This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of The New York Times controversies article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about List of The New York Times controversies. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about List of The New York Times controversies at the Reference desk. |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
![]() | 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. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the CampusJ page were merged into List of The New York Times controversies on 24 August 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
I've removed a morass of lengthy content cited entirely to As'ad AbuKhalil's self-published blog, angryarab.blogspot.com. Although this text is attributed to AbuKhalil, it completely runs afoul of principles of due weight:
I've also removed a citation to a Tweet(!) by an obscure research fellow (i.e., junior think-tanker) criticizing a Times editorial. First, no, having "testified to the Congress" does not make one's Tweets automatically significantly enough to be enshrined in an encyclopedia article forever. Second, having some people disagree with an editorial is not a "controversy."
-- Neutrality talk 06:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on New York Times controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iG-8I87S5w4QP8CPIrx2wh8irqmgD8UVVVBO0When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I've made several reverts ( eg) because of issues being discussed over at Talk:Sarah Jeong. The Wikipedia biographies of living people policy is quite strict. The specific additions ( eg) do not bother to present a neutral point of view and are completely without context. Citing ( talk) 01:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. I have used many high quality sources, and had used sources from the New York Times itself. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material. And I have fulfilled the burden of proof with my many, many good citations. Where is the disagreements about what I have written? She tweeted anti-white, anti-cop tweets, so I have written that she did that. The. New York times stand by their decision to hire her, so that's what will be written. Don't broadly criticise it - if you have valid criticism, be specific. -- 1.152.104.255 ( talk) 01:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
This article consists entirely of controversies from the last two decades. The New York Times has been the subject of controversy for as long as it has been in existence. An article titled "The New York Times Controversies" ought to span the entirety of the newspaper's history. At minimum, twentieth century content (e.g. Walter Duranty's denial of famine in Ukraine) desperately needs inclusion. 00:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.66 ( talk)
Is there a revision pending about the 2 controversies this past month Aug 2019 ? 1) The NYT changed a headline (after the El Paso shooting when President Trump condemned white supremacy and bigotry from the White House) at the insistence of Twitter mobs. 2) NYT Dean Baquet caught on recording saying their paper was focused on "one story" for more than 2 years and now had to make any future news regarding President Trump to focus on "racism angle" for the next year. Markvrb ( talk) 09:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I think this page should be renamed to "The New York Time Criticism and controversies". "Controversies" alone implies contention about specific events while this page contains more general (temporally and topically broad) criticism (e.g. "Corporate-influence concerns"). This rename would also match with the subsection of the main New York Times page. Tovlyd ( talk) 20:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
@ CaradhrasAiguo: per WP:BURDEN you need to make an argument for each of the sources you just added to the page. None have a consensus of reliability and as far as I can tell none satisfy WP:VERIFY. Also just fyi for next time, you need to get consensus *before* adding the contentious material to the page not after. Horse Eye Jack ( talk) 23:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@ CaradhrasAiguo: please respond in full before editing further, you need to satisfy WP:BURDEN first. Horse Eye Jack ( talk) 00:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I think these two sections should be merged since they are essentially covering the same thing. The merged section should contain more information from Chinese media accusations as well. There are many more instances of accused bias from China which should mentioned, which I was surprised to not be mentioned at all. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weird green frog ( talk • contribs) 00:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
[ A separate proposal: that some qualified editor(s), please add a link to the page, "List of controversies involving The New York Times", in among the related topic-links listed in the "See also" section of the main page re the New York Times.
(Meanwhile, til that's either done or decided against, perhaps someone who knows how to do so might want to properly re-format even this proposal itself?)
--Thanks! ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1516:4565:9054:3723:2E44:59A4 ( talk) 16:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Maybe it would make sense to organize the whole article chronologically - sometimes it's unclear when the incident happened. I think it helps understanding whether situation is improving or getting worse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolframiac ( talk • contribs) 17:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
The New York Times, and specifically it's then chief correspondent in Moscow, Walter Duranty, has been widely criticized for his reporting during the Ukrainian famine of 1932-1933 (holodomor), specifically his outright denial that it was happening and even at times apparent support for Joseph Stalin. Duranty has also been alleged to have lived in such a way and had access to such things that, at the time, would have been impossible without Stalin's knowledge and explicit approval, leading to accusations that he may have been a propagandist for Stalin.
I'm honestly surprised that nothing about that controversy is present in this article and I believe that it should be added. EPicmAx4 ( talk) 05:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
One of the longest sections in this article is "Anti-British sentiment," but most of the section is from one article by some political commentator on an obscure magazine. I don't think the Manchester bombings part and the part about swamps fit in the section either. Ardenter ( talk) 05:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Just in July, 2021. A new controversy has started where NYT was allegedly recruiting Indians who would write with anti-Modi sentiments or something like that. Full confirmation is needed. SReader21 ( talk) 13:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Any objections to adding this article in The Spectator, it alleges that the Times prevented reporters from pursuing the lab-leak story. -- Pakbelang ( talk) 16:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC) 'Exclusive: New York Times quashed COVID origins inquiry'. August 2, 2021. https://spectatorworld.com/topic/new-york-times-quashed-covid-origins-inquiry/
This section seems to have been added in 2006 to provide information about a book published in 2006. It's sourced almost entirely to the book that it purports to be about. There are no independent sources cited that discuss the purported controversy. I propose removing this section if such sources cannot be found. MPS1992 ( talk) 21:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
I notice two issues with this entry:
1) The endnotes refer to the "Caliphate" podcast scandal (which is the one I was looking for), but the actual body of the entry does not mention this scandal at all. I would assert it not only deserves mention, but its own section.
2) The section about the obituary of the Mormon leader contains a very long first-person quote -- so long it is easy for readers to lose track of the fact they are in fact reading a quote (except for occasional uses of the word "I"). I suggest rendering this entire quotation as a block quotation.
I leave it, however, to those who regularly monitor this particular entry to decide if these issues warrant action.
Sincerely,
Skb8721 ( talk) 17:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I have multiple WP:RSP green sources directly using the word “controversy” [1] [2] to refer to the backlash over the NYT’s reporting on trans issues, both of which I cited in my edit, in addition to the rest of the documented backlash, not to mention the - in the time since this was reverted - open letter signed by 370 NYT contributors calling out their coverage. [3]
I would point out that no other section on this page has had to clear nearly so high a hurdle, as best I can tell.
With respect, what about this is not sufficiently a controversy? (Please tag me in reply so I don’t forget)
User:SPECIFICO Snokalok ( talk) 02:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Tagging user User:Sideswipe9th to get their thoughts on the matter, I feel they might have a useful perspective. Snokalok ( talk) 05:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Right, so the letter is receiving increased WP:DEPTH coverage, and at this point hands down meets the criteria for born controversy and notability. Here’s my proposed section.
The New York Times’ reporting on trans issues has in the past of been the source of “controversy”. [4] [5]
In February 2023, over 370 NYT contributors signed an open letter expressing “serious concerns about editorial bias” in the newspaper's reporting on transgender people. The letter characterized the NYT’s reporting as using “an eerily familiar mix of pseudoscience and euphemistic, charged language, while publishing reporting on trans children that omits relevant information about its sources”, and raised concerns about the NYT’s employment practices regarding trans contributors. [6] [7] [8] Of particular criticism was a piece referring to trans children as “patient zero”, and describing transness as an illness to be contained. The letter highlighted that many of these pieces have been directly cited in anti-trans legislation by republican lawmakers. [9]
That same day, a separate but coordinated letter was delivered to the NYT, signed by more than 130 LGBT advocacy groups with similar concerns, as well as numerous celebrities. [10]
Within a day the NYT issues a response, saying “Our journalism strives to explore, interrogate and reflect the experiences, ideas and debates in society – to help readers understand them. Our reporting did exactly that and we’re proud of it”. The next day, the NYT published an op-ed piece entitled “In defense of JK Rowling”. [11] [12] [13]
That same day, an internal memo was sent by the editors, saying “Our coverage of transgender issues, including the specific pieces singled out for attack, is important, deeply reported, and sensitively written. We do not welcome, and will not tolerate, participation by Times journalists in protests organized by advocacy groups or attacks on colleagues on social media and other public forums.” [14]
Snokalok ( talk) 00:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
References
Coverage in major reliable secondary sources regarding the NYT's coverage of transgender issues has continued for days, with The Guardian publishing an article about the controversy earlier today. I think this particular controversy is notable enough for its own page. CJ-Moki ( talk) 01:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Just reviving the convo here ("Organizing chronologically"), but wouldn't it make more sense to chunk this out by decade? Yes? No? Trying for WP:CONSENSUS here before I just do it, haha. Cheers! ɯɐɔ 💬 23:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I suggest adding a section on NYT's acrimonious relationship with Musk. This is well documented. I proposed the following edit: [5] User:SPECIFICO reverted it, stating that the withdrawal of the Twitter checkmark as trivial. I accept that point but feel that the more general spat is worth mention. Pakbelang ( talk) 11:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of The New York Times controversies article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about List of The New York Times controversies. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about List of The New York Times controversies at the Reference desk. |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
![]() | 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. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the CampusJ page were merged into List of The New York Times controversies on 24 August 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
I've removed a morass of lengthy content cited entirely to As'ad AbuKhalil's self-published blog, angryarab.blogspot.com. Although this text is attributed to AbuKhalil, it completely runs afoul of principles of due weight:
I've also removed a citation to a Tweet(!) by an obscure research fellow (i.e., junior think-tanker) criticizing a Times editorial. First, no, having "testified to the Congress" does not make one's Tweets automatically significantly enough to be enshrined in an encyclopedia article forever. Second, having some people disagree with an editorial is not a "controversy."
-- Neutrality talk 06:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on New York Times controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iG-8I87S5w4QP8CPIrx2wh8irqmgD8UVVVBO0When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I've made several reverts ( eg) because of issues being discussed over at Talk:Sarah Jeong. The Wikipedia biographies of living people policy is quite strict. The specific additions ( eg) do not bother to present a neutral point of view and are completely without context. Citing ( talk) 01:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. I have used many high quality sources, and had used sources from the New York Times itself. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material. And I have fulfilled the burden of proof with my many, many good citations. Where is the disagreements about what I have written? She tweeted anti-white, anti-cop tweets, so I have written that she did that. The. New York times stand by their decision to hire her, so that's what will be written. Don't broadly criticise it - if you have valid criticism, be specific. -- 1.152.104.255 ( talk) 01:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
This article consists entirely of controversies from the last two decades. The New York Times has been the subject of controversy for as long as it has been in existence. An article titled "The New York Times Controversies" ought to span the entirety of the newspaper's history. At minimum, twentieth century content (e.g. Walter Duranty's denial of famine in Ukraine) desperately needs inclusion. 00:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.66 ( talk)
Is there a revision pending about the 2 controversies this past month Aug 2019 ? 1) The NYT changed a headline (after the El Paso shooting when President Trump condemned white supremacy and bigotry from the White House) at the insistence of Twitter mobs. 2) NYT Dean Baquet caught on recording saying their paper was focused on "one story" for more than 2 years and now had to make any future news regarding President Trump to focus on "racism angle" for the next year. Markvrb ( talk) 09:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I think this page should be renamed to "The New York Time Criticism and controversies". "Controversies" alone implies contention about specific events while this page contains more general (temporally and topically broad) criticism (e.g. "Corporate-influence concerns"). This rename would also match with the subsection of the main New York Times page. Tovlyd ( talk) 20:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
@ CaradhrasAiguo: per WP:BURDEN you need to make an argument for each of the sources you just added to the page. None have a consensus of reliability and as far as I can tell none satisfy WP:VERIFY. Also just fyi for next time, you need to get consensus *before* adding the contentious material to the page not after. Horse Eye Jack ( talk) 23:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@ CaradhrasAiguo: please respond in full before editing further, you need to satisfy WP:BURDEN first. Horse Eye Jack ( talk) 00:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I think these two sections should be merged since they are essentially covering the same thing. The merged section should contain more information from Chinese media accusations as well. There are many more instances of accused bias from China which should mentioned, which I was surprised to not be mentioned at all. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weird green frog ( talk • contribs) 00:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
[ A separate proposal: that some qualified editor(s), please add a link to the page, "List of controversies involving The New York Times", in among the related topic-links listed in the "See also" section of the main page re the New York Times.
(Meanwhile, til that's either done or decided against, perhaps someone who knows how to do so might want to properly re-format even this proposal itself?)
--Thanks! ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1516:4565:9054:3723:2E44:59A4 ( talk) 16:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Maybe it would make sense to organize the whole article chronologically - sometimes it's unclear when the incident happened. I think it helps understanding whether situation is improving or getting worse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolframiac ( talk • contribs) 17:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
The New York Times, and specifically it's then chief correspondent in Moscow, Walter Duranty, has been widely criticized for his reporting during the Ukrainian famine of 1932-1933 (holodomor), specifically his outright denial that it was happening and even at times apparent support for Joseph Stalin. Duranty has also been alleged to have lived in such a way and had access to such things that, at the time, would have been impossible without Stalin's knowledge and explicit approval, leading to accusations that he may have been a propagandist for Stalin.
I'm honestly surprised that nothing about that controversy is present in this article and I believe that it should be added. EPicmAx4 ( talk) 05:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
One of the longest sections in this article is "Anti-British sentiment," but most of the section is from one article by some political commentator on an obscure magazine. I don't think the Manchester bombings part and the part about swamps fit in the section either. Ardenter ( talk) 05:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Just in July, 2021. A new controversy has started where NYT was allegedly recruiting Indians who would write with anti-Modi sentiments or something like that. Full confirmation is needed. SReader21 ( talk) 13:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Any objections to adding this article in The Spectator, it alleges that the Times prevented reporters from pursuing the lab-leak story. -- Pakbelang ( talk) 16:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC) 'Exclusive: New York Times quashed COVID origins inquiry'. August 2, 2021. https://spectatorworld.com/topic/new-york-times-quashed-covid-origins-inquiry/
This section seems to have been added in 2006 to provide information about a book published in 2006. It's sourced almost entirely to the book that it purports to be about. There are no independent sources cited that discuss the purported controversy. I propose removing this section if such sources cannot be found. MPS1992 ( talk) 21:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
I notice two issues with this entry:
1) The endnotes refer to the "Caliphate" podcast scandal (which is the one I was looking for), but the actual body of the entry does not mention this scandal at all. I would assert it not only deserves mention, but its own section.
2) The section about the obituary of the Mormon leader contains a very long first-person quote -- so long it is easy for readers to lose track of the fact they are in fact reading a quote (except for occasional uses of the word "I"). I suggest rendering this entire quotation as a block quotation.
I leave it, however, to those who regularly monitor this particular entry to decide if these issues warrant action.
Sincerely,
Skb8721 ( talk) 17:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I have multiple WP:RSP green sources directly using the word “controversy” [1] [2] to refer to the backlash over the NYT’s reporting on trans issues, both of which I cited in my edit, in addition to the rest of the documented backlash, not to mention the - in the time since this was reverted - open letter signed by 370 NYT contributors calling out their coverage. [3]
I would point out that no other section on this page has had to clear nearly so high a hurdle, as best I can tell.
With respect, what about this is not sufficiently a controversy? (Please tag me in reply so I don’t forget)
User:SPECIFICO Snokalok ( talk) 02:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Tagging user User:Sideswipe9th to get their thoughts on the matter, I feel they might have a useful perspective. Snokalok ( talk) 05:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Right, so the letter is receiving increased WP:DEPTH coverage, and at this point hands down meets the criteria for born controversy and notability. Here’s my proposed section.
The New York Times’ reporting on trans issues has in the past of been the source of “controversy”. [4] [5]
In February 2023, over 370 NYT contributors signed an open letter expressing “serious concerns about editorial bias” in the newspaper's reporting on transgender people. The letter characterized the NYT’s reporting as using “an eerily familiar mix of pseudoscience and euphemistic, charged language, while publishing reporting on trans children that omits relevant information about its sources”, and raised concerns about the NYT’s employment practices regarding trans contributors. [6] [7] [8] Of particular criticism was a piece referring to trans children as “patient zero”, and describing transness as an illness to be contained. The letter highlighted that many of these pieces have been directly cited in anti-trans legislation by republican lawmakers. [9]
That same day, a separate but coordinated letter was delivered to the NYT, signed by more than 130 LGBT advocacy groups with similar concerns, as well as numerous celebrities. [10]
Within a day the NYT issues a response, saying “Our journalism strives to explore, interrogate and reflect the experiences, ideas and debates in society – to help readers understand them. Our reporting did exactly that and we’re proud of it”. The next day, the NYT published an op-ed piece entitled “In defense of JK Rowling”. [11] [12] [13]
That same day, an internal memo was sent by the editors, saying “Our coverage of transgender issues, including the specific pieces singled out for attack, is important, deeply reported, and sensitively written. We do not welcome, and will not tolerate, participation by Times journalists in protests organized by advocacy groups or attacks on colleagues on social media and other public forums.” [14]
Snokalok ( talk) 00:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
References
Coverage in major reliable secondary sources regarding the NYT's coverage of transgender issues has continued for days, with The Guardian publishing an article about the controversy earlier today. I think this particular controversy is notable enough for its own page. CJ-Moki ( talk) 01:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Just reviving the convo here ("Organizing chronologically"), but wouldn't it make more sense to chunk this out by decade? Yes? No? Trying for WP:CONSENSUS here before I just do it, haha. Cheers! ɯɐɔ 💬 23:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I suggest adding a section on NYT's acrimonious relationship with Musk. This is well documented. I proposed the following edit: [5] User:SPECIFICO reverted it, stating that the withdrawal of the Twitter checkmark as trivial. I accept that point but feel that the more general spat is worth mention. Pakbelang ( talk) 11:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)