Jump to content

Talk:New York Post/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Fresh start

Note: A fresh start, using the more serious material, including newspaper history, etc, from this entry, for your editing consideration, is being worked on at New York Post/re-edit. Please help pull this into shape. --Wetman 12:45, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The new online edition is AWFUL. I won't be going back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergeant Spancmey (talk • contribs) 12:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV?

Particularly in this section: "The Post never affects a dispassionate tone that sometimes falsely imply an objectivity and thoroughness. Its sports section has won universal praise for its comprehensiveness." The first sentence is poorly phrased and sounds like praise. I'm just not sure if the second section is true, though I doubt it. Mariko

The whole article gives the impression -- or at least justifies my preexisting impression -- that the Post is unreliable as a news source. Are there any defenders? ♥ «Charles A. L.» 15:04, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Despite my personal distaste for it, the fact tha so many people buy the newspaper suggests that many DO find the NYP's news coverage to be quite satisfactory.

Wikipedia should not report that the NYP is unreliable. Instead, it should report that OTHERS find it unreliable, with sufficient information tha the reader can investigate and make up his own mind.

I realize this is dangerously close to the "We report; you decide" slogan that another Murdoch enterprise has used to promote news coverage that makes no attempt to be fair and balanced, but we can try. ClairSamoht 06:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Another example of trying to remain balanced in the face of a 70+ Australian many consider to be the prime enemy of socialism on earth. That being said, he did endorse Oba'ma. Wm.C (talk) 05:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Militant?

What would you expect from a newspaper controlled by Rupert Murdoch? It called the French "frogeating weasels": "WAR ON WEASEL WARES"; Mar 18, 2003; BILL HOFFMANN while the british Rupert Murdoch-controlled tabloid The Sun pictured French President Jacques Chirac as a worm on its frontpage. Meanwhile, the French newspaper Libération is characterized as "militant" in its article... Get-back-world-respect 15:09, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Way to bring balance to wikipedia. Wm.C (talk) 05:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

POV and then some

Now don't get me wrong. I hate the Post just as much as the next guy, and one of the few times I've seen it was the day after US forces took Baghdad. I remember the editorial was titled "Now onto Paris." So clearly this paper is crap.

That said, I don't think that should be stated so harshly in the article.

Wikipedia isn't Wikipedia anymore. Once this was a platform where objectivity was held in the highest regard, nowadays it's more or less twitter for people with spare time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.162.48.174 (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree, this needs serious re-write.

I am happy not to do it though. I'm in enough trouble. Reithy 12:29, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Trying to NPOV this

It's hard to say that a piece of crap may or not be crap. I'll need lots of help in doing it. After all, I didn't make up – Wikipedia didn't make up – HEADLESS BODY FOUND IN TOPLESS BAR or name Gephardt as Kerry's running mate. Rlquall 05:22, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's my (very weak) shot. In our defence, I will say that the Wikipedia article on Pol Pot is not really equally derisive and lauding; he comes off rather poorly. Some things just can't be polished up. Rlquall 05:46, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A good example of a fake-"NPOV" entry on a similar subject is at National Enquirer. You wouldn't want to imitate that, would you? Perhaps you would... The "N" in NPOV doesn't mean "No" point-of-view. The mild and mainstream POV in this present entry has reflected the Posts own self-image too. --Wetman 17:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Daily News

Is it worth mentioning that the Post and the Daily News are very similar papers, format-wise, yet the Daily News does not suffer the reputation of the Post? Is the Daily News as outwardly conservative as the Post?

In New York, newspapers are judged on thoroughness and accuracy of coverage, quality of photos and writing, completeness of sports coverage, personalities of columnists. The orthodoxy of the spin is not generally as important as it is in the bush. --Wetman 23:54, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As a "bush-dweller" who has been a few places, is this submitted as an endorsement of the premise that the Daily News is more thorough and accurate in coverage, has higher quality of photos generally, and better sports coverage? Is the Daily News largely lower-profile that the Post here in the sticks mostly because of the fact that it isn't owned by the Murdoch organization, and not flogged to the masses as frequently for that reason? Rlquall 18:34, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No endorsements at Wikipedia, to preserve NPOV. I characterized the criteria of NYC newspaper-readers, a diminished audience. The readership of the Daily News is blue-collar, sports-minded and with a largely local news-horizon. The readership has shrunk. The News is indeed more notorious than the Post, and the Wikipedia entry should note that. The issues raised about this entry are largely spurious. --Wetman 22:30, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is this important?

I removed:

On July 6, 2004, hours before Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry announced his selection of Sen. John Edwards as his running mate, the Post published a front page story headlined:
KERRY'S CHOICE Dem picks Gephardt as VP candidate
– stating that Kerry had instead selected Dick Gephardt. Rupert Murdoch was believed by many to be the source of the erroneous story. The negative publicity generated by this error was enormous, but publicity nonetheless. To its credit, the paper ran an equally large retraction headline the next day and placed the blame for the error squarely upon itself.

This event attracted some attention many months ago, but in the long history of the Post it is of little consequence. - SimonP 07:43, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Murdoch's ownership...

My impression of the recent ownership history was as follows:

-Murdoch acquired in 1977 -Murdoch sold in 1983 due to US regulations on media cross-ownership -it then went through the Kalik-OWE-Hirschfeld transition and became insolvent in 1993 -at which point Murdoch re-acquired it.

If this is not correct, please edit the article and comment accordingly. Ellsworth 00:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Biased

Many have stated this acrticle needs pov clean up. It is considered by many to have allegedly been written by people who are obviously seen as anti-new york post. Sorry, this article is awful.--Bigplankton 21:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Changed a few things. It's still awful, just less so. Got rid of the Columbia Journal Review "force of evil" comment. It's so over-the-top and ridiculous, it needs context. It's too inflammatory and damaging to the article to be sitting there by itself. Who wrote it? What was the rest of the article about? Plus it was said 25 years ago. Got rid of some other biased stuff.--Bigplankton 00:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The Columbia Journalism Review is as highly-respected a trade journal as they come. If Wikipedia were itself were to call the Post a "force of evil", that would obviously violate NPOV. To report that CJR so characterized the Post does not indicate that the Post is, in fact, in the employ of Mephistopheles, but it accurately reflects the feelings of mainstream journalism. They sneered at USA Today as "McPaper" but hated and feared Murdoch and everything he stood for. To a certain degree, that has ebbed some, as he has bought TV Guide, which has not changed much, and DirecTV, which also bears no visible Murdoch fingerprints, but they intensely hate and fear both Fox News and the NY Post. I don't remember seeing that exact phrase in CJR, myself, and I question whether it was said -by+ CJR or -in- CJR, perhaps in a letter. Ripping out everything that happened 25 years ago, that would shred the hell out of Wikipedia. A newspaper is not a fast-food franchise with 300% annual turnover; many of those running any given newsroom today were working in that same newsroom 25 years ago.
I don't think it unreasonable to raise a discussion on verifiability of the quote, and after a consensus is reached, take action. Discarding it without discussion, because you're too young to remember dial telephones, or because the resulting article is not adulatory is not in line with the principles on which the Wikipedia is built. We don't pass judgments about the subjects of these articles, but neither do we fail to pass along others' judgements, when they are highly relevant to the article. If it did not appear that your intent is to do a good job, if you hadn't posted in talk explaining your actions, I'd have called your actions vandalism. I would ask you to reconsider your actions and revert yourself. ClairSamoht 10:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The article was awfully biased. I was just attempting to clean it up a little. For example, I got rid of this ridiculous statement:

"Many readers who have no use for its editorial positions or its hard news stories purchase it for its sports coverage alone."

The person who wrote that just made it up off the top of their head. That person has "no use for the posts editorial positions", so they decided to speak for "many readers". Most things on wikipedia aren't sourced, but that statment is ridiculous. Also:

"While in the past the newspaper had been a long-established politically liberal stalwart, in recent years the paper has been accused by many of adopting a decidedly conservative slant, reflecting Murdoch's right-wing politics."

Biased, not cited, unresearched statement. So I just decided to make it simpler:

"While in the past the newspaper had been a long-established politically liberal stalwart, in recent years the paper has adopted a conservative slant, reflecting Murdoch's politics."

Basically it says the same thing doesn't it? Except it has less bias and nastiness, and less weasel words. More:

In 1980, the Columbia Journalism Review called the Post "a force for evil." Many in mainstream journalism feel that the Post allows its editorial positions to shape its story selection and news coverage to an unacceptable degree.

More bias. Got rid of the "unacceptable degree" silliness, and kept everything else.

NOW, about the CJR "evil" quote. If you'd like to add it back in that's alright. I did some research for about 10 minutes on the quote, and couldn't find anything substantial. All I found was websites quoting it. I couldn't find the article it appeared in. I'm sure if I spent more time I might be able to find it's origin. The problem with the quote is it's taken out of a mysterious context, and put there by someone who doesn't care about anything except that they don't like the Post. The quote, by itself, has no other purpose. It's being used. But "CJR" said it. Who in CJR? What article? Why? What did the rest of the article say? We don't care, we just want to make the Post look bad. And the fact that the quote is 25 YEARS OLD does make a difference. That makes it more of a piece of trivia than a substantial and relevant piece of information, unless, it's put in it's original context, then it might have some meaning. "Force of evil" is ridiculously over the top, it needs context. But like I said, if you'd like to add it back in go ahead I won't revert it.

user:Lazmac came along and decided to simply revert all of my edits, without a word as to why. No good. At least I put something in my comments and on the talk page about why I changed things. You said:

"because you're too young to remember dial telephones, or because the resulting article is not adulatory is not in line with the principles on which the Wikipedia is built. We don't pass judgments about the subjects of these articles,"

Talk about passing judgement! I remember when we used tin cans and string.:) --Bigplankton 18:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didnt mean to revert the edits the first time, not sure how I managed it. I just wanted to change the Sun link, Lazmac 23:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You spent about 10 minutes looking for the CJR quote, and all you could find were websites quoting CJR? Gee, do you suppose that might be because CJR was not online in 1970? Did you try checking your local library, or did you just decide that a quote is unverifiable because it isn't *convenient* for you to verify it? Did you go back through Wikipedia in order to find out who originally inserted that quote, and contact them, asking them for more information? Did you contact CJR, asking them for the circumstances behind the quote? I won't argue that the article needs to be improved, but it gets improved by taking some pains to get it right, not by randomly throwing out anything that isn't terminally bland. ClairSamoht 03:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

"Did you try checking your local library?" You should have heard me laughing after I read that. Just picture a big hardy laugh. I might as well become a librarian with all the time I'm going to spend there every time I come across something ridiculous in wikipedia. Did the person who originally used the quote get it from the library or any other research? I doubt it. They found it on the web and said "oh goody, I can slip this in there to make the paper I don't like look bad." Who gives a crap what it means. And that, is one of the failures of wikipedia. I'm supposed to waste my time researching someone elses boloney. I can take random quotes and put them on anyones biography and pretend they came from somewhere, and the burden of proof is not on me. Everyone has to waste their time to see if it's legit. But like I said, twice, if you want it back in, put it back in. I'm not doing it. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if you worked for the Daily News with all the comparisons you put in there. Is this a competition? Waaaaaay too much Daily News info. Wikepedia can be fun, interesting, and a good time waster, but this example shows what a joke it can be. I don't take it seriously.--Bigplankton 18:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

--

  • "I might as well become a librarian with all the time I'm going to spend there every time I come across something ridiculous in wikipedia." Sir, this ain't the half-fast-pedia.
  • "I'm supposed to waste my time researching someone elses boloney." Only if you want to - but you DO need to follow the rules if you want to participate.
  • "I can take random quotes and put them on anyones biography and pretend they came from somewhere, and the burden of proof is not on me." You yourself said that you found verification for the quote online. That's grounds for it being included. Your grounds for removing it? That you don't like what it says? Sorry, sir. Life ain't fair.
  • "I wouldn't be surprised if you worked for the Daily News with all the comparisons you put in there. Is this a competition? Waaaaaay too much Daily News info." The NYPost does not operate in a vacuum. It's only an opinion that the NYPost is in a life-and-death struggle; giving readers solid statistics for purposes of comparison lets them arrive at their own conclusions.

No, I don't work for a New York newspaper. I published newspapers in Ohio and Indiana, decades ago, so I have a little background. No, I don't care for the NYPost, but I don't care for the Daily News, and while I have a certain respect for the New York Times, I have no fondness for it. I've never seen the new papers; they aren't available anywhere near me.

The only reason I happened upon this page in the first place was their absurd claim that it's the oldest newspaper in the US; I frequently read the 6th-oldest, and it's seven years older than the NYPost. As you point out, this article is awful, but it gets improved by diligent effort and solid scholarship, not by haphazardly cutting away whatever you may happen to disagree with.

If you're looking for fun, get a jumprope. Editing can be satisfying, when you do a good job, but it's not fun. ClairSamoht 18:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This page is definatly biased. I'm in favor of a complete re-write. --Riconoen 00:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Sales

FYI, you can verify circulation and advertising sales statistics of most paid-circulation periodicals (including the NYPost) with the Audit Bureau of Circulation, Standard Rate and Data Services. Often Advertising Age has relevant articles as well. ClairSamoht 03:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This article has WAY too many NPOV violations. It's common sense not to do such things, yaH?

Distribution?

Both this article and the article for The Star-Ledger state that their respective newspapers are twelvth-largest by circulation in the United States. The Star-Ledger article cites a source that no longer seems to exist. Have any reliable circulation data been found? Hairyshoe 04:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The ABC (Audit Bureau of Circulation) figures are taken as gospel by people who buy and sell advertising. According to http://www.infoplease.com/ipea/A0004420.html, ABC figures for March 31, 2006 show the Post at #11 with 691,420 daily circulation, the Star-Ledger at #16 with 599,628. But it's quality, not just quantity that matters. At auction, publishers would pay far more to acquire the Star-Ledger than the Post. ClairSamoht 01:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Look at you, talking about people being way too POV in above sections. How cute. Wm.C (talk) 05:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

"Supposedly-reputable broadsheet New York Times" is POV. I'm simply removing the adjectives. -Thepinterpause 11:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

excessive requests for references

I've added references from the Emery & Emery book - a standard text - I happen to have at hand. But the requests for references look excessive to me, and not in accord with the lesser density of references in Wiki articles for other newspapers, e.g., USA Today. The facts questioned in the first few paragraphs are common knowledge - I have been teaching journalism in universities for more than 30 years. I thus suggest that those requests for references be pruned or removed. PaulLev 05:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sir, this ain't journalism. When someone works for the Wooster Daily Record, they make sure their facts are straight, because if they don't, their boss may fire them, and other bosses will be reluctant to hire them. But what are the consequences if someone errs here, or even if they deliberately lie? It's not like their kids can't go to college. They just register for another user name.
Official policy: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research.
You realize, of course, that you're spouting hyperbole. It is not common knowledge that the Post is the 13th oldest newspaper. If you asked 100 people on the street in New York, they'd tell you no, that it's the oldest newspaper, because that's what they claim to be. It is not common knowledge that Rufus King and Oliver Wolcott invested in the Post. Most people have never heard of those two, including most people in the news business. You claim to be an expert in the field. Can you state, off the top of your head, the amount each invested? How many people know that Henry Villiard took control of the Evening Post - and of the ones that do, how many know what year it happened? There are still a lot of people walking around New York who could read in 1933. If you asked them, how many could tell you it was 1933 that they switched to a conservative tabloid format? How many of them could tell you how brief "brief" was? If Tad Thackrey converted it to a "pure tabloid format" in 1942, what date in 1942 did that happen? Surely, if it's common knowledge, and you're an expert in the field, you should be able to rattle off that information immediately.
The reason this page gets a lot of attention because of edit wars - but if we had the manpower, every article would get that same attention, and attention or not, the rule is the same for all articles: every fact needs to be backed up, stating the source of the information. Common knowledge doesn't need to be in the article. After all, the article on water doesn't say water is wet. If you think those paragraphs are common knowledge, feel free to delete them. Under Wikipedia policies, any editor may remove facts for which no source is given. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 07:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

By "common knowledge," I meant common in any textbook on the history of newspapers in America. If Wiki's policy is to apply the same level of explicit referencing to articles for all newspapers, then we should see the same frequency of footnotes for entries on USA Today, the Daily News, etc. But at present, there are not, as you acknowledge, and this creates - at least, for me - the impression of different standards applied to the NY Post. In any case, I'll do what I can in the next few weeks to fill in some of the requested references in the NY Post article. (It will then be the most referenced Wiki article on newspapers :-) PaulLev 16:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is happy to accept textbooks as a reliable source. Being the "most referenced article on newspapers" is a pretty low standard, though. Wouldn't you like to see this article recognized as a Good Article? One doesn't need to be a brain surgeon; the article simply takes some good solid research and writing, so that it's well written, factually accurate and verifiable, broad in its coverage, neutral in point of view, stable, and where possible, have images to illustrate the topic. Print journalism folks have a leg up when it comes to that kind of work. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 01:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, my pleasure to contribute what I can. PaulLev 01:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NYPost.jpg

Image:NYPost.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Mob Influence At The Newspaper

I'm new to Wikipedia-editing. Can someone tell me what the standard procedure is for editing sections like this that are a) conversational, b) unsourced, c) detailed? This section is totally useless as is.Atomizer13 05:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

== Mob Labor Racketeering Investigation II ==

This is very badly written. It has last names appearing in the text of people who haven't even been introduced in the text. HORRIBLE.Jonny Zhivago 23:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Anthrax finger

Wasn't the Post the one that put the picture of their office staffer holding up her anthrax-infected middle finger on the front page? That one seems significant. - Keith D. Tyler 17:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:New York Post font page 111307.jpg

Image:New York Post font page 111307.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NYPost.jpg

Image:NYPost.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Page Six

Shouldn't this feature have it's own article? Dough007 (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

In editing out the trivia section, and dispersing relevant content to proper places throughout the article, I realized that the "Criticism" section should be named "Reception" and include both criticism and positive feedback on the paper. So that my motives are clear, I personally think the post is right-wing hogwash, but that doesn't stop me from recognizing that it needs its fair share of praise as well - if anyone can find it, that is. So I've added the neutrality tag, which should remain until the new "reception" section is more balanced. —GodhevalT C W 20:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


This is not an article that does justice to the spirit of Wikipedia. HornyHobbit (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, pro or con? Who can tell anymore :) --Tom 19:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

All the posts in the Reception section were criticisms, so it is more appropriate to have "Criticism" as the title until any positive feedback is received. It simply makes it more accurate. It may seem biased, but logically speaking, its nothing but a section on criticism, majority of which are accurate. If you have any sourced positive reception of the NY Post, then please share it and change the topic back to "Reception" Thats what Wikipedia is all about. Accuracy of information. Please keep the agendas and emotions out of Wikipedia!

Relevance of the gender of police officers in chimp cartoon

Regarding Sean Delonas's cartoon:

I understand why the fact that both police officers are white is notable, given the racist connotations that it possesses. However, I don't really understand why we need to mention that both police officers are male. The cartoon itself has nothing to do with gender, and neither does the controversy surrounding it (it's a racial controversy, not a gender controversy). We might as well mention that both police officers have big, bulbous noses; it really isn't any less notable than the fact that they are male, and neither fact has any relevance to the controversy surrounding the cartoon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.29.155.187 (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed. Tom 03:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone would've even noticed if the description had said "white policeman" instead of "white male police officer". What's relevant is the cartoonist's allusion to Travis the chimp, who was shot by a police officer on February 16. The cartoon tied two different pieces of news together. IHTFP (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I have added the word "deliberately" to the final sentence ("The Post has defended itself by stating that the cartoon was deliberately misinterpreted by its critics"). Indeed, this is clear from The Post's perspective: the cartoon "has been taken as something else [than a mockery of "an ineptly written federal stimulus bill. "] — as a depiction of President Obama, as a thinly veiled expression of racism. This most certainly was not its intent; to those who were offended by the image, we apologize." The editorial goes on to point out that "However, there are some in the media and in public life who have had differences with The Post in the past — and they see the incident as an opportunity for payback. … Sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon — even as the opportunists seek to make it something else." Asteriks (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced controversies removed

I have removed two examples of controversies from the 'Criticism' section, as they concerned living people and cited no sources. In a high-profile article like this, all criticism must be backed by reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 10:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

So?

(The only known original copy of the New York Evening Post 11/16/1801 is owned by Dominick Speziale of Hewlett, NY.) So?!? Who cares?!? (120.149.118.242 (talk) 10:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC))

New York Post as a reliable source?

Sorry, probably not the right page to ask this, but can anyone tell if there's currently some issue with including articles from nypost.com as references on Wikipedia? Is the publication considered a reliable source? Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Oldest daily?

The article states "The New York Post, established on November 16, 1801 as the New-York Evening Post, describes itself as the nation's oldest continuously published daily newspaper."

Yet the article implies the Post was at one time not publishing on Sunday. Being a neutral, objective encyclopedia, the article ought to question the Post's "oldest continuously published daily" claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:3BCD:D200:B48B:4A8D:2752:F20D (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on New York Post. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

More tasteful frontpage image?

Can there be a more tasteful front page image? I don't think it's necessary to use that frontpage. Foia req (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The publication's signature is tasteless front pages. We could do their most famous: "Headless woman in topless bar". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

There should be a more suitable front page image used now. Their headline "Bezos Exposes Pecker" was copied from the Huffington Post's headline. The NY Post should not be given credit for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.6.24 (talk) 07:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Is a one-second mention in Top Gun relevant to the article, and can anyone find a reliable source?

User_talk:124.171.83.143 is making multiple attempts to add this into the Cultural References section but they do not appear to be able to find a reliable source other than a YouTube clip (not suitable for Wikipedia referencing) and in any case, is it notable enough to be put in as a cultural reference? Mike1901 (talk) 11:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Call for Mueller resignation

Details needed since the biggest event in decades. Wikipietime (talk) 13:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on New York Post. 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:

When 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Right-center bias vrs Center right?

How do people feel about using the term "Right-Center bias" vrs center-right? The source I used, which measures political bias in media, lists the Post as being "Right-center bias". In politics, it would be customary to call political leanings as Center-right. I used Center-right, another editor changed it to "Right-Center bias". Would be good to hear from other editors. Work permit (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Infobox image

At the New York Daily News article, there's a discussion about using its most famous headline cover as the infobox image ("Ford to City: Drop Dead"). In that vein, I'm wondering what editors think of using the most famous New York Post headline dover ("Headless Body in Topless Bar")?--Tenebrae (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2020

Request to change the outdated New York Post cover from 2019 at the top-right. The May 5, 2020, is a good switch - https://nypost.com/cover/covers-for-tuesday-may-5-2020/ 69.121.241.186 (talk) 05:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. The cover is just to illustrate what a typical newspaper looks like, and I don't see any major changes to its appearance to warrant an update. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Rfc on header

Sufficient support and consensus below for the addition of "conservative-leaning" to the lead sentence. Would suggest a reliable source be added to the end of the sentence and, since the lead summarizes the article content, that there be some amount of elaboration on the added phrase in the body of the article. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 15:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC) Closure requested at WP:ANRFC (permalink)

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.

.

The New York Post (sometimes abbreviated as NY Post) is a conservative-leaning daily tabloid newspaper in New York City. The Post also operates NYPost.com, the celebrity gossip site PageSix.com and the entertainment site Decider.com. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 09:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Support The fact of the matter is the New York Post is extremely conservative and this has not been disputed anywhere, even on Wikipedia, until after the Hunter Biden story was released. Enough is enough. We need to put it back there. It is not a WP:NPOV violation because it is well cited (One story is more than enough as evidence) and because the average viewer would come to the conclusion the New York Post is right-wing through the sources. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 09:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Zero reason to pretend that the NYPost is anything other than conservative leaning. It is a disservice to our readers to hide this information. Sources support it. Heck the subject supports such designation. Slywriter (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: I share the impression that the New York Post is conservative-leaning, but do reliable sources confirm this? @GreenFrogsGoRibbit and Slywriter: You allude to sources above—could you please provide links? —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
[2] Though interestingly also list NYDN as conservative so while educational source, ehh
[3] USA Today referring to them as conservative. One newspaper enough or should I link to 4 or 5 more? Slywriter (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, support on the basis of those sources. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: I haven't read the Post in several years (predating current management), so I'll just leave the following for whoever has firsthand knowledge or time to track down WP:RSes, and for the rest of us to consider while evaluating the !votes: Conservative-leaning in the lede should indicate that a conservative political slant permeates the news report. It should not mean "conservative editorial page" or "conservative columnists". It should not mean "populist" or "sensationalistic" or "combative" or "unreliable". It should not mean "employs several people who are conservative". The sources need to show that the Post espouses a consistent, preferably avowed, political bias on its news pages. ``` t b w i l l i e ` $1.25 ` 18:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Support based on the USA Today source above, plus other citations of "conservative-leaning" in the LA Times and Business Insider I found. I find the BU citation less convincing as it clarifies that its classification is based entirely on 2012 campaign endorsements. Citing the BU source would also suggest we should add "liberal-leaning" in front of the New York Times, which I don't support. Chetsford (talk) 07:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Just curious why nypost has to be labeled when cnn and msnbc are not and they are obviously liberal. fox news has conservative. Also just looking at it the stories did not strike me as leaning one way or the other. And only one source was provided above. Because it is WP:Undue there should be more than one source. The newspaper link is not a good source as it is based on editorial endorsements for political office which is not part of the news departments. So the editorial office might lean a particular way, and can say as such, but that's not the same as saying it's news dept is of a particular persuasion. So anymore sources? SailedtheSeas (talk) 07:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
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.

UNDUE Trump

Everywhere on Wikipedia you turn, an event concerning Trump is immediately added to every article.

With that said, I question whether the 1976 to Present section (which covers very very few events) has undue coverage of Donald Trump.

Of specific note, Why does it matter that its the preferred paper of Trump? And why is it now a quote farm concerning a single front page editorial?

Slywriter (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, the connection between the Post and Trump seems like undue weight, warranting maybe a sentence or two at most, especially considering their rebuke of his efforts to steal the election. 98.35.13.170 (talk) 06:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
The Post was promoting Trump's celebrity in New York long before Fox News existed, as early as the 1970s, no later than the 1980s. They have long had a simpatico relationship: he gets publicity to build his personal brand, they sell more papers. It would be difficult to find any prominent person who has a longer mutually-beneficial relationship with the Post, and in this case it's the POTUS. Now, after endorsing him twice, they publish a major front-page editorial, which likely required Murdoch's personal approval, and which is a brutal slap across Trump's face. Their historical relationship, and the recent turn of events, deserve significant coverage. soibangla (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

conservative leaning

I'm aware of the RfC above and agree that the paper is conservative, but the given source (Allsides.com) isn't great. It's crowdsourced and even cites Wikipedia itself. Most of the other sources I find say the editorial board is biased, not the paper itself. I think a larger discussion is necessary here; I don't agree with the labeling in the first sentence, but respecting the above consensus, I've placed a citation needed tag. Respectfully, 98.35.13.170 (talk) 06:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Sourced and done. Good old Associated Press. Slywriter (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much! 98.35.13.170 (talk) 04:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Neutral point of view violation in first sentence

The Wikipedia entries for the New York Times, New York Daily News, Washington Post, Boston Globe, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, etc. don't have the ideological leaning of the newspaper's opinion section in the first sentence, even though the ideological stance of many of them are well-known. It's inconsistent to include it in the first sentence for this article.

The lead article linked as evidence of the NY Post being "conservative" is an Associated Press article that calls the Post "a mainstream media publication." The Post is the fourth largest US newspaper and there's zero evidence its opinion section influences its news section any more or less than at the NY Times or Washington Post. Even the opinion section cannot so easily be described as "conservative." For example, the editorial board has consistently endorsed gun control and in March called for new bans on semi-automatic guns including AR-15s.

It's absurd to say "case closed" and that this conversation is invalid simply because of a talk page discussion that few people noticed months ago.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.216.55 (talk) 01:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Please see #Rfc on header just above. Please also stop edit warring and attacking other editors in summaries. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
If you can't keep your activism separate from your editing, you should remove yourself from the team. You obviously do not realize it but you are destroying Wikipedia - 35.130.33.163 (talk) 02:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I would argue "conservative" is not fitting at all, "reactionary-right" would be more appropriate. The other sources you mentioned at least try to be objective. —Jetro (talk) 09:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare and Jetro: The lead section was recently revised again, so it no longer describes the New York Post as a "conservative" daily tabloid newspaper. Jarble (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I've undone KentigernPavlos's edit and restored "conservative-leaning", as no new consensus has been reached since the conversation above. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Is there a way to get a politically neutral editor or administrator to review this issue? The neutral POV violation in first sentence has lingered for months now without correction. 71.178.216.55 (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Tabloid...

... refers to a newspaper that is different in size than the traditional broadsheet. It is not a disparaging term per se, it simply describes the physical size of a newspaper. I make no comment on the Post's content but simply state why it's labeled a tabloid. Ifnord (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

If you check the disambiguation page you linked to you'll see it can also refer to tabloid journalism, which is a disparaging term. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Tabloid (newspaper format) is wikilinked in the lead. soibangla (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Which is correct and necessary, as otherwise the term is ambiguous. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Not oldest

The Hartford Courant is older: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartford_Courant 2601:183:4481:7A10:31B8:3597:D953:16D3 (talk) 03:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Hunter Laptop

I have restored text attributed to NYT story about the laptop as it seems ludicrous that Wikipedia is still presenting the emails and laptop as some discredited NYP story. The entire section needs a re-write in light of the NYT admission that the laptop was indeed Hunter Bidens and was found in a Delaware computer shop. We are now unbalanced towards covering the discrediting of the story without acknowledging the reality that NYP did get the story right. As they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day.Slywriter (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Why is NY Post labeled "conservative" by Wikipedia when NY Daily News cannot be labeled "liberal"?

I recently edited the NY Post page, removing "conservative" from the description of the newspaper. I found the only citation for that appellation were four different articles. The first article was one criticizing President Trump. The other three were articles published in the NY Post were about how the Post articles reporting on Hunter Biden's laptop were justifiably removed from electronic media because they were "misinformation." Of course, now we see that this was not true, i.e., the Post's stories were accurate. I removed the word "conservative" and gave as my reason, "Conclusionary labeling of a news medium as conservative or liberal is not a factual matter when the medium itself does not declare one or the other. The citation(s) do not give factual determination for this opinion."

My edit was very quickly reverted, putting "conservative" back in. I was told, "this is longstanding, extensively discussed, well sourced content, please discuss at Talk." Okay, so here I am. Explain to me why media outlets like the NY Post and Fox News are labeled by Wikipedia right the beginning as "conservative" but far left and liberal media outlets like MSNBC, CNN, the NY Daily News, and the New York Times are not labeled as "liberal." Any attempt to remove "conservative" from the description of those media outlets widely regarded as conservative is immediately reverted, while any attempt to label those media outlets widely regarded as liberal or left-wing is immediately reverted as well. What justification is there for labeling conservative-leaning media outlets like the NY Post as "conservative" but not labeling the left-leaning media outlets like MSNBC, CNN, the NY Daily News, and the New York Times as "liberal"? Embram (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Embram, quite simply because multiple reliable sources identify them as conservative. The relevant discussions are above on this page. If you have reliable sources that say differently share. As to the other organizations, same thing- provide reliable sources that identify them as liberal or left leaning and hold those discussions there or be WP:BOLD and edit them while providing said sources. I agree with the identifier here and disagree with the lack of one in several cases elsewhere but ranting will not change it, only verifiable reliable sources can do that.Slywriter (talk) 02:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
How articles describe publications depends on how reliable sources describe them. The reason sources describe publications like the NYP as conservative, but don't call the NYT liberal is that we are more likely to mention exceptions. So for example articles about billionaires say they are billionaires while articles about non-billionaires don't call them non-billionaires. Incidentally, Wikipedia articles about left-wing publications routinely mention their political orientation or affiliation. TFD (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The word "conservative" is in the first sentence to imply that the journalistic content of the New York Post cannot be trusted. It's incredibly inconsistent, as you note, and it is clearly there as a smear. The New York Post's opinion section is conservative, albeit with some liberal leanings on issues such as gun control, but a blind bias survey of news stories (with the name of the publication removed) was conducted by allsides.com[1] and found that reviewers rated the news content as "center." The word conservative should be removed from the lead sentence. 71.178.216.55 (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Your Allsides link says "lean right." soibangla (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
The reason it is called conservative in the first sentence is not to imply it cannot be trusted, but because that is how it is normally described. Wikipedia articles should never imply anything. The reality is that the publisher, Rupert Murdoch, deliberately orients his news media toward a conservative perspective in order to target conservative readers who mistrust mainstream media, which they see as liberal. Note that at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 312#RFC: New York Post (nypost.com), I argued unsuccessfully against deprecating the NYP because I thought its political bias was irrelevant to its reliability. It shows its bias not by misrepresenting facts, but by selecting facts that support its agenda, which is what all news media do. So while the NYP will cover what washrooms transgendered children use, The Nation will run articles about underfunding of education. I don't accept that we should block both of them, but we should only include these types of observations based on coverage in the body of literature. TFD (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with you. The word's inclusion in the first sentence is not a neutral statement of fact. If it was, the editorial alignment of every major newspaper's owner/opinion section would be noted in the first sentence.
The AllSides blind reader survey (an objective measurement) found that people of all political leanings rated the New York Post's news content as "center." The "lean right" label is a subjective determination by that site's editors. So far as I know, the blind reader survey is the closest thing possible to an objective measurement for the sake of this debate. 71.178.216.55 (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-post#Jan2021

Time for a new cover?

The current cover in the infobox is a little bit old now. Is it time to maybe put something newer? This cover might be a suitable replacement. GeorgeBailey (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Why? It’s only 3 years old and the graphical template hasn’t exactly changed much. Dronebogus (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I'd prefer a less BLP cover, but the current cover is pretty on-brand for what they consider front page news. Alternatives would be more local, political covers.Slywriter (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Replace one high-profile relationship drama with another? I also think the Ukrainian flag on each front cover is recognizable as a staple of the heading now. GeorgeBailey (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
If feel the masthead is due, perhaps this no BLP cover. Slywriter (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I second this proposal GeorgeBailey (talk) 02:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Looks fine. Dronebogus (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The previous cover better exemplified the Post's long history of double entendre. Bring it back, I say. soibangla (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

This whole topic is profoundly unimportant and probably of zero interest to readers. Let’s just stay with the uncontroversial/inoffensive one. Dronebogus (talk) 00:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
If there double entendre's are covered by reliable sources, then it should be in the article and a historical example(s) may be due, but don't see why in the info box with no context. Slywriter (talk) 01:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Logo in Infobox

Zaathras Multiple other pages have the logo of the Newspaper along with a screenshot of the paper in the same box (Ex. The New York Times and The Washington Post). I am down with moving the screenshot of the paper to a lower position in the infobox to make it more aesthetically pleasing or any other solution you may have. Yedaman54 (talk) 03:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

There is no point to displaying a logo right over a screenshot of the newspaper's front page that...wait for it...already displays the same exact image. Zaathras (talk) 04:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Not long ago, we had a front page image of the Post removed from an article as copyvio, when the WP page was about the story and the ensuing public controversy over that very front page story. This use of the front page image would seem to have a much weaker rationale than the one that was found too weak for that other use. SPECIFICO talk 04:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

conservative

Manfelice multiple reliable sources say NYP is conservative. if other reliable sources characterize other news outlets as having a political slant, you can add them there. soibangla (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I think there are two different and separable issues affecting recent back-and-forth editing involving Manfelice and Soibangla -- conservative in the lead and conservative in the infobox. The closer of the 2021 RfC on header said there was "sufficient support" among six participants for "conservative-leaning" in the lead sentence, so on this issue I must align with Soibangla, conservative in the lead should not be removed without another RfC. But conservative in the infobox is a different matter, for which I've seen no discussion Politicsfan4 on 12 February 2023 put political alignment in the infobox. Manfelice on 29 August 2023 removed it, Soibangla put it back. On this issue I agree with Manfelice because of Template:Infobox newspaper ("For use only when a newspaper has formally aligned its news coverage with a political party or movement. Do not use the infobox for allegations of bias or descriptions of the opinion page."). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
On 2 January 2024, Virtue Rewarded Richardson removed it again. On 2 January 2024, Zaathras put it in again. On 4 January 2024, Udehbwuh removed it again. On 6 January 2024, NinjaRobotPirate blocked Udehbwuh then put it in again. On 6 January 2024, Virtue Rewarded Richardson removed it again. On 6 January 2024, RetroCosmos put it in again. Never mind the Checkuser stuff, if nobody has proof of formal alignment, the removers are apparently right. Does anyone agree or disagree? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I'll have to take a look and get back to you. I made that reversion on recent changes patrol, so I don't have a level of understanding of the situation like some other people watching this do. RetroCosmos t • c 16:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Okay, here's what I think. The New York Post is a conservative newspaper. I don't think anyone can credibly say they are center or liberal. That being said, I don't really understand the objection to the inclusion of "conservative". A far more derogatory term would be "tabloid", which appears to be a-okay to the opposition. Now, as for the comparison to the New York Times - I'm not going to sit here and pretend to entertain that the New York Times is on the same level as the New York Post. It simply isn't. The Post is far more partisan, and an equally partisan paper on the other side would be Huffpost, which does have a political descriptor (progressive). As for the infobox, "formally aligned" is a bit more vague than would initially seem. I don't really recall newspapers coming out and "formally aligning" themselves with a particular political movement aside from newspapers that are an arm of a political party (such as the People's Daily). Even then, the alignment is more toward a party than a particular political cause. So in sum - yes on the lead, probably no on the infobox? RetroCosmos t • c 17:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Formally means officially. It means both the news publication and the political party acknowledge the relationship. At one time many if not most newspapers had official connections. In fact many newspapers were set up with money from political parties. The fact that this is infrequent today outside left-wing newspapers is no reason to change the rules.
Incidentally, conservative in the U.S. is not a political party but an ideology. TFD (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
If that. More recently it is not an ideology but more like the Children's crusade. That's kind of a problem for the use of the term as a label in WP articles. Labels are frequently misinterpreted by our readers, because by their nature they serve to project multi-dimensional facts onto a single point. In the case of the Post, I suspect the use of the term is varied and has changed over time. Of course in the good old days, it was a leftie commuter read, loved mainly for its on-the-street NY columnists and its sports coverage. SPECIFICO talk 22:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
A perennial whinge, perennially reverted. Until one of these, quote, "new users" gets consensus for removal, we should stand with the longstanding text as-is. Zaathras (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I intend to make a request for comment tomorrow, heading = Rfc: political alignment in infobox, initial question = Should political = Conservative be removed from the infobox of New York Post?, category = rfc|media. In my initial post I intend to say that the exact phrase is actually "political = Conservative" and the ref that follows it, named "washingtonpost.com", can go after the word "conservative" in the lead sentence. Then I intend to re-explain and re-ping folks mentioned in this thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC on political alignment in infobox

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
(non-admin closure) There is an overwhelming consensus to remove the "conservative" description from the infobox. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Should political = Conservative be removed from the infobox of New York Post? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Close requested here. I'm aware of the advice in Closing the discussion but the matter under discussion is contentious, as evidenced by the back-and-forth removals and re-insertions and the earlier thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
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.

Biden at G7

Peter Gulutzan, I don't see how an editorial by a notoriously unreliable source, in which it doubles-down on its lie after multiple reliable sources called it out, negates the reality that its G7 story was a significant fabrication, and this reality warrants inclusion in the article.

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=New_York_Post&diff=prev&oldid=1229385950 soibangla (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The issue here is that soibangla added on 15 June 2024 a section about a story that New York Post produced on June 13, on X which later was in an article: Biden wanders away at G7 summit before being pulled back by Italian PM. A Washington Post Adriana Usero / Glenn Kessler "fact check" Right-wing media outlets use deceptively cropped video to misleadingly claim Biden wandered off at G7 summit‘Cheapfake’ Biden videos enrapture right-wing media, but deeply mislead and a CNN article Right-wing media outlets use deceptively cropped video to misleadingly claim Biden wandered off at G7 summit said the story was a lie, as they say Mr Biden was going to greet people outside the published picture. The New York Post responded with an editorial Democrats’ denialism of Biden’s cognitive decline isn’t just unconvincing, it’s cruel saying Fine. There is nothing usually wrong with going a little off-script. But what was most telling was the “what is he doing?” reaction of his peers: Video shows them looking concerned and confused by Biden’s behavior, as they all shuffled to close the gap with him until Italy’s Giorgia Meloni steps in to guide him back to the group. So we have the US usual: a negative story, a negative story about the negative story, a reply to the negative about the negative. Some of the things wrong for Wikipedia in this case were: (1) in fact the New York Post does include a video that shows the group and the parachutists despite the claim about cropping, as shown in what I linked, and I linked to the earliest wayback-archive copy (2) we don't know whether a story from a few days ago will last 10 years, (3) exclusively the New York Post's critics were brought in at length and not New York Post's original story or editorial, (4) this sort of thing goes on all the time in both directions, e.g. New York Post condemnations about WaPo and its ‘fact-checker’ embarrass themselves yet again with latest ‘update’ of their Biden-corruption report, Washington Post quietly ‘updates’ Hunter Biden laptop story after Devon Archer testimony. -- but I'm not trying to force it into the Wikipedia article about the Washington Post, because I believe it's inappropriate to take one newspaper's word about another's, and because all articles would be bloated by uproar-of-the-week stuff. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC); edited to fix title of Washington Post article 13:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I cannot fathom why an editor would repeatedly cite a source that our community concludes "is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics" and "editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication," including an editorial, as a means of criticizing The Washington Post, a fully reliable source. I really just don't get that at all. soibangla (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Agree with soibangla. The NYP has rightly been determined as unreliable by Wikipedia. Hardly a surprise. I live in NY and see it in the grocery store checkout. The front page is laughable. Suggesting that all papers behave the same with a comparison with WaPo is odd. WaPo has won 76 Pulitzers. NY Post, zero. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
The material that was added was well sourced, and I've certainly seen it covered in many other reliable publications. It fulfils notability requirements. I feel inclined to restore this myself, since I don't think that the reason for deleting it was policy-based.StoryKai (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
StoryKai has restored with edit summary = "Most people on the talk page feel that this was a reasonable addition." I agree that I'm outnumbered and won't pursue this without support. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Banning NYP as cited source.

The problem with New York Post is that when it comes to politician (ex. Jamaal Bowman, Ilhan Omar, etc.), it has high bias towards them, favoring the rights. In review, the New York Post tends to publish stories utilizing sensationalized headlines with emotionally loaded wording [4]

It is very biased that this should not be allowed as cited sources. the headline misleadingly exaggerates the actual story they are reporting.


New York Post - Bias and Credibility - Media Bias/Fact Check (mediabiasfactcheck.com) 174.135.36.220 (talk) 04:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Censorship requests are normally made on Wikipedia's reliable sources noticeboard, the most recent discussion of New York Post was in March. This is the wrong talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Oppsie. 174.135.36.220 (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately, @Peter Gulutzan. It is archived meaning I can no longer response. 174.135.36.220 (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
If it's a consolation, the Wikipedia article now says "In 2024, the Wikipedia community reached a consensus that the Post should not be used as a source, especially with regard to politics." This is false, but sourced, so I think it will stay. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
So, The Post is banned as source. in Politics, now that a win. The Problem is that it always wrote negatively about the squad or any progressive or even democratic politician in general. 174.135.36.220 (talk) 05:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Murdoch Propaganda Rag.

Let's stop beating around the bush. NYP is propaganda. Lizard1959 (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Thread opened at WP:RSN about actions here

See WP:RSN#When RS document Wikipedia's actions... -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Pinging: @Isi96, LeadPoisoning, Arcturus95, Objective3000, and TanRabbitry: -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is really a question for WP:RSN (surely we all agree that the Jewish Telegraphic Agency is reliable?), but I agree that this should be included. There is no policy saying that we have to pretend Wikipedia doesn't exist; see Category:Wikipedia for instance. That the English Wikipedia community considers the New York Post unreliable is a relevant, significant fact supported by a reliable source. I see no reason not to exclude it.
I would say "English Wikipedia" rather than just Wikipedia. – Joe (talk) 12:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
The WP:RSN thread has been archived. Some (most?) editors seemed dubious about putting it back in, and I took the opportunity to note again that it's false, but now an IP has put it back in and nobody's denying that it's sourced, so I guess we're done here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
The inaccuracy is worse than anyone realised. The RfC actually decided that the Post was "more reliable" before Murdoch bought it in 1976. The Post was a broadsheet until 1942. There was no discussion of the broadsheet and there was no suggestion that it was not reliable. James500 (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_York_Post/Archive_1&oldid=1253901738"