to see "Journalism Standards" as a section on each news source article. It is helpful for people who consume news sources to know what the journalism standards of each news outlet is. This is an importnat aspect of developing the skills of media literacy. The standard is published at: https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-standards/ethical-journalism.html Thanks! Lbeaumont (talk) 12:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Journalism Standards