Talk:The New York Times#rfc C5E61C8

{{Edit semi-protected|The New York Times|answered=yes}}

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)

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)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bruce_Weber_(reporter)&redirect=no 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 {{slink|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)

{{Edit semi-protected|The New York Times|answered=yes}}

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. https://www.them.us/story/new-york-times-detransition-youth-op-ed-pamela-paul-chase-strangioThis 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)

:File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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)

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)

:As per WP:WIKIVOICE, subjective opinions "should not be stated as Wikipedia's voice." You need to provide reliable sources to support the characterization of NYT as liberal, rather than just your opinion. Frankserafini87 (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

::I find it interesting that the 1st paragraph of the Wall Street Journal references the newspaper editorial page as being "center-right", yet there is no mention here in the 1st paragraph of a political slant on the far-more ideologically slanted New York Times. 12.5.37.226 (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

:Generally speaking, information in the lead should be covered in greater detail in the body (see these pages for more info). So I would recommend finding a few high quality sources that talk about NYT's political leanings, and add it to the body. Only then might it be appropriate to add to the lead. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 22:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

::NY Times is liberal, here are reliable sources that say so, Fordham University https://faculty.fordham.edu/siddiqi/fred/fred_7/nytimesother.html allsides which wikipedia shows as a good source https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-times-opinion-media-bias Boston University https://library.bu.edu/blumenthal/bias Columbia Journalism Review https://www.cjr.org/special_report/why-the-left-cant-stand-the-new-york-times.php University of California Los Angeles https://www.college.ucla.edu/report/vol6_media-bias.pdf Is this enough reliable source material to get that coveted LEANS LIBERAL in the headline?2603:8080:3EF0:7930:908D:3169:732:30A0 (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC) 2603:8080:3EF0:7930:908D:3169:732:30A0 (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::I recommend expanding the Political Position section to highlight The New York Times' left-leaning tendencies. While I wouldn't classify it as strictly "liberal," there are sufficient sources to support its left-leaning stance, particularly in its opinion section. Frankserafini87 (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Is it really a broadsheet? Seems more compact these days or maybe a U.S. broadsheet is now that compact size. 108.6.96.180 (talk) 10:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

:Broadsheet doesn't only refer to the size of the paper. It also refers to papers that are more serious with higher quality journalism such as the Times, WSJ, etc. as opposed to tabloid.

:Some broadsheets have gotten smaller but they can still be referred to as broadsheet based on my explanation above. Sometimes they are also called compact or "Berliner" if I am not mistaken Frankserafini87 (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

:: Imputing quality standards on the terms "broadsheet" and "tabloid" is a slippery slope. There are (or at least within living memory were) several high-quality tabloids in the United States -- at various points in their history tab-format papers like Newsday and the Chicago Sun-Times were/are just as serious, or just as staid, as their "broadsheet" rivals -- no "Headless Body" headlines, for example. To address the IP user's question directly, however: the current dimensions and format of The New York Times are typical of current US broadsheets, almost all of which use narrower page widths today than they did 10, 20, 30 years ago. Tellingly, each page of the NYT still has a "second fold" running horizontally -- i.e. there is an "above the fold" half of each page and a "below the fold" half, as opposed to tab/compact/Berliner papers that open like books or magazines with the only fold being the vertical one along the spine. _``` t b w i l l i e _{`</sub> $1.25 <sub>`} 02:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

The section "Controversies" should ideally present a summary of what is in "List of The New York Times controversies" using neutral language. I propose to move the existing content to the article "List of The New York Times controversies", and to keep only a summary here. Here is a possible one:

The New York Times has faced various controversies throughout its history. Early concerns included biased coverage of the Russian Revolution (1917-1920) and the Holodomor in the 1930s. During World War II, the paper was criticized for minimizing Holocaust coverage in its back pages. More recent controversies include questionable reporting leading up to the Iraq War in 2003, particularly Judith Miller's articles about weapons of mass destruction, and the Jayson Blair plagiarism scandal that same year. The paper has also faced criticism over its coverage of Israel-Palestine conflicts, with studies suggesting pro-Israeli bias in its reporting and in its investigation "Screams Without Words". Controversies in the 2020s included debates over the 1619 Project's historical accuracy, the publication and subsequent retraction of Tom Cotton's "Send in the Troops" op-ed during the George Floyd protests, and disputes over its coverage of transgender issues. The paper has also been criticized for its coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic and for antisemitic cartoons. Alenoach (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I find it disturbing that the Wall Street journal wiki has a “political views” section while the New York Times does not. Voluminous sources indicate a strong left leaning bias for the times and this should be expressly indicated in the times wiki 72.31.18.94 (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:Correct, it has a ‘political position’ section. Seasider53 (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:There is a Political position subhead but it focuses solely on discussing the political leanings of the readers. I think more content can be added Frankserafini87 (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:Are you offering to contribute content to expand the section? Anne drew (talk · contribs) 22:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

::I will review some sources to see if there is anything substantial to add. Frankserafini87 (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)