Talk:The New York Times/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Getting the article to GA

I think I want to help make this article GA. Does someone with more experience have a quick checklist for all the things we would need to do to get there?

I assume step 1 would be deciding the many subarticles this gets split into, right? Soni (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

First off, the lead should be condensed to four paragraphs as per MOS:LEAD. Numerous empty and short sections, such as #The New York Times Magazine and the #The New York Times International Edition respectively. Also get rid of 1 sentence paragraphs. I don't know much about the WP:GA process, but those are my comments. Consider seeking feedback through a WP:PR as well. 750h+ (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

So the lead is something I think we should tackle last. There's no sense re-writing it while the rest of the article is in flux, as the lead's role is to summarise the key points of the article's body. I do think you're right that it should be condensed overall, the current lead has five pretty lengthy paragraphs, and brevity is something we should keep in mind when we get to the point of rewriting it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The following sections need to be expanded:

• Opinion
• Newsletters
• Political position
• Crossword
• Style guide
• Website
• Applications
• Podcasts
• Virtual and augmented reality
• Magazine
• International edition
• Awards
• Recognition
• Criticism

Please use shortened footnotes and "generally reliable" sources at WP:RSP should you use sources outside of the Times. Books and journals are preferable. Let me know if you need access to an article from the Times. David Dunlap has plenty of articles written on the history of the Times. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

So there's a bunch of things we'd need to do to get this article to GA quality. FA is eventually possible, and I think we should be writing the article content with the FA criteria in mind, but right now it's not realistic. The two most immediate issues preventing an FA are WP:FACR#1e and 4.

To address FACR#4, I agree that we need to look at what articles should be split from this one. Splitting the history section into its own series of articles is a good idea, but it's been badly implemented. The current time delineations don't really make sense. In my opinion there should be four history articles, each covering a roughly 50 year period (ie founding - 1900, 1900-1950, 1950-2000, 2000+). The content we have remaining is also problematic, it's far too long and far too detailed. The history content that remains here should be a summary style overview of each of the history sub-articles. As WP:SUMMARYSTYLE states, the purpose of those dedicated articles is to go into the details that we can't go into here. If people want to read the full extent of the origins, or Ochs Ownership, or whatever, that's why we have those dedicated history of articles. The only detail that we need to go into here is briefly (as in no more than a sentence or two) summarising the key points of each of the time periods from the history of articles.

We also need to look at what other content should be spun out into their own stand-alone articles, and make a definitive list of that here. In a section above, Elijah suggested that we should spin out the website section, but I think that is too narrow to be notable in its own right. Instead we should look at spinning out the online platforms section as a whole. That's already a pretty lengthy section, and one that I believe there is more content we could add. However, again per summary style, we should not be adding that content here. We should add it to a dedicated spin-off article.

We should also look into creating a dedicated Critical reception of The New York Times article. The paper has a very long history, and has received both significant praise and significant criticism over the years. Having an article on just the praise, or just the criticism would be a NPOV violation, however we can avoid that by presenting and integrating both together into a critical reception article.

The absolute last thing we should be doing right now is adding more content to this article. At the time of this reply, the article contains just under 13,000 words, which is very much in SIZESPLIT territory. What we should be focusing our efforts on right now is identifying what sections can be split into sub-articles, creating those sub-articles, and then summarising or transcluding their leads (and only their leads) here. Once we do that, we will have trimmed sufficient wording to be able to expand briefly upon the sections that are left behind.

That takes care of FACR#4. For FACR#1e, that just needs time and for edit warring to stop. Editors need to stop going off and doing their own thing, unilaterally making decisions on content size and scope. It is not conductive to establishing consensus for any one editor to dictate terms. Wikipedia editing is a collaborative process, sometimes your ideas will find consensus and sometimes they won't. We need to hash out a plan first, so that we can all go and implement changes taking into account our own respective strengths when writing or copy-editing article content.

I also think we should discuss the citation style. I hate shortened footnotes as a citation style. I don't think they are conductive to either a good reading experience or a good editing experience. As a reader, if you want to find the full citation information you need to click at least three times before you get a link to the original article. As an editor, they're just unwieldy to work with. Personally I much prefer using named references, and using the {{rp}} template where page numbers are needed. I do however like that the Works cited subsection is clearly delineated along the lines of where each citation was published, and if there is a consensus to move away from SFN I would suggest we keep that separation as the reflist template allows for that. We should see if we can significantly cut down on the number of citations to the paper itself, as per policy we should not be relying this heavily on non-independent primary sourcing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

To facilitate what I've said above, if there's a consensus for it, I'd suggest we make some subsections to this discussion to just try and keep discussions around specific pieces of content organised. I'd imagine this taking the form of something like subsections for each substantive spin-off article/spin-off type, and for each major remaining content section. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I have the lede for History of The New York Times (1851–1945) and I'm writing the ledes for the other two articles now. Would it not be possible to transclude the ledes onto this article? I intend to split the Online platforms and Critical reception sections. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely! Transclusion of a sub-article's lead is something we can very easily do, and something that'll help us keep this article in sync if the sub-articles change content in the future. As long as we keep those leads short and concise, that'll also help with keeping this article at a reasonable reading length.

I have concerns about the time delineation of the History of articles however, and exactly how many of them we have. Of the articles I'm aware of, currently there's History of The New York Times, History of The New York Times (1851–1945), History of The New York Times (1945–1998), and History of The New York Times (1998–present). Are there any others that I've missed? If not, for the three articles with years in their titles, how were the time periods for each of those selected? Why do we have an article covering roughly 90 years, another covering roughly 55 years, and the final one covering roughly thirty years? Were there key changes that happened to the paper in 1945 and 1998 that make those natural break points? Or were they chosen arbitrarily? Is there another way we could structure those articles, perhaps so they each cover a more uniform time period (eg, roughly 50 years per article?) Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The time periods were determined based on article size. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Cool, is there another way we could split those articles? Are there any natural temporal milestones where we could say content after this point goes into this next article? Like say when Adolph Ochs purchased the paper in 1896? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Personally, though this would throw things onto the longer side per article, I think the most elegant solution would be dividing it up by century. NYT in the 19th century, 20th century, etc. Just a suggestion though. Snokalok (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

On the Online Platforms and Critical Reception sub-articles, I'm glad you think those are good ideas. We shouldn't start writing those immediately however. Let's give it a day or two to see what other editors think, and then if there's a consensus we can start a subsection to this discussion so that we can start planning their scope and a rough outline of their structure. Once that's done we can then each identify sections of those articles that we can all contribute towards, in line with our respective strengths as editors. Some of us are going to be better at writing certain types of content than others, and some of us are likely better copy-editors than article drafters. Let's take some time to figure out the best way that we can all contribute to making these good and comprehensive articles, and so that we're not stepping on each others toes. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I really like the idea you suggested of a critical reception dedicated article but then a short summary list on the main article with a wikilink subheader to make sure it’s not just going into the void, I think that’s a really excellent balance between cutting down space and giving due weight.

Also ref cites ftw still but honestly I would not mind footnote citations if newly added (better than the current citation) refs were converted instead of unilaterally killed (@ElijahPepe) Snokalok (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Addendum: I think that we should give a lot more weight to the Holodomor than it currently gets Snokalok (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The appropriate amount of weight we give to all of the criticisms is something we can assess when we're actually planning the scope of that article. Keep things here high level for now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Holodomor is something I was planning on adding to the section. Rest assured, if there is a controversy involving the Times, I have likely read and have sources for it. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Hist9600, Sawyer-mcdonell, Eddie891, Epicgenius, Reywas92, SnowFire, Soni, Drmies, Snokalok, SPECIFICO, Softlavender, Kusma, and Moxy: Courtesy ping to editors who have contributed to the talk page since the start of this year, and who haven't already contributed to this discussion. If you're interested in helping get this article to GA and eventually FA, this is the place :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer if I could retain good article credit. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

There's no reason I'm aware of that all of the substantial contributors to the GA and eventual FA process can't get credit for this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Shall we give this another 24 hours, to see if anyone else wants to chime in on the current sections below, and then start to assess their consensuses and plan the next steps? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I see no reason why we can't start removing content from the Online platforms section now. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

We haven't discussed the full scope or structure of that article yet. Down below you said that we should expand the Online platforms section, if we're putting that into its own article, how do we want to expand it? For example, do we want to have a dedicated section or subsection for the paper's purchasing of Wordle? What else can we write about their social media presence and requirements? Those are the types of questions we need to ask and answer to plan that article's content. There will come a time in the near future when it's time to write content, but we're not there yet. Let's get a plan in place so that everyone who is contributing here knows what they're doing and what the overall picture is. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The article structure is fine now. The only sections that need expansion are the Website, Applications, Podcasts, and Virtual and augmented reality sections. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Remember, you're not the only person working on these articles Elijah, this is a collaborative process. Other people might have other views, and other people might be able to take the lead on some of this content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Exact Article Splits

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.

---

I think let's use subheadings to decide on individual subparts of this entire discussion, so we can establish consensus quickly and move on to the meat of the article editing.

In that spirit, Q1, which of the sections need splitting into articles/which can stay as it is? Soni (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• I personally favour Critical Reception and 4 History articles (1851-1900,1901-1945,1945-1999,2000-present) but not strongly so. I'm ambivalent on most other suggestions. Soni (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
• I favour a Critical reception article that contains all of the positive and negative reception of the paper, an Online platforms article initially starting from the current Online platforms section, and 4 History of articles (1851-1896, 1896-1945, 1945-1999, 2000-present) The reason I've chosen 1896 as the end/start point of the first and second articles is 1896 is when Adolph Ochs purchased the paper, and the time period 1896-1945 covers the entire time period where he owned the paper up to his death in 1939 and the end of the Second World War. To me it kinda makes sense to keep all of the Ochs content in a single sub-article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why we would need to divide 1851–1945 further. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain why 1851-1945 should be a single article? I thought ~50 years each is neat + apparently it coincides well with Ochs ownership so that's two reasons to split Soni (talk) 06:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Article size. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@ElijahPepe: Primarily I favour a four way split so that each sub-article has a uniform length of approximately 50 years. I personally like consistency where possible in structure. Assuming the paper continues to be published well into the future, it makes ongoing maintenance of the most recent History of article more straightforward as assuming there's no changes in consensus, when we hit 2050 we just create a new sub-article for the later half of this century. It also gives each of the sub-articles more expansion room should there be other notable historic events that cannot be included in the current 1851-1945 and 1945-1998 articles due to length, and otherwise keeps them at a reasonable prose length. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Anchor points in time have historically been used for subdivided history articles, such as for the history of the United States. I believe the 1998 to present article could be split prior to 2016 as a turning point in how the Times presents itself and how it is viewed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Skimming through history of the United States, leaving aside the mammoth 700 pre-revolution section and sub-article, the largest single sub-article covers a roughly 60 year span, and most of the articles are much shorter. Many of the anchor points themselves are historical events specific to the US' history, and not simply key points in world history like the Second World War. If the anchor points represent a key event in the topic's timeline, then would the period prior to and then following Ochs' purchase of the paper not be two distinct eras? Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I suppose that splitting Ochs' purchase could be a possibility, though the transcluded lede would be one paragraph. I am now beginning to question whether splitting based on the Sulzberger eras could be viable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Would it? I would envisage the end of the sub-article that begins with Ochs' purchase in 1896 to either end in 1945 with the conclusion of World War 2, or 1961 with Sulzberger's resignation. With the 1945 end point, we'd be using a major geopolitical event as the anchor point. With 1961 as the end point, we'd be covering two distinct ownership periods; Ochs and Sulzberger 1. Either way, there would be some content post-Ochs' death that would need summarising. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Admittedly, World War II was not a major event to the Times. Advances were certainly made in printing and journalistic ability, but I would argue the Sulzberger eras represent a larger shift in the paper. With the first Sulzberger era, it was attempting to expand the Times through wire photography, investments in radio, and facsimile. The second Sulzberger era saw a paper that held tradition inviolable but [adjusted] to nascent technologies and [adapted] to a precarious newspaper industry, the third era saw nytimes.com, and the fourth era saw Trump's rhetoric and diversification. The question remains where Dryfoos would be, but I could certainly see an article pick up where Dryfoos' death leaves off. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so how about the following split then:

• 1851-1896 - This covers the origins of the paper, up to the point of Ochs' purchase. Covers a 45 year period.
• 1896-1961 - This covers Ochs' ownership of the paper, up to his death, World War 2, and the first Sulzberger era. Covers a 65 year period.
• 1961-2001 - This covers everything from Dryfoos' takeover, through to the dot-com bubble bursting. Covers a 40 year period.
• 2001-present - This covers everything from September 11 attacks, to the present day? At present covers a 23 year period.

Or

• 1851-1896 - This covers the origins of the paper, up to the point of Ochs' purchase. Covers a 45 year period.
• 1896-1928 - This covers Ochs' ownership of the paper, up to his death. Covers a 32 year period.
• 1928-1992 - This covers both Sulzberger Sr. eras, from his initial appointment up to his retirement in 1992. Covers a 64 year period.
• 1992-present - This covers all of Sulzberger Jr's time as publisher, his appointment of A. G. Sulzberger to replace him, up to the current day. Covers a 32 year period.

Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Second suggestion works, but 1928-1992 is too far of a span of time. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

It's lengthy, but it does cover all of Sulzberger Sr's. tenure in a single article. If you were to keep the same 1928 start date, where would you suggest ending the article and starting the subsequent one? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't start it at 1928 because Ochs died in 1935. I would end it at 1961. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "end it at 1961". For the sake of clarity, could you list the start and end years for each article you're envisaging, and a single sentence summary of what content will go into them? Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• 1851-1896: The founding of the Times to Ochs' purchase.
• 1896-1935: Ochs' ownership to his death.
• 1935-1961: The first Sulzberger era.
• 1961-1992: The Dryfoos era and the second Sulzberger era.
• 1992-2018: The third Sulzberger era.
• 2018-present: The fourth Sulzberger era.

elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Ehhhh, I think 6 is too many sub-articles. If you're going to split at Dryfoos, then you're better combining Ochs and Sulzberger 1. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Or the suggestion by Epicgenius below:

• 1851-1896 - As before, this covers the origins up to the point of Ochs' purchase
• 1896-1945 - This covers Ochs' ownership, up to his death, the start of the first Sulzberger era, up to World War 2.
• 1945-1998 - This covers the post-war part of Sulzberger 1, all the way through to the creation of the paper's website.
• 1999-present - This covers everything from the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, through to the current day.

Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm in favor of the following articles:

• 4 history articles
• Critical reception
• Online platforms. I am suggesting this additional article because there is quite a bit about the NYT's online presence, which may be notable enough to warrant its own article (especially considering the fact that the "Online platforms" section covers NYT Games, social media, and other stuff, not just the website).

– Epicgenius (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

For four history articles, along what lines would you consider splitting them? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Probably 1851-1896, 1896-1945, 1945-1998, 1999-present. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Wait I just saw this section.

I suggest The New York Times in The 19th Century, 20th Century, etc

The articles would run on the longer side, but I think as far as making a split goes, it’d be the most elegant division. Snokalok (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Fewer divisions is better. Reywas92^Talk 01:40, 13 February 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.

Reference Formatting Style

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.

---

Q2, What format should we use for citations and references?

• I am happy with whatever style we choose, as long as we stick with the same one for all subarticles for NYT. Soni (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
• I agree that a consistent style for all of the sub-articles is ideal. Personally I'm not a fan of the SFN citation style, as I prefer reuse of named references and using the {{rp}} template where page numbers are necessary. But I'm maybe in the minority with that, so as long as we pick a single consistent style I'm happy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  If the choice is between Harvard and SFN, I weakly prefer SFN. Either way, consistent citation style is important. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Since this is the parent article and the overwhelmingly largest one, we should take our cue from it, in my opinion. Right now all but a tiny handful of the citations are in SFN, which is not my favorite (I've never used it), but unless we find there was a distressing lack of consensus when that format was used and conformed to on this article, I think we should keep it that way. NOTE: Above all, if a style is chosen in consensus in good faith, if someone adds a cite in a different style, do not revert them, just conform the style for them. (Also of note is that most all FAs use SFN or Harvard FN.) Softlavender (talk) 03:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  (Also of note is that most all FAs use SFN or Harvard FN.) I was not aware of that, and would soft prefer SFN instead then. Soni (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• I would prefer a consistent style but am neutral on which style should be used. Personally, I seldom use {{rp}}. Instead, I generally use inline citations where one page range is being cited or where the source is a website, and I use shortened footnotes where multiple page ranges are being cited. Epicgenius (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• I’m happy with any just so long as the policy is to convert out of style citations, not to delete. Snokalok (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:The New York Times/Archive 7 § Discussion about deleted citations

 – Soni (talk) 18:08, 13 February 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.

Sections needing trimming or removed

Q3, What sections or subsections, that are not being split out into their own articles, should be trimmed or removed? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd consider trimming the Design and layout subsection, as part of our rewriting and copy-editing sweep. That section has quite a few issues in general, an over-reliance on non-independent primary sources (ie citations to The NY Times), some heavy proseline issues in its second paragraph, and a lot of uncited sentences. But it is also reads longer than it feels like it should to me. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I see no issue with this section. I have personally ensured that each sentence is cited. There should be no issues with using primary sources here. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the section has ten sentences, but only three citations and a footnote. The third paragraph has six sentences, and two citations. The fourth paragraph has five sentences and only one citation. Only the first and last paragraphs of the section have a reasonable number of citations in my opinion.

Unless you're using a different interpretation of WP:WTC than I am, I would suggest that every sentence should have at least one citation after it. Even if it's the same citation that's being reused throughout the paragraph, the section currently reads as though it contains large amounts of unverifiable text.

As for overuse of primary sources, per policy and guideline, Wikipedia articles are based on independent and reliable secondary sources. Primary sources can be used, but only in moderation and with a great degree of care. That section has 15 citations total, 9 of which are to the paper or its parent company, and only 6 are to independent sources. Overall in the article we currently cite the paper 240 times, and its parent company an additional 38 times, for a total of 278 non-independent sources. That's more than all of the other source categories combined, as we cite independent sources only 268 times. Were I reviewing this article for GA or FA, I would at minimum tag the Design and layout section with {{primary sources section}}, and strongly consider tagging the article with {{primary sources}} depending on what the other sections looked like. That would be a quick-fail at both GA and FA reviews. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:WTC is an essay, not a policy. I see no purpose in duplicating the same citation. As for primary sources, the references are cited to David Dunlap, who is a Times historian. There are no controvertible statements that would warrant concerns over citing from Dunlap. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

WTC might be an essay, but it is one that's relevant to the FA criteria. WP:FACR#1c states that a Featured Article is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate, with where appropriate directly linking to WTC. As a rule of thumb, based on the FAs that I've worked on, I tend to believe that every sentence outside an article's lead should have at least one citation at the conclusion of it. This is important because every citation to a source with page numbers should include those page numbers, and some of the information we're citing will be spread across multiple pages in a single source. Also some sentences, particularly where the content is either controversial or where there's multiple conflicting accounts for a piece of information, require additional citations within the sentence. That doesn't mean that every citation needs to be unique of course, reuse of citations is perfectly acceptable.

On Dunlap, my concern is that he's not an independent source. According to his own article, he was initially a journalist at The Times, and almost all of our citations to his work were from the time period of his employment. There is an inherent conflict of interest when you are writing about your employer, doubly so when the content you are writing about them is also subject to their own editorial processes. There's also the question of, how many of these sources are WP:RSOPINION? Dunlap, 2023c for example is arguably his opinion given the language used, and so subject to RSOPINION. That's not to say that citations to Dunlap, or any other journalist employed by the paper cannot be used, just that they have to be used in moderation. Having the majority of sources in a section and the article be to non-independent sources would be something that is brought up at GA and FA reviews, and would lead to a failure. Where possible we must look at replacing those citations with sources that are independent from the paper. Remember, we're not here to write about how the newspaper describes itself, we're here to write about how others describe the newspaper.

And before you say it, yes INDY is an essay, but that doesn't matter. WP:V is policy, and it states clearly that we should Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy., directly linking the policy to that essay. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I have a few thoughts about this section. On the one hand, yes, it is fairly long (5 full paragraphs without breaks). Here's what I'm getting out of the sections:

• The first paragraph talks about the number of issues, as well as, um, issues with the actual number of issues.
• The second paragraph talks about the size of the print edition. And then it talks about a newsprint plant in Quebec.
  • I feel like that aside about Donahue Malbaie might fit better in another paragraph, or another section.
• The third and fourth paragraphs talk about headlines.
  • I would probably trim these paragraphs slightly to avoid going into too much detail about specific headlines. For example, do we really need to know about the ligatures between the E and the A in "Impeached"? That might fit well in a sub-article, but maybe not here.
• The fifth paragraph talks about two specific editorials that were displayed on the front page.
  • I would probably trim the bit about the San Bernardino headline. It is covered disproportionately compared with the other editorial headline (the anti-Harding editorial, which is given one sentence).
  • Also, since we're on the topic of non-standard front pages, did we mention the COVID deaths front page?

– Epicgenius (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The COVID-19 front pages are mentioned in the history article from 1998 to present. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Sections needing expansion

Q4, What sections or subsections, that are not being split out into their own articles, should be expanded? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The following sections probably should be expanded:

• Circulation - particularly with regards to historical circulation figures (it doesn't have to be extensive, but mentioning circulation in the 19th/20th centuries would be great)
• Political positions
• Crossword
• The New York Times Magazine
• The New York Times International Edition
• Awards

In addition, I would check whether the NYT has published in languages other than Spanish and Chinese; if so, I'd add info about these as well. For example, I know the NYT posted an article about the New York Hasidic education controversy in Yiddish. There may be others. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

These are all good suggestions! There's definitely content from the dedicated crossword article that we can copy over and adapt to expand that section. Same is true for the Magazine and International Edition articles.

From a quick look on their website there doesn't appear to be any current non-English editions beside their Spanish and Chinese editions. I'm not finding any historical non-English editions from a quick Google search. Perhaps someone more familiar with the history sourcing might be able to help answer this. ElijahPepe any thoughts on historical non-English editions of the paper?

I would envisage the Awards section becoming a part of the Critical reception sub-article, as the scope of that article should include the good and the bad. Should definitely be expanded either way though. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The following sections need to be expanded:

• Opinion
• Newsletters
• Political positions
• Crossword
• Style guide
• Online platforms
• Magazine
• International edition
• Critical reception

As for non-English versions, I am aware of German, French, Portuguese, and Korean reporting. I do not believe these articles warrant a section; they are translations for specific coverage where the bureau might deem beneficial. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. Perhaps it would be possible to add a sentence or two about stories in languages other than Spanish and Chinese. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

New sections

Q5, Are there any new sections, that are not in scope of one of the sub-articles, that we want to add? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

One thing that jumps out to me from a quick skim of the current NY Times website, they have a Canadian edition that is wholly separate from their International edition. We currently don't mention their Canadian edition in the article, is there sufficient sourcing available on this to create a section for it? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The Canadian edition is an identical version to the U.S. edition. As far as I know, there are about four reporters posted in Canada. The Canada bureau does not have a chief since Catherine Porter became a Paris reporter, though I am aware that the Times has been in the process of hiring a bureau chief since October. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

History of article structure

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 is a follow-on question from Q1. Q6, which of these specific options should the History of sub-article set be structured as?

1. Three articles: The 19th Century, the 20th Century, the 21st Century. Suggested above by Snokalok
2. Four articles: 1851-1896, 1896-1945, 1945-1998, 1998-present. Suggested above by Epicgenius
3. Four articles: 1851-1896, 1896-1961, 1961-2001, 2001-present. Suggested above by Sideswipe9th
4. Six articles: 1851-1896, 1896-1935, 1935-1961, 1961-1992, 1992-2018, 2018-present. Suggested above by ElijahPepe

Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I will note that I do not have objections to the current structure. If the articles were to be split, I would prefer the option I proposed, but I currently see no issue. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I think I prefer Option 2 (Epicgenius) followed closely by Option 3 (Sideswipe9th), followed by option 1 (Snokalok), followed by status quo (1851-1945, 1945-1998, 1998 to now). Option 4 is my last preference. Soni (talk) 00:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

After much consideration, I find myself preferring option 2, followed by option 3. I equally dislike options 1 and 4, as I think a three sub-article structure will have the second sub-article being too long, and a six sub-article structure is too many over all. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• @Epicgenius, Reywas92, and Snokalok: Pinging all editors who replied to the last sub-heading discussion. I'm currently seeing consensus to choose Option 2, but probably okay to wait another couple days before closing this. Soni (talk) 08:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Eddie891, SnowFire, Hist9600, and Sawyer-mcdonell: - Pinging all other editors who discussed the article splitting in the last two discussions. In the interest of not delaying this forever, I think I'll wait for a couple days then start working on the article based on whatever the consensus is. Soni (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Six articles feels excessive, breaking by century at this point doesn't feel representative. I like Epicgenius's porposal. 1945 feels like a natural split point. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:19, 28 February 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.

• I have closed the above discussion since consensus seems clear enough. I'll start re-splitting the articles accordingly now Soni (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Completed, I think. I didn't edit the History of The New York Times as I was not sure if that article was expected to stay as a summary of all 4 sub-history articles combined, or just be removed entirely now that we have 4 history subarticles, or something else. Suggestions welcome. Soni (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  I ran a diffcheck against all History subarticles to History of The New York Times and almost all of the content was exactly identical to the subarticle. Copied over the parts of the History article that was improved or missing from the yearwise article, then converted History to a redirect.

  We should consider remaking History as a non-redirect version but only if we're not completely replicating our articles in it. I'm currently undecided if we need History and The_New_York_Times#History separately. Will keep doing further improvements in the yearwise articles Soni (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  Cool! I think our next step should be doing a copy-edit pass on each of the history of year articles. First sweep looking at paring back anything that goes into too much detail, or expanding anything that doesn't go into enough detail. Second sweep looking at any spelling or grammar areas, or places where the text is unclear, and remove any unused or duplicate citations. Once that's done, their leads can be adjusted as needed.

  Once we've got the four year articles into a good enough state, then we can look at how much content needs to be summarised from each one to make a cohesive overall picture of the paper's history. Once we know the length of that overall picture, that'll guide us as to whether the non-year History of The New York Times should exist as a summary of multiple summaries (one for each history of year article), or whether we can include that summary directly here. If we do include the summary directly here, then rather than a redirect it might be appropriate to turn the non-year article into a disambiguation page.

  I'll try and make a start on this tomorrow with the first year article, if no-one else beats me to the punch. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Side discussion About attribution

Right, because there aren't problems already with editors stealing my content without attribution. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Some of the problems here might be somewhat ameliorated if you stopped viewing what you write as "my content", and started considering content you contribute to an encyclopedia, that others in turn modify. Do you have specific examples of users "stealing" your content and not attributing it? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

See Special:Diff/1210328620, which also includes content from other editors. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@ElijahPepe: I've taken care of the attribution problem in that article's history now, and warned the editor. If there's any other examples of this from the same or other editors, leave a note with the diffs and pages copied from on my talk page and I'll take care of it :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Confirming that this is my final comment on this talk page and my final involvement in the article. Again, no longer my article and all the work is hereby no longer mine; I have discovered now that the work that I put into the article and the expertise I provided is irrelevant. Not sure why the perspective of someone who worked on this article for seven months has not been properly realized, but to each their own. Congratulations on the good and featured article, as it appears that I'm unable to write either. I credit everyone for writing the content in this article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• @ElijahPepe: Nobody except you yourself is asking you to step away from the article. All everyone is asking is for you to treat it as an article "multiple" editors are working at, and to discuss edits with others. It's your choice to not discuss the edits or be "not realised". Soni (talk) 04:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

To elaborate: I refuse to play chess when I have only half the pieces, and I refuse to argue when I don't have support, regardless of how large paragraphs should be or the consistency of citations. There is reasoning behind the decisions I made, but I'm afraid those decisions are no longer mine to make. I couldn't write the best featured article I could. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Critical reception article skeleton and structure

This is a follow-on question from Q1. Q7, what should be the rough skeleton structure for the Critical reception of The New York Times sub-article? What existing content from this article are we copying over? What new content and sections do we want to add? Note, this sub-article will require close attention as it will be tricky to ensure that content is presented in a WP:NPOV complaint manner. To that end, please do not suggest a raw criticism section, and instead think about how negative critical content can be more naturally spread throughout the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Scope wise, I think this article should encompass everything currently in the Awards and recognition section. We should significantly expand the awards section, summarising some of the most notable individual awards the paper has received.

The current recognition section should also be expanded and reorganised, with the critical reception integrated into it. This would also likely result in a name change, and additional subsections being created, though I'm not sure right now what those will be exactly. We should work prominent examples from List of The New York Times controversies into the prose of this new section, particularly those drawing from academic sourcing. We should search to see if there's any sourcing on available on the change in the paper's recognition and reputation across its history. For example, we currently state that the paper is considered a newspaper of record, but when did that happen? What was the paper's reputation prior to that? Is it still considered a newspaper of record today, or has its reputation been tarnished by scandal? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Online platforms article skeleton and structure

This is a follow-on question from Q1. Q8, what should be the rough skeleton structure for the Online platforms of The New York Times sub-article? What existing content from this article are we copying over? What new content and sections do we want to add? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

All content should be copied. The Website, Applications, Podcasts, and Virtual and augmented reality sections need to be expanded and I will attempt to begin that process later this week. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Could we add a dedicated section or subsection (sourcing dependent) on the purchase of Wordle and any concerns and fallout from that? At the moment it's a paragraph in the Games subsection, but I think this could be expanded to a fuller subsection with content from the Wordle article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

No. The information in that section is enough. The acquisition of Wordle is not important to the Times's overall operations. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Aaah, but on that article we're not talking about The Times as a whole, we're talking about their online presence as a whole. Wordle was an important acquisition to that specific facet, one that cost them a seven figure number, and one that in the words of their chief product officer was their fastest acquisition. As the Wordle article states, this was part of a broader plan to bring digital subscribers up to 10 million by the year 2025. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The structure of the article is that each column of the online operations has a section. Wordle is covered by video games as a broad topic. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. The initial scope of the article is certainly the content that we're moving from this one, however that doesn't have to be limiting upon the final content of that article. Nor does the current structure of the content we're copying across have to define the final structure of the sub-article.

See WP:DETAIL, this article has a quick summary in its lead, and then moderate amounts of information on the topic's important points, which includes adequate summaries of the sub-articles. The sub-articles themselves however are free, in their bodies, to go into more detail about the content within their scope than they would be if they remained as subsections in the parent article.

Don't look at the sub-articles as simply content we're excising from this article due to length. They are also an opportunity to go into more detail about those notable sub-topics, freed from the word limit burden of previously being a smaller part of this article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I was not concerned with size when I wrote the initial article. Consistency is of utmost importance. Sections titled "Website" or "Podcasts" cannot co-exist with "Acquisition of Wordle". elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned that you're writing content again while the scope of the sub-articles are under discussion. Especially so for the history articles where the final scope of each sub-article is still to be determined.

However, why can't Wordle be a subsection of Online platforms of The New York Times#Games? With the content from the main Wordle article, which has 9 whole paragraphs on the acquisition you could easily expand the current single paragraph in the Online platforms sub-article to at least three paragraphs. Just reviewing the current single paragraph in Online platforms, there's nothing on why the paper acquired Wordle, the changes made to the game beyond the rewrite in React, the verifiable impact the acquisition had on The Times' user count, and the impact it had on the interest in other games offered on the paper's online platform. Why is none of that content included? Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Working on GA

History of NYT 1851-1896 content

Ok, just went through the first History of article, and have made some notes and questions on how to address the issues present in that article.

General notes:

1. Citation page numbers to Berger and Davis don't always match published editions. All citations will need checking and amending. Also should add the edition we're citing to the cite book templates.
2. Copies of Berger and Davis are available in the archive.org library, we should use those and their respective edition as the canonical page numbers for the citations
3. Some sentences are uncited, and cannot be verified to other nearby citations. I've added many CN tags to the article now as prompts to fix this.
4. There's some odd gaps in the narrative, might be worth checking the earlier versions to see if there's content that can be salvaged. See the sections below for more specifics.
5. There's some unused citations in the works cited section. I suspect some of these are citations that were left behind when the article splits were adjusted? There is a couple that seem relevant to the content of the first article though. I suggest we prune any that are for the later history of articles, and figure out where any relevant ones that are uncited should be cited.

1851–1861: Origins and initial success:

1. Should we add another sentence on the seven other papers that had the same title in the early 1800s? There's a little more from Berger we could add at the end of page 3 and start of 4.
2. Could add a sentence about how the first edition was late? to the end of the first paragraph
3. Add info on the initial cost of the paper "sixpence a week", Berger page 15, to the end of the first paragraph
4. Add info on how the initial response to the paper drew large amounts of capital? Berger page 15, to the second paragrap, after second sentence

1861–1869: Civil War, expansion, and Raymond's death:

1. Can we add a sentence on how the paper supported the 1860 presidential election?
2. Is there any content we can add on the Sunday edition, before we mention it going up in price?
3. "Over the course of 3 years, both The Sunday Times and went up in price" and what went up? The NYT? One of the other formats?
4. Are there any other examples of competition between paper journalists we can add?
5. What content about the Civil War's transformative effects on the paper can we add?
6. How did the staff of the paper get gatling guns? Did the guns have any effect?
7. How did the paper respond to the assassination of Lincoln?
8. "December, the paper extended its columns from six to seven—in line" December of what year?
9. Was there a reason why Raymond attended the National Union Convention in Philadelphia?
10. Why are we mentioning support of candidates in the 1876 and 1896 presidential elections in a section scoped between 1861 and 1869?
11. "In 1868, The New-York Times supported Grant" Is this Ulysses S. Grant? If so we should specify this.

1869–1876: Jones era, the Tweed Ring, and national recognition:

1. add context for why the NYT challenged Tweed?
2. Rephrase the second sentence, it flows weirdly "The NYT, with the exception of.." why not say something like "The NYT and Harper's weekly were the only New York publications..."?
3. Was Harper's Weekly a newspaper at this time?
4. What other papers came to Tweed's defense? Did the NYT retaliate against them?
5. Who is the Jennings in this section? Is it the presidential candidate the paper didn't back in 1896? How is Jennings connected to the NYT? Was he a columnist, or editor?
6. The first paragraph mentions Tweed in the context of being a business partner of Taylor. Yet the second paragraph mentions how he appointed the county auditor? Was Tweed a politician as well as businessman? Can we mention this in prose somehow for readers unfamiliar with New York history?
7. Can we give a sentence of context on what the Tweed ring was?
8. Towards the end of the second paragraph, we say how Jones wired a millionaire to block the move. Is this to blow Raymond's widow selling stock?
9. Why then after this do we jump to a sentence on how the paper just "continued its coverage"? Was there anything else of note here?

1876–1896: Democratic support, Jones's death, and financial hardship:

1. Why do we jump from a sentence on presidential election intrigue, to internal paper politics intrigue between Jennings and Jones? Are they connected in some way? Is there any more we can say about the presidential intrigue?
2. How did Jennings become a MP in a different country (the UK)?
3. Why do we jump from the appointment of Foord to something on an election?
4. Which election was this? What year?
5. For chronological reasons, should we split the sentence on the appointment of Foord into two, one for his appointment, and one for leaving in 1883?
6. What was happening in the 1880s that required two exposes to sustain the paper?
7. Did the appointment of Miller result in any change in tone of the paper?
8. The paper took a financial hit in 1883, partially because they decreased their price, what was the other reason(s)?
9. How did Edward Cary get involved with the paper? Yes he made it "mellower" but was he appointed? Was he a replacement for someone else?
10. "The technological advancements in New York made up for a slower news cycle" - what advancements? What's the relevance of this? Are we just saying that some period of the 1880s was a slow cycle?
11. Should the footnote on Jones and Dyer selling the paper be converted into prose? This seems more than footnote worthy.
12. "With Jones left his expertise on how to manage the rusted printing machines." What is this sentence trying to say?
13. Why do we jump from a sentence about "the men soon discovered that they had rented a building...not the structure" to "the rivalry between Hearst and Pullitzer"? What was the outcome of the building rental issue?
14. What relevance does the rivalry between Hearst and Pullitzer have to the NYT?
15. And then jump again to a sentence about the free silver movement giving the paper a death blow? How does this flow from what was said in the previous sentence?

Rather than address these points in line, as it could get very messy very quickly, if there's a problem you think you can fix from the list feel free to go and fix it. Then strike it from the list so that no-one else goes to work on it. Otherwise, I think pick one of the questions from the list and refer to it by number if you feel it needs further discussion.

It's a lengthy list for sure, but I think if we can address these points in some way it'll put us in good stead for the eventual FA, and pre-emptively address any of the "what does this mean" issues from a GAR. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: I believe The Story of The New York Times and History of the New York Times are closest to the copies that I own. I presume that you will nominate this for featured article, even though a majority of authorship attribution is my own.

As for your questions on the vagueness of certain elements, such as the Gatling guns, I included what was relevant. Louis John Jennings, for instance, was born in London and could become a member of Parliament. Mentioning that would divert from the point of the history section. I'm willing to discuss each change, but this is overwhelming. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I presume that you will nominate this for featured article, even though a majority of authorship attribution is my own I find this kind of comment borderline insulting after the Nth time you repeat this sentiment. You wrote a bunch of good prose, but it needs a LOT of work. YOU are choosing to step away. YOU cannot work with others when they decide on another course of action.

You cannot come back and keep going "Oh no everyone is excluding my credit" when a) we don't even know what shape the articles will when they are ready to pass GA, b) the articles are in enough overhaul to not be ready to pass GA now, and c) You STILL keep nominating the articles for your own sense of "GA credit" rather than actually look at what improves the articles best, something everyone else in this page is doing.

Work on this article, or do not. I do not care. But please stop throwing aspersions at other editors out of your own unwillingness to drop WP:OWN or learn how WP:CONSENSUS works. Or to make 5(!?) different comments on the page talking about you being not welcome here, only to come back and be... welcomed and solicited in the article improvement discussion. Soni (talk) 06:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Work that otherwise would not have been stated in a good article review. I can tell that this is going in the direction where most of my work will be disregarded. Most of the aforementioned points are decisions I consciously made, and seeing veto after veto is tiring. I will continue to work on the history subpages as I nominated them, but the expected process is vastly different than the actual, enacted process. Did this occur with Philosophy or Agriculture, articles that are ranked higher in the vitality scale? elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Did this occur with Philosophy or Agriculture, articles that are ranked higher in the vitality scale? Philosophy is a FA. It was subject to extensive discussion during the review process. During that process, some content was added, some removed. What happened on that article's FAR is largely similar to what has been happening in this article. Agriculture is a GA. It was subject to some discussion during its review. While that discussion wasn't as in-depth as the one for Philosophy, significant issues were raised by the reviewer and changes were made to the article.

If you want to see a truly extensive and in-depth FA review, and an ideal for how group collaboration on articles works, then take a look at the FAR for J. K. Rowling. Over the course of five subpages off the main FAR discussion (archive 1, archive 2, archive 3, archive 4, archive 5) every paragraph and section in that article was reviewed, the weaknesses identified, high quality sources to support the content identified, and the content re-drafted based on the highest quality sourcing available. In a lot of cases, multiple draft attempts were needed. Archive 3 in particular shows that process for a single, highly contentious section of Rowling's article.

If you want to see another one, then how about the FAR for James Robert Baker. That article was promoted to FA in 2006, and its main editor died a few years ago. It was not maintained to the evolving FA standards. I did what I could to solve the issues plaguing that article, I added and removed a substantial amount of content, and while I was able to significantly improve the article unfortunately the sourcing just didn't exist to support it being a FA. Again though, that was a process that involved identifying the weaknesses in the article and its sourcing, and responding to the issues identified. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I presume that you will nominate this for featured article, even though a majority of authorship attribution is my own. Elijah this isn't acceptable. Per policy no-one owns content on Wikipedia. All articles are open to be edited by groups of editors. You need to let go of this idea that you have sole authority over the content of these articles, and come to the realisation that this is a group project. No-one gets to "make decisions" about content, per policy the content of our articles are decided by consensus.

In practice this means that everyone if free to put forward their ideas for what content should or should not be in an article, and how that content should be structured. And a person who puts forward an idea is naturally allowed to argue in favour of it, just as much as other editors are allowed to agree, critique, or reject it. I am and I continue to be happy to hear your ideas and suggestions for how these articles should be structured. But simply saying things like I included what was relevant or I have determined the following events to be notable are not helpful. Those are self-evident, because yes you wrote the content in that manner, but they tell us nothing about why you've written the content in that manner.

I can tell that this is going in the direction where most of my work will be disregarded. No, this is entirely the wrong takeaway from this and all of the other discussions on this talk page. Your work on the articles has been good, but in my opinion it has a few weaknesses. That's why there's a list of some thirty-odd questions above. Resolving these doesn't require disregarding your content, in most cases it requires building upon your content and adding to it. I hate to comment on an editor on an article talk page, but the main issue here remains your inability to work collaboratively with other editors. You need to realise and accept that this is a group project. You have to be able to work with other editors when writing content, and that means discussing problems constructively and openly on an article talk page.

Earlier this week I was working on a draft that is now in the mainspace. A couple of editors raised issues, either on the talk page, or by adding maintenance tags. Some of those issues were resolved through discussion on the talk page, and changes made to the article. Others were just resolved directly through editing. Because of that feedback, that article is now in a much stronger place.

Most of the aforementioned points are decisions I consciously made, and seeing veto after veto is tiring. These aren't vetos Elijah. They are critiques of what has been written. It is self-evident that you made these decisions when writing the content, what is not self-evident is why you made them. We don't have an insight into your thought processes any more than you have an insight into ours. None of us are psychics and can read minds.

In the list above, I have identified what I think are weaknesses in the first History of article. You and any other editor are of course free to agree or disagree with my analysis, in whole or in part. All I really care about are that these are acknowledged or resolved in some way, as I think they weaknesses in the articles that will cause problems at GA and FA. Maybe I'm wrong in some of the issues I've identified, maybe I glanced over some piece of context, and what I think is a problem isn't actually one in practice. If that is the case, I am perfectly happy to hear that, as that will be a resolution to an issue. All I care about is getting this series of articles to GA and eventually FA status.

For those that are an issue however, some of these are straightforward to resolve, like for example the incorrect page numbering in the citations. I like that you've identified the two versions of the books on archive.org that most closely match the copies you own. I think that the most straightforward way for us to resolve this problem is to identify which editions of the books those two versions are, adjust the cite book template to specify which edition of the books we're citing, and then adjust every SFN to use the correct page numbers or ranges per those specific editions. Problem meets solution, let's get to work on that.

Likewise some of the narrative gaps are straightforward to resolve too, if there is a consensus to do so. When I was spot checking the cited page numbers, for the few that I was able to identify the correct page numbers for, a lot of these questions are answered by other content on the same or previous pages. If other editors agree with what I've said, then these can be resolved by adding a sentence or two in the right places. You need to realise that while you may be intimately familiar with the sources you've cited, our readers very likely won't be, and a lot of readers never click on the citations. That means that sometimes it is necessary to say things that are obvious to someone who has read the sources, because the person reading the article won't have read them.

In other places some of these issues seem to be because one or two words are missing. That's something that happens to all of us, it's nothing to be ashamed of. That's why we have groups like WP:GOCE, whose sole purpose is to find and address minor issues in articles like spelling and grammar errors, or missing or excessive words. The easy fix again is to add the missing words. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe The Story of The New York Times and History of the New York Times are closest to the copies that I own. Cool! I've modified the base citation to Berger now for that edition. I'm going to suggest that for Davis that we use one of the other versions on archive.org, as the one you linked doesn't seem to be scanned and OCRed that well. There's one that I have in mind, as that's what I was checking against when I did the review above and seemed pretty accurate, but unfortunately I can't access it right now to grab the full citation information as archive.org is having an overloaded moment and isn't loading every book or page properly.

Once archive.org is back up and I can actually access the book, I'll start going through and correcting Berger's page numbers. If there's agreement to use the other version of Davis that I've linked above, then I'll also be able to do the same for that book. Most of the pages numbers are only off by one or two pages, and from memory of looking at the other editions on archive.org this appears to be due to typesetting changes between editions, and not substantive content changes between editions. So I don't think we'll have to make any content changes based on the edition changes, just page numbers in citation changes. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Just to note, I do intend to circle back to this and the other history of sub-articles. However I'm currently dealing with three other immediate issues involving two articles and a content area that are just draining all of my focus right now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Strands Addition

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

No mention of Iraq WMDs?

The New York Times famously pushed disinformation leading up to the US invasion of Iraq, acting as a stenographer for US intelligence and repeating the false claim that Iraq possessed WMDs, which was the pretext for the invasion.

The invasion was a disaster, and led to hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths. This is acknowledged by pretty much everybody, including many who supported the invasion at the time.

The NYT's encouragement of the invasion by giving credence to (and refraining from criticizing) the WMD hoax is arguably the single most egregious case of disinformation in modern media history, as measured by the real-world harm caused.

Yet "WMD" is not mentioned a SINGLE time in this massive article. The only allusion to the scandal is the following:

"Journalist Judith Miller was the recipient of a package containing a white powder during the 2001 anthrax attacks, furthering anxiety within The New York Times. In September 2002, Miller and military correspondent Michael R. Gordon wrote an article for the Times claiming that Iraq had purchased aluminum tubes. The article was cited by then-president George W. Bush to claim that Iraq was constructing weapons of mass destruction; the theoretical use of aluminum tubes to produce nuclear material was subject of debate. In March 2003, the United States invaded Iraq, beginning the Iraq War."

This sort of implies that there was a connection between the NYT reporting and the invasion, but it's worded in such a passive way that an uninformed reader might not even notice the connection. It's as if the passage was written by a PR consultant hired by the NYT for damage control. This must be corrected.

Even in the "critical reception" section, this is not mentioned at all. The section mainly focuses on the claim that NYT is insufficiently pro-trans, which may be true, but their insufficiently pro-transgenderism stance has objectively far less significant and harmful than the invasion of Iraq. Ask an Iraqi. The body count speaks for itself.

Contrast this with this article, about another American news outlet, which comes out swinging like Mike Tyson. In the lede, it states that "The Grayzone" is guilty of "misleading reporting", "sympathetic coverage of authoritarian regimes", and "spreading disinformation".

Now, I think the "Grayzone" article is horribly written and is unencyclopedic. Most other editors disagree, and think the article is the pinnacle of neutral encyclopedic writing. That being the case, these labels must be applied in a reasonably equitable manner. Why is there no mention whatsoever in this article of the fact that NYT is also guilty of "misleading reporting", "sympathetic coverage for regimes engaged in offensive military operations", and "spreading disinformation about Iraq"?

It's not like I'm the first person to notice the horrendous consequences of NYT's reporting on WMDs. A cursory internet search yields many articles from reliable sources about the issue.

Even the NYT itself acknowledged that they contributed to a "pattern of misinformation" surrounding the false claims of Iraq's nuclear ambitions.

So my questions are: 1) why is this not covered properly in the article already? And 2) what can we do to correct this omission? Should we start by compiling a list of sources? Philomathes2357 (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Philomathes2357: This article was significantly culled after I rewrote it, and I did cover the weapons of mass destruction scandal in extensive detail in my rewrite. See History of The New York Times (1998–present) § 2002–2003: Controversies over the Iraq War and § 2004–2007: Judith Miller and further Iraq coverage, which warranted Miller's name in the latter's section title, a practice that I rarely did covering the history of the Times. The critical reception section is incomplete, as is much of the article, but I have been driven out of the article and thus cannot add what I want to, though whether or not I would have included controversies that were mentioned in the History section is an ambiguous point of contention. For the record, as alluded in your comment, I'm not a consultant for the paper and I personally view the Miller and Blair scandals with shame. I did not, however, want to assume that The New York Times was directly responsible for the invasion without due time and further historical analysis; accusations that an organization or person was responsible for starting what amounts to an illegal war are severe. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

It is already covered in List of The New York Times controversies, along with the newspaper's publication of Stalinist propaganda during the Holodomor, its minimization of the Holocaust during World War II and its general support of anti-Zionism, its publication of both anti-Israel propaganda and anti-Palestinian propaganda in the 2000s, its publication of conspiracy theories concerning the 2001 anthrax attacks, its "factual errors" in articles about television criticism, its Anti-Indian sentiment in the 2010s, its antisemitic articles in the 2010s and the 2020s, its age and racial discrimination in hiring practices in the 2010s, and its anti-transgender articles in the 2020s. The newspaper has a long history of publishing propaganda and misinformation, and mistreating its own female and black employees. Dimadick (talk) 11:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned above by Dimadick, there have been many cases where the NYT has published pieces that can be seen as propaganda and/or misinformation (the word "misinformation" implies that the bias or errors may be either intentional or intentional). However, the newspaper is generally still reliable in its areas of expertise, such as NYC-area topics.

The current wording of the article came about because the article was split, following the above discussion. The info about the Iraq War WMDs is described in much more detail in the History of The New York Times (1998–present) article. That article was part of the main NYT article, but it has been split out because it was more than 35,000 words long. The implication that the article doesn't mention the WMD controversy because a "PR consultant" wrote it, though, is verging on WP:ASPERSIONS. Epicgenius (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Epicgenius, thanks for your reply. If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that all mentions of NYT's history of publishing propaganda and misinformation were removed because they were transferred to a separate article about NYT history.

Here's one problem with that:

As you can see here, The New York Times has received 517,932 views in the past 90 days; an average of 5,692 per day. [[History of The New York Times (1998-present) has received a grand total of 553 viewers in the past 90 days, for an average of 6 per day.

So, what I'm seeing is that, in the course of "splitting" the article, all information about the NYT's history of publishing propaganda and misinformation on behalf of the US government was removed from the main article and moved to an obscure article with one one-thousandth the visibility of this one. I'm not sure what to call that, other than "whitewashing". I'm not saying that a PR consultant came up with this idea, but I will say that if I was the head of a PR firm working for the NYT, and one of my employees came up with that idea, I'd give them a performance bonus.

We all know that there are bad-faith actors, both government and corporate, that are active on Wikipedia, but I'm willing to AGF and assume that this was simply a mistake & an oversight. Regardless, it's absolutely imperative that this be corrected by including extensive information about the NYT's history of publishing propaganda and misinformation, in the lead as well as the body.

Let's move the conversation towards how, exactly, to do so. I'd like to step back and defer to other editors about how best to include this information in the article. Does anyone have suggestions? Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The thing is, if we added extensive information about the NYT's controversies in this article when dedicated articles about the topics already exist, it might lead to WP:DUE and WP:SUMSTYLE problems. The article was split based on the fact that the article was heavily imbalanced toward its history section. Page views weren't a consideration in this split. What I would suggest, however, is summarizing the misinformation and propaganda controversies in a few paragraphs in the body. In the lead, we could probably write a sentence or two about these controversies; anything longer and the article would run into due-weight issues. Epicgenius (talk) 03:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@ElijahPepe and @Dimadick, what do you think should be included in this article regarding NYT's publishing of propaganda and misinformation? Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Epicgenius' comment. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Specifically, in your first reply, you mentioned that you "cannot add what I want to". Within, say, 3 or 4 paragraphs, what specific instances of propaganda/misinformation do you think can be the most reliably sourced, and most merit inclusion in the article? Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Is there any plans to source the history section? Help:Transclusion#Drawbacks "Transcluded text may have no sources for statements that should be sourced where they appear,." Moxy🍁 08:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The leads of the articles we're transcluding in the history section are still somewhat in flux. Currently they're roughly following MOS:LEADCITE, but given the circumstances it might be appropriate to add relevant citations from the respective article bodies to their leads. Alternatively we could just copy/paste the leads over with appropriate citations once their finalised. I like the transclusion element, as it keeps this article in sync if the content of the sub-articles, but if it does create issues then we can just copy/paste them and keep them in sync manually. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree simply add sources to the leads of sub articles or copy paste leads here and add sources so the sections here can be improved. An article of this caliber you shouldn't have to go searching for sources somewhere in some other article. As a tertiary source our purpose is to give general information and lead our readers to more exhaustive sources. We should not be making students of knowledge search all over for these sources that they're doing research on Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia. As a major newspaper this should be an example of what other articles should be on this topic should look like. Moxy🍁 01:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Your point has been acknowledged, but this article is a work-in-progress. I attempted to add citations, but my edit was reverted for having no summary, a standard that has not been held to anyone else to my knowledge. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

User talk:ElijahPepe, funny that I should see you saying this on this talk page--I was considering whether to revert your recent huge unexplained removals. I don't know where you get the idea that somehow "unexplained" is not a reason for reverting: I can assure you that it is. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

There's clearly no attempt to reinstate sources to the article. I really think we should resort back to something that is researchable for our readers. As of now the whole history section doesn't have one source and when you go to an article about the history they are also very poorly sourced. History of The New York Times (1851–1896) .... With again no attempt to address the issues raised by other editors. Moxy🍁 17:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

There was an attempt, but it was forfeited by a lack of appreciation for my time. The last nine months have been a waste of my time. WP:BEBOLD is dead. Thank you for refusing to listen to what I have said about sourcing. It is clear that no one has been considerate of my opinions. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Let me explain our purpose as a tertiary source....encyclopedias are designed to introduce readers to a topic, not to be the final point of reference. Wikipedia, like other encyclopedias, provides overviews of a topic and indicates sources of more extensive information. We try to eliminate barriers for research purposes by providing inline sources for statements where they appear. We do not make students or researchers run off to other articles trying to find an equivalent statement somewhere in a giant article that may or may not be there to find a academic source. Our intention in to facilitate education and research by way of sources..... not simply by the pros text we produce. Your position of the sources are out there somewhere it's not what we are looking for.Moxy🍁 18:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Combining citations with page numbers that would otherwise be separate citations is acceptable. I'm done with this conversation if your response begins and ends with what you're going to say, not building off of what I say. By extension, my time on this article is done. I have wasted a significant amount of time because it's easier for people to insist that they're right and to go against someone who is knowledgeable on the subject matter and spent time assessing the best possible structure for this article. I stated my position, I lost because I didn't have enough support, and I am now ceding both the work that I have done—which is available for everyone to claim as theirs—and that it is possible to get an article like this to featured article. I've about had it with editing in general, but I note that it has been easier to edit articles on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, so it seems like a particular issue here. I'm not sure why my opinions are getting disregarded, I'm not sure why there's some unique rule for using edit summaries that I have not once experience at any point in the last two-and-a-half years editing, and I'm not sure why making decisions and being bold has to involve weeks of discussions. This could have been a featured article by now. When I have been shown that I'm not wasting my time here, I would be willing to come back to this article. What occurred this morning is not that. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what anyone's saying.... you're talking about combining sources..... we're talking about the fact that there are no sources. Moxy🍁 19:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

There are sources. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Article restoration to a version with sources in place. Moxy🍁 20:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Reverting months of edits over one section is excessive. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

It clearly was a monumental task that no one else is willing to do and that you don't seem to understand. Leaving our readers without sources is simply unacceptable. Moxy🍁 22:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

elijahpepe@wikipedia, I don't even know what you're talking about. Months of work undone? But you're "combining sources" even as you're removing dozens of em? At the risk of overstating the obvious, are you starting to see why God gave us edit summaries to actually explain what we're doing? But you're as vague here as you are absent from the edit summary space. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I assumed Moxy was referring to the history subarticles. The section he is referring to is the history section, which did not have references; that was acknowledged. To at least see my work not wasted, I will revert Moxy's reversion with citations for that section.

To clarify, there are two issues Moxy is bringing up. The second is what I was referring to, that the history subsections "are also very poorly sourced", based off of the assumption that those citation needed tags are accurate. They are not, and I personally verified all of the references. Sideswipe9th added them out of disdain for combining citations across multiple sentences into one. For example, at History of The New York Times (1851–1896), I mentioned, "Under Jones, The New-York Times actively sought to challenge William M. Tweed and the Tweed Ring", which has a citation needed tag but is covered by the next reference on page 35. The citation needed tags reflect poorly on my writing. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Undiscussed move

I just noticed that @ElijahPepe unilaterally moved History of The New York Times (1998–2016) from 1998-current. A new article History of The New York Times (2016–present) seems to have already been created and nominated for GA.

This is unorthodox. Page moves are not supposed to be based on the whims of one editor, especially after there was one consensus on the exact page split. It's different if it's a WP:Consensus can change scenario, but hard to believe if it's not even discussed on either talk page once. Not to mention the potential gamification of GA process by nominating everything at first sight Soni (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Seeing no replies from Elijah after being pointed to this discussion multiple times including ANI, I will follow WP:BRD and revert the move-split. I believe I've pinged all other editors with intermediate edits in between.

I am not hard opposed to changing consensus, but unless we discuss why we are moving the article, please default to consensus.

Happy to discuss if we think this is a worthwhile split. My first instinct says probably not, because it's a bit of recency bias. Soni (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

2016 and 2017 marked a particularly tenuous point in The New York Times's history, largely because the Times received criticism from liberals for promoting the Hillary Clinton email controversy and from conservatives because of Donald Trump, who lodged unprecedented attacks as president. I would argue that modern perceptions of the Times start at 2016, so it would be a logical point to stop to have a place to stop. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

You made that same argument during the discussion on exact article splits and it didn't gain much support at the time, and later there was a consensus for a specific four article split. As Soni said, consensus can change, but for situations like this that requires a discussion first. Making unannounced unilateral changes that go against a recent consensus is never a good idea. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Point already made. This discussion is happening now. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2024

Change The Times was founded as the conservative New-York Daily Times in 1851 to The Times was founded as the liberal New-York Daily Times in 1851 as the NYT is a liberal newspaper 71.241.132.98 (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Journalism Standards

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