Talk:History of The New York Times (1851–1896)

Civil War detail

Don't want to mess up this v good article but a possibly interesting Civil War detail is that Samuel Wilkeson Jr.'s coverage of the Battle of Gettysburg was framed by his discovery of his own son's body on the battlefield.

Some detail here:

• https://books.google.com/books?id=IYmyitTx71IC&pg=PA96
• https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/04/insider/the-times-at-gettysburg-july-1863-a-reporters-civil-war-heartbreak.html

cheers, ~j jengod (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Improvements

There is ongoing effort and coordination at Talk:The New York Times#History of NYT 1851-1896 content on improving this article preferably to GA standards. Soni (talk) 10:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:History of The New York Times (1851–1896)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 750h+ (talk · contribs) 03:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I will review this.750h+ (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments

Quickfailing this. Seventy citation needed tags. Conversely, it is a nicely written article.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Restoring old versions of article

@ElijahPepe can you point out what you mean by "unexplained mass content removals"? The removals you are talking about were discussed on the NYT page's talk archive, and in edit summaries. Reverting every change you disagree with every few weeks is not going to improve the article.

Most of the content you reverted is adding overly detailed and flowery language without much encyclopediac value. Take this paragraph, which just seems to be overly specific descriptions of multiple sub-papers.

Emboldened by its success, the New-York Daily Times experimented with multiple formats. The paper published the Weekly Family Times to circulate in rural areas; the weekly issue of the Tribune attributed to much of Greeley's success. However, rail transportation in the United States created advances in circulating daily newspapers, forcing the paper to discontinue the Weekly Family Times in the 1870s. A Semi-weekly Times lasted several years longer. The prevalence in rail transportation also ended the Campaign Times for presidential years. The Times for California was started in 1852 and circulated when mail boats could be sent to California from New York. The effort failed once local California newspapers came into prominence.

Similarly, consider this paragraph. I do not say WP:NOTNEWS for articles from a century ago, but that's what it is. Financier and Winston Churchill's grandfather Leonard Jerome held a significant interest in The New-York Times Newspaper Establishment and offered his services during the riot. By 7 p.m., the rioters learned of the Times's weaponry and chose to once again attack the Tribune instead, chanting, "We'll hang old Horace Greeley to a sour-apple tree".

Overall, just restoring everything without discussion seems very odd. You've not raised any of this in talk. It'd be better to discuss than just keep restoring versions you prefer, that way lies WP:OWN. Soni (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The first quote is an overview of the paper's experimental formats. The second is a concluding statement to an event described in the paragraph. If I had not stated that the Times averted an attack, I would be faced with further questions about what happened to the Times. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

If I had not stated that the Times averted an attack, I would be faced with further questions about what happened to the Times But the remaining lines already state that. What you're doing is adding overly specific details that do not actually add any more context.

Look at the paragraph that existed before your revert. What part of this tells you "We didn't state the Times averted the attack"? Warned by the attack on the Tribune, the staff of the Times armed themselves with Gatling guns. Raymond sent sixteen men armed with Minié rifles to the Tribune's office to stave off the mob while two hundred policemen marched onto Printing House Square. The New-York Times remained prideful in its coverage of the event.

A similar picture can be drawn for the other paragraphs you want to restore as well. Consider this. what value does one rumor have on the overall broader point of Civil War news coverage.

A rumor within the Union Army, though not within the Times's offices, stated that a Times correspondent was fortunate to escape during the Battle of the Wilderness. One night, Ulysses S. Grant and George Meade discovered a Times correspondent hiding in the bushes notating the strategic plans of the Army of the Potomac. The correspondent was nearly shot by a subordinate officer while observing Ambrose Burnside's corps.

This is an encyclopedia article, not a movie plot. We aren't supposed to detail every account of every incident from the last 150 years of NYT. We should focus on the most historically significant aspects of the newspaper's history, and cover all of it broadly enough. I could point out more paragraphs that need similar trimming, but my overall point is, you're not going to get anywhere if you just revert any improvements to exactly as you last edited it. Soni (talk) 03:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd waited for a few days just in case you had sufficient reasoning for the revert. I've now restored the article to the state before the mass revert. Please discuss here before re-reverting Soni (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Bookku: Article was created with this text. Soni has attempted to institute alternative wholesale changes that are currently on the article. I hold that the reductions cull an excessive amount of content. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@ElijahPepe In principle I am taking this up for WP:3O. WP:3O says, a) "It is recommended that the filing editor notify the second editor about the post here." b) 3rd Opinion givers are usually uninvolved and uninitiated. If some thing is too long Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read, giving justice to issue can be difficult. Hence WP:3O says, ".. editors are requested to present a short summary of the dispute, .."

The other user says ".. The removals you are talking about were discussed on the NYT page's talk archive, and in edit summaries. ..". Hence my request to help with a neutral summary, if you do not mind. Bookku (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Bookku I wasn't notified of 3O; only came across this by watchlist. I can try to neutral summarise this. It's "Whether the history is overly detailed, or if there are unnecessary cuts being made to the article"

For the slightly longer version of it... There's a history behind the edits that's been through ANI and NYT's main article. Elijah wrote almost all the history pages, and multiple editors had concerns about them collaborating and OWNership. Ultimately the main article (and subarticles) have effectively stalled with very little progress and too many words in discussion.

I think all of those do not change this discussion too much, which is just... "Is this removed content too much/necessary?" I think the article's WP:NOTNEWS and overly detailed, and wanted to make further significant cuts (this is just the only one I made yet). Elijah thinks my edits remove too much necessary info. Soni (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I had requested / suggested summary and 5 specific points which @ElijahPepe wishes to retain in the article. Since there is no response in two weeks I am closing from my side. Bookku (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)